|WikiProject Buddhism||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
I'm proposing that the information at Buddhahood#Depictions_of_the_Buddha_in_art be merged into this article (and deleted from Buddhahood) since that information no longer seems pertinent to that article. More specifically, the Buddhahood article used to be general information about "Buddha" but has since been moved from that namespace (for a dab) and re-focused on the matter of Buddhahood per se; given this refocusing, the inclusion in that article of information relating to depictions of the Buddha (or a Buddha) in art no longer seems pertinent; given that this article seems to cover similar material, I think it would be beneficial to move material (including photos) from Buddhahood#Depictions_of_the_Buddha_in_art to here. Any thoughts? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is a good idea! As for the name, I would prefer if it could be called "Buddha in art", because that is, to quote WP:Wikipedia:Naming conventions, "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", and it allows the article to include a wider range of topics which otherwise would have no other place than maybe at Buddhahood. — Sebastian 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
does it make sense to insert this link 32 marks of the Buddha ("THIRTY TWO MARKS OF A GREAT MAN") into the article?
- Personally, given the specific topic of the external web page, I think such would be best to place in the "External links" section of Physical characteristics of the Buddha. Nonethless, you raise an interesting linkage idea, so I'll add a "See also" link on this page to Physical characteristics of the Buddha now. Thanks for putting this forth.
- The reason for my reservation about adding this particular external link to this WP page is that, based on my incredibly limited and questionable experience regarding this topic, the vast majority of the 32 characteristics would not (could not?) be found on most statues (thought certainly, as you suggest, several are typical). Moreover, I also have a qualm about this external link per se insomuch that it does not identify the source it uses for the "significance" column; we can assume it comes from some commentary somewhere but it could just be a contemporary teacher's thoughts or a web page editor's whimsy.
- Having said all this, if you're inclined to add this link here, I certainly wouldn't stop you :-) Austerlitz, thanks for your continued sharing of interesting ideas. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I have cleared up the distinction here between the Happy, Fat, Laughing Chinese Buddha, Budai, a different historical figure, and the stoic, gaunt, indian Siddhārtha Gautama, the founder of the religion.
In further edits to this article, it is important not to get these two confused, as their depictions could not be more different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saktoth (talk • contribs) 11:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)