Talk:Physical characteristics of the Buddha

message: AdamHolt (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those far-eastern forms are of the future Budha Maitreya, represented by a person called pu-tai, who was widely believed to be him. Peter jackson (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: "He's not circumcised," presumably. -Dan 20:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Pali could mean either organ or organs. The commentary says singular, & says it's like a buffalo, or the pericarp of a lotus, if that's any help. Peter jackson (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but 108 would be the likely auspicious number. Johnbod 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussions

message: Can a wikipedia editor revert a vandalism on no. 29 in the list. It says "He votes Ron Paul". I don't want to do anything because I might inadvertently remove other revisions. 202.65.191.138 (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: see 11. and 29. of the 32 marks of a great man.
*
When this is deeply believed/thought to be a dogma, a Buddha cannot have black skin color or dark eyes.
Is there any literature about those aspects?
:My understanding is that the Buddha looked like the ideals of ancient India. That is neither too dark nor too fair, of a golden complexion. Certainly by this criteria if a Buddha cannot be 'black skinned' neither can he be 'pink skinned'.
:There is nothing 'wrong' with excessively dark or excesively fair skin, but a Buddha will appear in a way that most benefits others. Similarly to the fact that he says arahants can come from each of the 4 castes and those of all 4 castes are equal as it is down to ones actions not birth. Yet a Buddha will always be born into one of the 2 highest castes. This is becasue if he were to be born into a lower caste those of the higher castes would not respect him as much and listen to his teachings, and that would be to their detriment. So to benefit the most people, he is born into the higher castes although there is nothing intrinsically better about people born into these castes as the Buddha makes clear many times. Similarly due to prejudice in India that has existed for a very long time toward people who are extremely dark or extremely fair, he is born into the 'ideal' complexion where the most amount of people would see him as of nice appearance.
:KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Color of eyes and skin

message: I restored the thing about him having the strength of an implausible number of elephants, which was removed here without comment and is supported by various external sites I found with a quick Google search. However, after making the change I realised there are some sites which say "he is a very happy man" instead. Anyone got any idea what's going on, or where we can find a source reliable enough to clear it up? Olaf Davis (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted this edit too, which replaced it with 'he is very tall', since I couldn't find any source which corroborates that. I'm willing to be corrected, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  10^10 elephants 

message: I'm pretty sure this doesn't give the 80. Peter jackson (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brahmayu Sutta 

message: "Although there is no definite record of what he actually looked like, its most likely his physical features weren't too different from those of other Indo-Aryan nobility in northern India around the 5th century BCE."
This statement doesn't tell us much. It infers that we already know what other Indo-Aryan nobility in northern India around the 5th century BCE looked like, as though it were common knowledge. From what I have read Buddha's physical appearance greatly impressed those who saw him (to the extent that his disciple Vakkali became obsessed with his looks). It is arguable that the Buddha looked peculiar in some way to those around him, whether it was his outer appearance, his mannerisms, etc.
--67.149.150.252 (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How the heck can we say with any certainty that he was Indo-Aryan? I have seen white guys claiming Buddha was Caucasoid multiple times without citing any source. I don't think we can take "blue eyes" and say he's Indo-Aryan any more than we can take "lion-shaped body" and say he was a lion. 2100s (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

text: It seems to me the Pali Cannon copied those from pre-Buddhist times. We don't even know Buddha's birth year with any certainty. I would be surprised if we know how he looked like. To me, Buddha was most likely Mongoloid because his teaching shows that a pattern of thinking highly attuned to Asian cultures. That's why Buddhism spread there. 2100s (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the sources on Buddha's Caucasian ethnicity, specifically, Scythian, is Christopher I. Beckwith's book, Greek Buddha." Teishin (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beckwith's book is very influential, but not the final say about this. For this rather controversial subject, more reliable sources should be found. Perhaps some elements could also be copied from the main article Gautama Buddha, which is currently being expanded on a lot, I've noticed.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 15:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. The Buddha article is more informative about this. 2100s (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-Aryan nobility 

message: I have replaced the mistaken 'chakra' reference with the dharma wheel, as this has been the symbolism since ancient times along with the Stupa.
KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dharma Wheel

message: (1) A remarkable number of the footnotes (as this article now stands, in Aug. of 2011) rely on a SINGLE PAGE of a single work by Gregory Schopen.  That one page DOES NOT support the argument pinned upon it by this wikipedia article (and I know, because I read it: one whole page, what a tremendous burden of fact-checking!).  Please allow me to quote what Schopen's thesis and/or conclusion actually is here:
::"We are left, it seems, with the apparent fact that, at least in regard to major Buddhist cult forms, -the stupa cult and the image cult- the appearance of early Mahayana sutra literature had no effect, changed nothing, and was of no consequence."
That is hardly the view that is now espoused by this Wikiepdia article!  In this case, I can only surmise that the contributor is intentionally mis-representing the source cited.  It is also problematic that only one half of what Schopen is saying is reflected in these quotations: he is making a specific argument about one stage in the development of the EARLIEST (known) Mahayana literature, while contrasting it to later developments that did indeed go on to do the things discussed in the ensuing history (he is stating that it did not do so "in its earliest phase or phases", to quote him directly, just as certainly as it DID do so thereafter; and this is all very clearly said on the very same page!).  Likewise, the actual phrase "profoundly conservative" is (horrendously!) quoted out of context as this wikipedia article now stands, and used against its original purpose.  No library required for this one, by the way: this one page that has been so mis-used can be read instantly through google books' preview service.
:The Schopen piece is primarily regarding the early development of the image cult in India, and his major conclusion is that Mahayana played little role in early depictions of the Buddha. This is basically what the Wikipedia article already states. His comments about how he views Mahayana at this time as being "profoundly conservative" is found directly in the article, as is the fact that aspects of the image cult are criticized in some early Mahayana sutras. Tengu800 00:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the article already notes that the 80 minor characteristics are found primarily in Chinese agamas and Sarvastivada works, including some Mahayana works, and just in some minor commentaries on the Theravada side of things (actually the current article does not characterize these commentaries as "minor", but instead gives their names). The article does state very clearly that some scholars believe that the 80 minor characteristics were held as important mostly by the Sarvastivadins. Interesting that you claim that the article relies "very heavily" on Guang Xing, when only a few sentences are referenced to him, and some of these are just for very basic factual information, such as the description of the 80 minor characteristics given by the Mahavibhasa. Tengu800 00:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Problems in Current Citations & Constructive Suggestions for Improvement 

message: says 80, only 79  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.163.21 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  80 secondary traits 

message: The chinese theory of 80 characteristics is nothing more then a way for the chinese to inject a new image of buddha to suit their own population, Obviously Mongolian in race do not have curly hair or blue eyes or even body hair and so on, These Physical characteristics are his own characteristics, thus the chinese trying to re-write it is just a strange attempt hide historical roots.82.38.160.13 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the image of the Buddha has been changed an adapted throughout the ages; what's new? That you don't like this is not a sufficient reason to change or remove this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Original research. Do you have any references for your claims? The 32 marks are found numerous times in the Pali Canon. Tengu800 14:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Chinese 80 secondary characteristics, any point in keeping that modern chinese write up lol? 

message: The 32 visuals and 80 fine forms followed are actually not to be seen with the eyes.  
Those extraordinary supreme appearances can only be experienced when one is at a supreme state of meditation.
These are not about the human appearances.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asitayoga (talk • contribs) 12:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  the 32 visuals and 80 fine forms followed  

message: Why is the blue eyed characteristic cited by the same source as the full list. It is as if the editors want to emphasize the fact that the Buddha had blue eyes.
What is the agenda behind double citing the blue eyes characteristic in the list with the same source. (see citations 8 and 9)
 8 Epstein, Ronald. Buddhist Text Translation Society's Buddhism A to Z. 2003. p. 200
 9 Epstein, Ronald (2003), Buddhist Text Translation Society's Buddhism A to Z (illustrated ed.), Burlingame, CA: Buddhist Text Translation Society, p. 200
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.104.143.107 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This list item has been subjected to frequent vandalism and frequent accusations that there is no reference for it. Teishin (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Fixed this, and added an additional source.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The blue eyed characteristic is cited by the same source as the full list 

message: There was considerable mistranslated words before, blue is romanticized word for black (both hair and eyes in text), for example, it is notable in art as well since Mahakala, Tara, Krishna etc are also painted blue art.
Here in Dvātiṁsa Mahāpuriṣalakkhaṇāni from Brahmāyusuttaṁ text ((32 Signs of a Great Man) - you can see the word for the color of his hair color is described as Nilani (blue -  black hair) and eyes as abhinilanetto (very black)
14. uddhaggalomo ... uddhaggāni lomāni jātāni nīlāni, 
14. the hair bristles, his bristling hair is black, 
29. abhinīlanetto. 
29. the eyes are very dark.
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Dhammatthavinicchaya/33-Marks-of-a-Great-Man.htm
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Miscellaneous/Copyright-Notice.htm
Thus it is notable there is very serious mistranslated in previous edit. Black and blue is synonymous as both hair and eyes are described by same word in the texts.117.198.113.177 (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nila was probably not black (unlike Kala), but some shade of gray, as far as I can make out.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello, term used used for both hair and eyes are the same in this case. Blue (romanticized) is synonymous with black. Mahakala and Kali are also depicted with blue skin. So is Krishna, with Krishna also being refereed to as "Nila/Neela Megha Shyama." You can also see example here https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/38965 117.198.113.177 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Not currently as it has been corrected. It had to be pointed out here. 117.198.113.177 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistransliteration of words, especially concerning color blue/black