Talk:Buddhist art

message: I think Philippines part on this article more proper to be placed in Buddhism in the Philippines, since Philippines has only less significant or small amount of archelogical remnant which relate with Buddhism, besides Buddhism was never became major religion in Philippines, unlike in many part of Asia. Also, I think this page intended to discuss about development of Buddhism art that take place in certain region on history, while that region have strong Buddhism influence, not only by small evidence of artefact. Some references that I've checked were unreliable or can't reached again, for example . I also noticed, some paragraph on this part are just copied from Buddhism in the Philippines. So, I merge this Philippine part into Buddhism in the Philippines article. -114.124.143.186 (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippines part 

message: 's deletion of the section on the Philippines here seems unwarranted, what do you guys think?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was related to previous edit made by 114.124.143.186. And the section in this talkpage just above this one Talk:Buddhist art#Philippines part. Maybe you should address this issue in the talk section above. I agree that inclusion of Philippines as an example of distinct Buddhist art just based on two artifact finding (that Tara and Kinnara gold artefact) is undue. The elaboration on Buddhism in Philippines is best moved to related article Buddhism in the Philippines. Thank you. —  Gunkarta  talk  15:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't it mainly the same as Buddhism_in_the_Philippines#Archaeological_evidence? If not, more could be added there, or even in a distinct article. WP:UNDUE here. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, sorry.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion part on Philippines unwarranted 

message: The main country which gave birth to buddhism and buddhist art is completely missing, why is that? not one statue in the gallery is from india Rameezraja001 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The first 2 sections are entirely about India.  But I've added some text about Ajanta, which was missing, and two pictures.  Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is India, Buddhist art did not originate from afghanistan or china 

message: this greco-buddhist BS should stop peddling, indian must be credited for buddhist art. this article shows eurocentric neo nazi views. Sanchi stupa is the beginning of buddhist arts. Greece is not the origin of buddhism nor buddhist arts.
Buddhist arts and buddhism has nothing to do with greek or any neo nazi european arts.Rameezraja001 (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: okaaaaaaay, looks like we have a case of WP:NOTHERE here. Khirurg (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  india/ indian sub continent needs to be given due credit for buddhist art 

message: Is there any way there could be more art pieces added to the lengthy description of the history to show how the art affected the people of the Buddhist religion? Amayamitchell09 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Art Additions 

message: I am going to edit the Buddhist Art page thus:
There is a general belief that the first Buddha images were made in Greek-influenced Gandhara or possibly first in the more Persian-influenced Mathura.
In c. 200 BCE, the Chinese Emperor is recorded as worshipping a small 'Golden Man'. It seems likely that the culture of Lord Buddha's people were either Scythian or their culture was closely related to Scythian culture, which was adept at producing such small golden images.
Furthermore, it is recorded in the Pali Canon that when Lord Buddha was going to go to teach his mother, who had been born in a Heaven, that the Sangha made an image of him so that they would have a reminder of his presence.  This making of an image of Lord Buddha appears more than once in the Pali Canon.  At that time, in the Indian Subcontinent, there was no stone carving.  So it is recorded that these images were made of wood.  Wooden images of thus age did not survive, and it is likely that during anti-Buddhist periods, these golden images would have been melted down for their solid gold content. Indigocat (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddha Images in the Pali Canon