Talk:Hōryū-ji
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article had been created by "copy&paste" not "move". Will some Sysops please join(concat) this Horyu-ji's history to another "Horyuji temple"'s? Wandering perfect fool 22:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Expansion
I was surprised to find this article so short. With the right attention and effort, this could become a much longer article, with complex descriptions of the origins/history of the temple, the architecture of its buildings, and some examples (or links to articles on) of its art. I regret that I have not the time, sources, nor expertise to contribute much myself, but I just thought it might be pointed out. LordAmeth 03:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This is not a Paekche article
Hasn't Paekche learned this sort of architechture from China? Hōryū-ji temple is an example of Buddhist temples common in east Asia in those days. It only sounds like boasting; the effort of the Japanese people must be respected. I believe "The Japanese have taught how to make cars or semiconductors." is inappropriate for a Korean economic article because of the same reason.
- Paekche artisans, craftsmen, and monks supplied the technical expertise to create the building
I can' t accept this because of its weak sources.
- 1. The technical sophistication is generally attributed to Baekje's influence, which sent to Japan a number of skilled craftsmen, monks, and designers that assisted the Yamato Court. [1]
This sentence is not enough claim that Paekche architects have built Hōryū-ji. Besides, Paekche has falled (660) before Hōryū-ji was rebuilt in the end of the 7C to the beginning of the 8C. It is true that the first Buddhist temple Hōkō-ji(Asuka-dera, end of 6C to the beginning of the 7C) was built by Paekche's craftsmen (Nihonshoki, 588) Hōkō-ji, however Hōryū-ji is a 100 years later; it would be natural that the Japanese people have learned to built temples by themselves (consider the economic development and R&D of Japan in the recent 60 years), how is it proved the Japanese never contributed in building Hōryū-ji? To me it sounds like a biased claim; "The Japanese must not have possessed the ability ", however the Japanese are not the kind of people who would learn nothing for a century.
- 2. The layout and function of the buildings are also similar to those of Baekje [2]
The layout of the Pagoda and Golden hall are different from temples of Paekche; Hōryū-ji is not a symmetric layout, Golden hall at the east, Pagoda at the west, on the other hand Paekche temples have placed Pagoda at the south, Golden hall at the north, symmetrically. Hōryū-ji type layout
- 3. The sculptures of Paekje are also found now in the Horyuji Temple in’ Nara, Japan.[3]
Finally the Kudara(Paekche) Kannon sculpture is generally said to be made in Japan because it is made from a native camphor tree and no expamples of Paekche sculpture using the same kind of wood exists. Kudara(Paekche) Kannon is only a nickname based on a story in the Edo period which claims it was made in India and came from Paekche.No.95 The Kudara Kannon, How to enjoy the masterpieces of Japanese Art, Tanaka HidemichiNobu Sho 16:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- To make this article better, it should include all information available, agree or diagree? "Horyu-ji temple is an example of Buddhist temple common in east Asia in those days". I don't understand your point. Does that mean Paekche architechts don't matter that they built it? The fact that paekche architechts built it is important because the native people of the archipelago didn't. It's an example of transmission of culture and technology and its a part of the history of Horyu ji. Just because the ultimate source of technology is from the area now known as modern day China does not mitigate the fact that
Korean expertise was also involved.
-
- It is like you are arguing that parts of American Architechture should give credit to Ancient Greeks but should omit the Romans because they weren't the ultimate source of the architechture.
-
- Wikipedia wants verifiable information. If you search "horyu ji" and "paekche" you will find several sites that can verify this information. If you have a problem, you should find counter arguments and cite them. At least then both sides of the story can be told instead of just deleting things..
-
- There is evidence of Paekche's craftsmen building Horyu ji. I cited some sources. If you would like to make the argument that it was solely a product of the native population on the archipelago, again please cite. If youre assertion of the layout of the Pagoda and Golden Hall are different, again please cite. and Again, if you think the kudara kannon sculpture is based on your edo theory, please cite. information like that helps the horyu ji article, and does not hurt it. additionally, the mere fact that no "examples of paekche sculpture using the same kind wood exist", I don't understand how that means that that is conclusive proof of no actual link to paekche. http://www.marymount.k12.ny.us/marynet/TeacherResources/SILK%20Road/html/sillajapan.htm you can see a maitreya buddha from korea and japan, one is made of wood, the other bronze. different materials doesn't suggest much but the similiarities of style do.
-
- Finally, what was the point of deleting the last link if it made the information more verifable?
-
- I will fix the article hope you understand what im taking about (71.56.119.151)
i can't read sources in japanese.. it is encouraged that you provide sources that are verifable as per wikipedia english.
also, you misunderstand my position. if the paekche helped build the first horyu ji. and then it was rebuilt by the japanese, it still is based on the original baekche design.
your second point, i find it ironic that you cite a source that you earlier claimed was weak.. which is it?
finally, again, just b/c there is no example of paekche sculpture in a specific tree does not mean anything if the statute itself has discernable styles of korean art.
[edit] Neutrality?
Come on guys. Whether or not the article validates significant sections referring to Korea (Paekche) is not an issue of neutrality. It's an issue of.. what the focus of the article is, and whether or not this information on Korean architecture is valuable (useful, relevant) enough. LordAmeth 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, LordAmeth. I am just trying to show a theory on its construction.. I hope it came off as just that. Any suggestions on how to make this article better? thanks, 71.56.97.26
I`m with Lord Ameth come on this is a storm in a tea cup and erodes the meaning of the neutrality warning mark. If the mark is overused then it may eventually hold little meaning for anyone because every article has one on it 01:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
In the text book Arts and Culture(ISBN 0-13-189915-5), Janetta Rebold Benton and Robert DiYanni detail how Chinese culture profoundly influenced early the Japanese culture.
The main contributor to this article states that the Paecke were Chinese in culture; they migrated to the Korean peninsula. It is a fact that Buddhism did come to Japan from the Chinese mainland. The Horyuji in Nara Prefecture was constructed as a Buddhist temple, shortly after Buddhist expression came to Japan. How did Buddhist expression come to Japan?
[edit] Hata Kawakatsu
I've heard and read many times that it was designed by Hata Kawakatsu, so I'm not sure why it isn't on the page, is it not confirmed? Kansaikiwi 04:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)