User:MicahDMillan/sandbox

Early Buddhist art contains various animals. These include lions, nāgas, horses, elephants and deer. Most of these are often symbolic of the Buddha himself (and some are actually epithets of the Buddha), though they may also be depicted as merely decorative illustrations depending on context. According to Jampa Choskyi, while the animals are considered to be symbols for the Buddha, lions are the symbols of the bodhisattvas or also known as the sons of the Buddha. The lion, a symbol of royalty, sovereignty and protection, is a used as symbol for the Buddha, who is also known as the "lion of the Shakyas". Buddha's teachings are referred to as the "Lion's Roar" (sihanada) in the sutras, which symbolizes the supremacy of the Buddha's teaching over all other spiritual teachings. When looking at the shrines on the iconography, the lions symbolize another role, which they are the

Add an analysis on the animal patterns in clothing, Buddhism and Confucianism area.

The Buddha was also symbolized by a white elephant, another Indian symbol of royal power. This symbol appears in the myth of Queen Maya, when the Buddha to be took the form of a white elephant in order to enter his mother's womb. Add more here!

Lotus flower design with Sanskrit syllables in the Ranjana script, at a Buddhist temple in Tianjin, China. The syllables are "Om mani padme hum".

A riderless horse (representing the Buddha's royal horse, Kanthaka) symbolizes the Buddha's renunciation, and can be seen in some depictions of the "Great Renunciation" scene (along with Chandaka, the Buddha's attendant holding up a royal umbrella). Meanwhile, deer represent Buddhist disciples, as the Buddha gave his first sermon at the deer park of Varanasi. Add more here!

Add section on Peacocks!

Add section on Garuda!

Add a section on Animals in specifically Japanese Buddhism.

Add a section on the significance on sacred animals in Nepal and India, and how they relate to the Goddesses of Buddhism, will end up talking about the Goddesses mostly in this part.

Connect animals and humans in the early days of Buddhism.

Lead:

It has been updated to reflect the new content added by you. The lead has also had an introductory sentence that does concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. As far as I can tell, it does contain the major sections that will be talked about in the rest of the article. It does encompass all the major topics in the article that was put as a major topic. The lead does not include information that was not present in the article. The lead is concise and does not go into detail heavily and you have removed the parts that was repeated even though it was said before.

Content:

The content that was kept does have content that is relevant to the topic and was a major topic that was said in the lead of the article. The content that was left alone is relevant to the topic, since it does seem a little bit biased if the court cases were to be included. It does seem a bit off if it was included in your draft, since we are thought to be unbiased. The content is up to date, though when reading the original article, it does seem to be missing the reason as to why the prayer beads are necessary to use during prayers. I would suggest to include the reason as to why there is prayer beads in Dhikr. I understand why you would not include the court cases that were there since event though it does, address the topics related when it comes to the historically underrepresented topics, it does seem a bit biased it you kept them in your draft. It is a about prayer about a religion that does not have a good view in the US.

Tone and Balance:

The content that was added is neutral in tone and does not necessarily have a positive or negative view when I was reading your draft. It seemed like I read it from a book that was about this topic, and it seems like you have done your research to prevent the biases from coming out. There are no claims that appear to be heavily biased to a position when it comes to part that you changed, it all seems to have the same amount of research done for it. There are also no viewpoints that seemed to be overrepresented or underrepresented, they all have the same amount of significance. You did really well not to favor one position over a another or even persuade any audience to turn away from another position.