Talk:Shinto/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Japanese Hinduism" and Connection between Hinduism and Shintoism

I found a journal article that mentions extensively how Hinduism/Buddhism has impacted Shintoism significantly, and the author (scholar Nobumi Iyanaga) actually argues to refer to Medieval Shintoism as "Japanese Hinduism" due to Hinduism's influence. The article is here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44171458.pdf

He starts off the article by saying:

"As the title indicates, this paper proposes a new understanding of early medi-

eval Shinto thought by interpreting it as a form of "Japanese Hinduism."2 By the phrase "early medieval Shinto," I mean to designate a certain number of texts that are usually categorized as "Ryõbu Shintõ" or "Ise Shintõ" Since there is no unanimity, even among specialists of Shintõ, concerning the classifica- tion of texts in these categories,3 it is safer to assume that they roughly belong to the early medieval period, that is between the Insei and the Nanbokuchõ ìif itŠŘ periods. The suggestion that Shintõ is a form of "Japanese Hinduism" may appear odd at first, but it is precisely this sentiment of "oddity" that I would like to stress, in order to use it as a "heuristic guide" to assist us in articulating a new perspective on the ideological background against which Shintõ thought developed. To begin with, I would like to call attention to a passage that struck me when I first read it. It is the beginning of the Yamato Katsuragi hõzanki ÀfPlPÍSLilfE,

a Shinto text that can roughly be situated in the mid- or late thirteenth century."

He mentions that the Yamato Katsuragi hozanki, a Shinto text from roughly the mid- or late thirteenth century, has a passage that discusses a creation myth. This creation myth comes from Hinduism he says. He mentions how in this text there is a rendered name of Vishnu, a Hindu deity.

He also mentions about how Buddhist Devas were influential in early medieval Shintoism.

He mentions that in 1060, Seison (disciple of the Ono-ryu, Ningai, 1951-1046) wrote about the transmission of the Shingon school. That text is called Shingon fuho san'yosho. Iyanaga describes a passage that relates to Esoteric Buddhism and Tantrism, and Iyanaga says that "The most important aspect of this excerpt is that it provides for the first time the fundamental idea that Japan is the "Country of the Origin of the Sun."

Iyanaga also mentions how there are some deities common to both Hinduism and Shintoism, but they have different names.

He concludes by saying:

"It is thus possible to think of Tantric Buddhism as a "specifically Hindu form of

Buddhism" - and conceive of Hinduism (or perhaps a certain, "tantricized" form of Hinduism) much in the same way, as a "specifically Hindu form of Buddhism." On the other hand, early medieval Shintõ may also be understood as a "specifically

Japanese (or 'Japanized'?) interpretation of (Japanese) Tantric Buddhism."

If we were to combine these statements, would it not be possible to think of Japanese medieval Shintoism as a "form of 'Japanese Hinduism'"?

There is much more info in the article, so maybe someone could add that information. I think it would be worthwhile to include a statement about the connection between Hinduism and Buddhism in the lead section. What are your thoughts on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare143 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The impact of Buddhism on kami worship and the eventual emergence of what we now call Shinto is already discussed in the lead. As for the impact of Hinduism, that seems like a bit of a fringe argument; it certainly is not widely promoted in the academic literature on the history of Japanese kami worship and Shinto. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I have actually read a lot about the impact of Hinduism on Shintoism. Here are some sources discussing the influence of Hinduism on Shintoism. https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/shinto/history/history_1.shtml: this source includes information such as "The Seven Lucky Gods, depicted here by Hokusai (1760-1849), are a mixed bunch, sharing influence with Buddhism and Hinduism among other traditions." The book "Hindu Gods and Goddesses in Japan" published in the International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan discusses how Hinduism influenced Shintoism extensively. This includes but is not limited to how Tendai and Shingon (the two most popular tantric sects in Japan) worshipped Hindu gods in temples. The book mentions many things, including how the Four Heavenly Kings were the only Hindu divinities worshipped by the Japanese ruling class in the early stages. Some Hindu gods that were worshipped in Japan include Lakshmi, Sarasvati, Yama, Ganesh, Indra, and Varuna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare143 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hinduism

These edits added the following to the lead (wiki-links added by me):

Hinduism also influenced Shinto extensively; Tendai and Shingon worshipped Hindu gods, the Four Heavenly Kings were Hindu divinities, and Hindu gods are worshipped in Japan, including Lakshmi, Ganesh, and Sarasvati.

References

The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; this info is not in the article. Tendai and Shingon are Buddhist sects. The article on the Four Heavenly Kings doesn't even mention Hinduism. Lakshmi, Ganesh, and Sarasvati are not mentioned in the article. Hinduism in Japan doesn't even mention Shinton. Furthermore, what Chaudhuri argues is that Hindu gods were incorporated into Shintoism via Buddhism, which "had adopted many Hindu divinities" (p.13). In sum, this addition is WP:UNDUE, and does not belong in the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll go add information about Hinduism to the body of the page before changes are made to the lead. The Four Heavenly Kings came from Hinduism, although it may not be mentioned on the Four Heavenly Kings Wikipedia; the Wikipedia page does mention how Vessarana is Kubera, a Hindu God. Tendai and Shingon may be Buddhist sects, however, Hinduism still influenced Shinto (through Buddhism, yet I do not find mention in the article). Regarding Lakshmi, Ganesh, and Sarasvati, I'll see where in the article it would be good to include them. The Hinduism in Japan article is very short and does not have enough information. There was never any hard line separating Hinduism from Buddhism in the past and even now. Hinduism worships Buddha as a God and person. Chaudhuri also argues that the book describes how "Hindu myths and legends [were] transmitted to Japan along with these [Hindu] deities". This is all NPOV.Shakespeare143 (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Funny that you write There was never any hard line separating Hinduism from Buddhism in the past and even now. There is one hard line: the Vedas. "Hinduism," as a synthesis of Brahmanism and non-Vedic traditions, developed in response to the succes of Buddhism and Jainism; (nominal) adherence to the authority of the Vedas is a distinguishing sign of belonging to the Hindu-tradition. But apart from that, indeed: no hard line. Hinduism incorporated a lot of Buddhism; the Theravada-guys who reinvented Theravada-meditation in the 19th century had better gone to India to meditation with some swami's, instead of reinterpreting Buddhist texts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hindus really don't care that Buddhists don't accept the Vedas. Not all Hindus accept the Vedas, Hinduism is simply so broad and diverse. Maybe some specific Hindus care/cared, but Hindus and Buddhists generally think of themselves as essentially the same religion (following dharma etc.) with minor differences; in Eastern religions, there aren't generally speaking hard lines, most people adopt a variety of "religions" and religions are mixed. Hinduism and Buddhism adopt so many varieties and traditions and are interconnected, and adherents are generally eager and/or willing to adopt each other's practices and/or beliefs. One definition of Hinduism is adhering to the Vedas, yes, but other definitions include Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism as the same religion. All adherents of Dharmic religions (Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism) (generally) pray at each other's temples and see nothing wrong with that. Regarding the Theravada guys and swamis, there are "different traditions", but at the same time because their traditions are so similar, they still acknowledge general validity in each other's traditions. There are temple Brahmins in Thailand, illustrating this unity.

Regarding the Dalai Lama (https://www.dalailama.com/news/2014/his-holiness-the-dalai-lama-chief-guest-at-1st-world-hindu-congress):

"His Holiness spoke of Buddhism and Hinduism as like spiritual brothers, which provoked cheers throughout the hall. He said they share shila, shamatha and prajna - ethics, concentration and wisdom - and where they differ is in the view of atman or anatman. He recalled meeting a spiritual leader in Bangalore a couple of years ago, a good man who organizes food for the poor on a large scale. They discussed the correspondences of their spiritual traditions until His Holiness acknowledged that for him, a Buddhist monk, anatman is more appropriate; for his friend, a Hindu monk, it is the view of atman that appeals. But, he said, whichever view they choose is their own personal decision."Shakespeare143 (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Ar various articles, atman versus anatman is presented as the defining difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. I still don't agree with that "definition"; Buddha-nature is very akin to atman, while the atman of Advaita Vedanta is very akin to the Buddhist sunyata. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not realize that, it is very interesting how Buddha-hood is akin to atman.Shakespeare143 (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Italic kami

The way the word kami is italicized varies throughout the article, sometimes it is italic, sometimes not. We need to pick a format and apply it consistently throughout the article. Editor2020 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it is important that we employ a standard system here. I think it makes sense to capitalise a non-English language term the first time we use it in the article, and then leave it un-capitalised after that. That is the system currently employed at FA-rated religion articles like Santería and Heathenry (new religious movement). The only exception to this is when a word is being discussed in its capacity as a word, i.e. if the etymology of the term Shinto is being discussed. In those instances, italicisation would apply even if we were using an English-language word. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

From MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: "Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English. Use the native spellings if they use the Latin alphabet (with or without diacritics)—otherwise anglicize their spelling."-Editor2020 (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. The policy seems quite clear on this one, and we should follow it. I'll italicise all the Japanese terms in the article. Thanks for raising your concerns at the Talk Page, Editor2020. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Shinto is typically classified as polytheism and sometimes part of it as animism, totemism, shamanism, phallicism, or fetishism but not pantheism

The page is about the native religion of japan, Shinto. There is a sentence which is not supported by the general consensus held by the experts of Comparative Religion, I thus propose that it be changed as follows.

   (Original)The link between the kami and the natural world has led to Shinto being considered animistic and pantheistic. 

   (Proposed)The link between the kami and the natural world has led to Shinto being considered animistic. 

Pantheism is a form of monism, effectively the view that God is identical with the cosmos, refuting personal God. Spinoza asserted that God is one, and pantheist thinks that spiritual nature of everything is united in one essence, whereas animism holds the uniqueness of each individual soul.

Shintoism as a form of animism has been traditionally reinforced by the doctrine of yaoyorozu no kami(八百万の神々), due to the old say, "万物に神が宿る、魂が宿る(Gods dwell in all things, the souls dwell in all things.)". Moreover, the existing Shinto shrines worship many personal Gods (e.g., ja:天津神・国津神), in contradiction to Pantheism.

Kato Genchi, one of the early pioneers of Comparative Religion in Japan, observed traces of animism, fetishism, and phallicism in Shinto. Umehara Takeshi also stated that Shintoism/Japanese Buddhism is driven by animism.。

I can also see the problem in the footnote.(Please take no offence but it was necessary to question the citation, which supports the improbable minor view of Shinto as pantheism, rampant in religious nationalists, who usually are not concerned with technical accuracy).

• It seems that the source "SHINTO SHRINES: A GUIDE TO THE SACRED SITES OF JAPAN’S ANCIENT RELIGION" is not academically sound, seemingly not written by comparative religion experts. In japan, there are demands for English-teaching professors who aren't particularly strong in their "culture" fields, but got the positions in academics. They usually never worked on a Phd thesis in Anthropology of Religion or Comparative Religion, let alone publishing papers in academic journals related to Comparative Religion.

Propaganda of Shinto as pantheism is not new, and has been promoted by Shinto or Buddhist religious centrist for its apparent association with Spinoza and thus Einstein. They tend to confuse animism with pantheism, failing to distinguish between them, wrongly stating the superiority of Shintoism or Japanese Buddhism over western counterparts.2400:2410:C1A3:5300:51A7:3993:363A:24D7 (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

As the article only has one source to bolster the pantheism claim (and it is not one of the stronger sources cited in this article), I think it makes sense to remove it from the article, at least temporarily. If additional reliable sources appear that also refer to Shinto theology as pantheistic, then this issue could be revisited through further Talk Page discussion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Sidebar

• @Midnightblueowl: No consensus? Was there a discussion I missed that decided against adding the sidebar to the article? I didn't see one when I looked over the talk archive for the article, but I may have missed it as I only took a quick look to to see if there was any particular reason it was absent. Seems odd to use consensus as a reason unless a discussion had been had deciding against it.

I could see a case for removing it if it were displacing images, but it isn't; it's simply occupying the whitespace created by the (fairly long) table of contents which is otherwise empty and useless. Even with the contents collapsed the sidebar doesn't cause any problematic displacement as this article doesn't have that many images; only one image is moved down the page by the sidebar and not in such a way as to separate the image from any relevant paragraphs.

The article has no other sidebars and it's fairly long so having both a navbox and a sidebar does not cause any template clutter problems.

The templates also aren't redundant as the sidebar contains a few links not present in the navbox.

This is the primary article for this series of articles, so it seems especially odd not to include it given all this. I don't understand your decision to remove the sidebar at all. -- Scyrme (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Sidebars are often a controversial point at Wikipedia. They tend to divide opinion, and there's a reason you rarely find them in Featured Articles. I used to be a big fan of them, and made quite a few, but the opposition I found among many editors led me to rethink my approach and now I avoid them. On this article, we have a navbox, so there is no need for a sidebar; there is a tendency (I do not know if there is a general rule anywhere) to have one or the other, but not both. We do not have sidebars in other FA-rated religion articles such as Heathenry (new religious movement), Rastafari, and Santería, so in that sense there is precedent for not having a sidebar in articles devoted to particular religions. Any links that are present in the sidebar but not the navbox can easily be remedied by adding these links to the navbox. All things considered, the article is better off without the sidebar. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Midnightblueowl: Thanks for the swift response! (And sorry for my wordy replies.)

Of your examples, only Heathenry is the primary article in a series with a sidebar. Rastafarianism & Santeria don't even have sidebars, only navboxes, unless I'm mistaken. There are also plenty of counter-examples to Heathenry: Baháʼí Faith (FA), Buddhism (B), Christianity (B), Islam (B), Hinduism (B), Taoism (GA). If anything, this pattern suggests a sidebar be added to Heathenry.

This article also isn't rated FA, it's rated B or at least that's what it says above; the vital-article template actually says C but that's clearly a mistake (which I've just fixed). The rating doesn't seem like it should matter since I don't see how a tidy, unobstructive sidebar could degrade the quality of the article. If sidebar were cluttered or full of dubious links, I could see the argument against the sidebar but that doesn't appear to be the case here. If it were the case, the better solution would be to cleanup the template, not to recommend its removal, since removing it would only help on this article and not on all the others the template is present on.

I don't see how the article is better off. What's bettered by its omission? Your suggested remedy doesn't seem like a remedy at all. Applied generally, it would make all sidebars redundant and encourage navbox clutter. In this particular case it wouldn't be too much of an issue, but then why even have a Shinto sidebar at all if you're going to discourage its use on the most obvious use cases?

It seems strange to remove a sidebar because you imagine it might be controversial in the future. It's an imaginary problem. What specifically might be divisive? Considering everything above, I don't see what reason someone could bring up to make an issue. I can only think that you're suggesting someone may make it an issue just because it is a sidebar, but such a complaint would be baseless and indefensible, so why would anyone take it seriously? Given there are other religion articles with sidebars, I don't see any reason to expect controversy here. (Unless you count this discussion.) -- Scyrme (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

infobox debate

There is a debate going on here that will affect this article. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)