Talk:Amatsu-Mikaboshi

Untitled

I seriously doubt the accuracy of this article. It cites no sources and shares no similarities with its Japanese version. Accordings to that one, Mikaboshi is referenced in the nihonshoki, where he appears as a regular kami. It would be interesting to know where the "dark force" interpretation stems from. It appears to be profoundly Christian-influenced and does not at all fit a typological archetype of japanese Religion, neither in Shintoist, nor Buddhist terms. 138.246.7.151 10:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, this line seems a little unfounded:

The character of the Dark One from the Wheel of Time series seems to bear resemblence to Mikaboshi, in that he is an impersonal personificaltion of primordial evil, as opposed to a single individual regarded as the source of all suffering.

Namely because this aspect of impersonal "evil" or chaotic force that drives instinctive evil is hardly specific to Japanese or even Asian religion or philosophy. --Col.clawhammer 09:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I did some inquiry (not much until now), and found out that the concept of "evil" as it originates from man is in Shintô attributed to a set of kami that was, according to the kojiki, created from the dirt of yomi when Izanagi washed himself after returning from the underworld. Mikaboshi seems to be unrelated (though it may be possible that he holds a special place in onmyôdô). I think I will try to rewrite this article after some more research. 87.163.117.162 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think there is some legitimacy to the "primordial evil" aspect of Amatsu-Mikaboshi, but I'm recalling something from a class I had a long time ago, so I really can't say knowledgeably about it. But the concept of an inherently "evil" force, usually in contrast to a "good" force is a common concept... I asked my Japanese friend to read the Japanese page for clarification but she said it was pretty difficult to understand; not sure if she meant it was a difficult concept or a bad article, though. If you can find some research material, please let us know, I'm interested in following this up, too. --Col.clawhammer 09:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

From reading the Japanese Wikipedia page, the English one seems to be mostly unsourced nonsense. I would recommend erasing everything but the stub until further work can be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.242.169 (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Title -- Proposed move

I'd like to propose moving this to Ama-tsu-Mikaboshi. As Mps (talk · contribs) notes in the summary for this edit, the tsu in the name is the Old Japanese possessive particle. Articles containing the modern Japanese possessive particle no generally hyphenate before and after, so we should do likewise for tsu for consistency's sake. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused

On the one hand this is one of the Earthly Kami conquered by the Heavenly Kami. Bu one name given for him seems indistinguishable from the the first Three Kami of Creation.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Problematic sources

Coulter (Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities by Charles Russell Coulter and Patricia Turner, Routledge, 4 Jul 2013, p.96) is problematic.

• That source lists Ama-tsu-Mikaboshi as a "god of evil", which is not borne out by Japanese-language sources, such as the Digital Daijisen entry visible here at Kotobank. Ama-tsu-mikaboshi is described in Daijisen as an 悪神 (akujin, "malevolent god"), but that is not the same as a "god of evil", which indicates a god in charge of evilness. The Nihon Shoki source text could be interpreted to mean not even "malevolent god", but rather "bad god" → "god who won't do what we (Ama-tsu-kami) say", "god who won't submit".
• The very next entry in that Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities is "Amatsu-Otome", described as "Japanese angels". These are not "angels", and describing these as such is misleading -- they don't have wings, they aren't born from God. A better nutshell description would be "heavenly maidens".

⇒ I suspect that Coulter does not read Japanese, and that certain details have been lost or otherwise distorted in translation.

I've added a link to Google Books' copy of Aston's Shinto, the Way of the Gods, which doesn't look too far off the mark. I do not have access to the New Larousse encyclopedia of mythology.

I have slightly reworded the initial description of this kami to align better with Japanese sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eirikr: how about tag all the problematic sources with better source needed tags.CycoMa (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Great idea! Only, I spend most of my time over at Wiktionary, and I'm not familiar with much of the template infrastructure here. If you know what template equates to "better source needed" tags, please add that. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)