Talk:Shinto/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Please Help with Editing Shinto Wiki Page Chozusha

See Chozusha.

The article simply needs more info. Thanks in advance!--Sean-Jin 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Origins

Intranetusa - I added in East Asia, since most of the Japanese are descendents of people from China & Korea who migrated there in Paleolithic times around 5000-6000 years ago.

---

I think that the additions to the article are good in theory, but at times it seem a little too much like "cheerleading" for Shinto. It's good to put in more details about Shinto beliefs and practices, but I think someone needs to edit it to be a little more NPOV.--Carl

Shintō is the native religion of Japan, and is shamanistic and polytheistic. Most of Japanese leaders are shintoists.

This is an very important comment! I've realized most articles about Shinto only focuses on small details and is suffering from a bad case of exceptionalism (which is very often the case with articles about Japanese culture). What's really important is to see shinto's shamanist origin and relationship with other shamanist cultures, in particular Korean. I will try to find proof for this theory and post here in the future. -Himasaram 22:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to compare the two religions--there are definite similarities, and I don't think most people realize how similar they are. From what I can tell, the religious structure of the Goryeo era seems to have been very similar to the Buddhist-Shinto syncretism that prevailed through most of Japan's history.

I'm not sure, though, that Japanese shamanism ever involved, as Korean shamanism does, what anthropologists call "personifying" and most people call possession (minus the negative connotations). A mudang (I believe "mansin" is their preferred term) "takes on" her gods, allowing them to speak, act, and accept offerings through her, but I don't believe a miko ever did. They've always been more like Ancient Rome's Vestal virgins (ninja writer Stephen Hayes actually translates miko that way), dedicated to serve the god in its shrine. I could be wrong--there's an awful lot of Japan for Shinto to happen in, and it varies by region--but I think on the whole I'm right.71.223.169.27 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryobu Shinto

Can someone add something about Ryobu Shinto?

If this article is compared with Kami, the external link has a much clearer structure - something along these lines would benefit this article. Rellis1067 15:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I want to add a history section, but I need some time to fix it up first, so I'm temporarily putting it here: --Carl 12:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History

The earliest origins of Shinto are lost to history, but presumably the tribal gods and rituals that later developed into Shinto predate the arrival of the ancestors of today's Japanese people to the Japanese islands. Most likely, each tribe and area had their own collection of gods and rituals with no formal relationship between each of the areas. Following the ascendency of the ancestor's of today's Imperial family to a position of power among the other groups, their ancestral deities were given prominence over the deities of other groups, though different systems continued to coexist.

The introduction of Buddhism and writing in the 6th century had a profound impact on the development of a unified system of Shinto beliefs. In a brief period of time, the [Nihongi] (The Chronicles of Japan) and the [Kojiki] (The Record of Ancient Things) were written by compiling existing myths and legends into a unified account (see: [Japanese mythology]). These accounts were written with two purposes in mind. First, the sophistication of the narratives and the introduction of Taoist, Confucian, and Buddhist themes into the narratives were meant to impress the Chinese with the sophistication of the Japanese. The Japanese felt intimidated by the clearly advanced culture of the Chinese and so hoped to produce a work rivaling it. Second, the narratives were meant to shore up support for the legitimacy of the Imperial house, based on its lineage from the Sun Goddess [Amaterasu]. Much of the area of modern Japan was under only fragmentary control by the Imperial family, and rival ethnic groups (including, perhaps, the ancestors of the [Ainu]) continued to war against the encroachment of the Japanese. The mythological anthologies, along with other poetry anthologies like the [Man'yoshu] and others, were all meant to impress others with the worthiness of Imperial family and their divine mandate to rule.

With the introduction of Buddhism and its rapid adoption by the court, it was necessary to explain the apparent differences between native Japanese beliefs and Buddhist teachings. One explanation saw the Japanese kami as supernatural beings still caught in the cycle of birth and rebirth. The kami are born, live, die, and are reborn like all other beings in the karmic cycle. However, the kami played a special role in protecting Buddhism and allowing its compassionate teachings to flourish. This explanation was later challenged by [Kukai], who saw the kami as different embodiments of the Buddhas themselves. For example, he famously linked Amaterasu, Sun Goddess and ancestor of the Imperial family, with [Dainichi Nyorai], a central manifestation of the Buddha, whose name is literally "Great Sun Buddha". In his view, the kami were just Buddhas by another name.

Kukai's syncretic view held wide sway up until the end of the [Edo period]. At that time, there was a renewed interest in "Japanese studies," perhaps as a result of the closed country policy. In the 18th century, various Japanese scholars tried to tease apart the "real" Shinto from various foreign influences. The attempt was largely unsuccessful, since as early as the Nihongi, parts of the mythology were explicitly borrowed from Chinese doctrines. (For example, the co-creator deities Izanami and Izanagi are explicitly compared to yin and yang.) However, the attempt did set the stage for the arrival of state Shinto, following the [Meiji Restoration].

Following the Meiji Restoration, Shinto was made the official religion of Japan, and its combination with Buddhism was outlawed. During this period, it was felt that Shinto was needed in order to unify the country around the Emperor as the process of modernization was undertaken with all possible speed. The arrival of large Western gun ships and the collapse of the shogunate convinced many that the nation needed to band together if it was going to resist being conquered by outside forces. As a result, Shinto was used as a tool for promoting Emperor (and Empire) worship, and Shinto was exported into conquered territories like [Hokkaido] and [Korea].

The era of state Shinto came to an abrupt close with the end of [World War II]. The kami had failed to provide a Divine Wind (kamikaze) to turn back the foreign invaders. Soon after the war, the Emperor even issued a statement renouncing his claims to the status of "living god." In the aftermath of the war, most Japanese came to believe that the hubris of Empire had led to their downfall. Lust for foreign territory blinded their leaders to the importance of their homeland. Also in the aftermath of the war, numerous "new religions" cropped up, many of them ostensibly based on Shinto.

Following the war, Shinto has for the most part persisted without the focus on mythology or the divine mandate of the Imperial family. Instead, shrines tend to focus on helping ordinary people gain better fortunes for themselves through maintaining good relations with their ancestors and other kami. Shinto ways of thinking continues to be an important part of the Japanese mindset, though the number of people who identify themselves as religious have suffered a sharp decline.

Excellent work, Carl. Couple small points. You're probably aware that you need to change the brackets to double brackets. Also, there should probably be some substantion for "presumably the tribal gods and rituals that later developed into Shinto predate the arrival of the ancestors of today's Japanese people to the Japanese islands." This doesn't strike me as obvious, anyway. - Nat Krause 09:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New image

Kamidana

New image related to Shinto arrived at commons. Japanese edition has an article ja:神棚.--Gleam 10:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Types of Shinto

I am a student at Newark High School. This imformation was part of my Senior Research Paper. I was careful with my info and hope you use it.

It seems OK. I'll add an intro or something. --Carl 06:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shinto misogi practices

If there's someone out there who knows, please describe the relevance and practices of misogi in Shinto belief.

Misogi is a practice of purification and cleansing. It is done mostly under falling water, and it's purpose is to make on get in touch with inner spiritual realms - to disconnect from the phisical world, and discover the source of all life, or life energy - KI. The founder of the japanese martial art Aikido was shintoist, and some misogi techniques may be found in some dojos which were closely conected to him. Acctualy, Ueshiba Morihei (the founder of Aikido), in his last years, claimed to have been posessed by a deity from Shinto. An expert in misogi is the japanes Aikido master Seiseki Abe Shihan - 10th degree, who was a direct disciple of Ueshiba, and who is still teaching in Osaka.

Remnants in former Japanese Empire?

Are there still any Shintoists in the former Japanese Empire where Shinto was taught and made the official religion (eg Korea or Manchuria)?

That's highly unlikley, as Shintoism and the cult of the Japanese emperor were closely linked to Japanese imperialistic ambitions and all crimes commited in it's name. -Himasaram 11:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shintoism is Jewish?

Can someone please cite a credible source on this. I do not trust the one that is used here. Keep in mind people, the tremendous desire of people to place their own cultural values onto those of other people. See ethnocentrism--Scipantheist 22:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What are you on about? Sam Spade 00:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the claim that Shinto and Judiasm are linked is pretty clearly bunk, but someone put it on the page, and probably would get mad if you took it off. I'm mostly focused on limiting the damage by acknowledging the theory, just letting it be mentioned, but pointing out that very few accept the theory. You can try taking it off the page. Probably though, it will just get added back in a less NPOV form. --Carl 03:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to say that the Japanese themselves come from Israel. That seems less damaging, and maybe the person who wrote this won't notice:)--Scipantheist 15:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be interesting if there were supporting genetic knowledge.

Hm... this reference is kinda troubling to me. I've heard of the lost tribes being connected to some of the Chinese, but not the Japanese. Is there any noted similarity in traditions at all? That's what a lot of the research on the lost tribes is based on, and Shintoism itself doesn't seem to have any. -- clevomon

The only similarity I've ever heard of is that some stone lanterns in Ise have six-pointed stars on them. Fg2 01:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the portable shrine carried at a festival is very similar to the traditional image of the Arc of the Covenant. And both Shintou and Judaism are traditionally very concerned with ritual purity. Not that it means they're related (they certainly aren't), but just that there are a few external similarities; all the important things (doctrine, what practices mean, ethics) are totally different. But no, the fact a few externals are similar is the important thing. Those giant differences mean nothing, nothing!71.223.169.27 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That the Japanese came from Israel is clearly bunk. The historical situation is like that: Jews of the lost tribes made it to China (there is some historical proof of that), and some of them may have crossed the strait to Japan. There is no clear prove for it, but at least it is possible. But even if 100 Jews made it to Japan in maybe 400 AC that does not make them the forefathers of the Japanese people, but rather a small minority that got lost somewhere in history.

Now for the Shinto<->Judaism claims. When Chinese culture was introduced to Japan, China was an open to the world, and scholars from all over the ancient world were at the court in Changan. When they came to Japan, they took with them not only their own scripture and confucianism, but also buddhism and some vedic gods from India. Now, since Jews were in China at that time, they could have gone to Japan and could have taken their religious texts with them. Or Chinese scholars could have taken Jewish texts in Chinese translation with them. We don't know. The library at the Daigaku burnt down in 700 something.

So, some elements of Jewish religion could have influenced Japanese Shinto and Buddhism (which were not separated at until the Meiji restoration). But Jews were unheard of in Meiji Japan, so nobody recognized Jewish elements as Jewish. In fact, when Buddhism and Shinto were separated (Shinbutsu Bunri), the Jewish elements were recognized as non-buddhist, so they had to be "ancient Japanese". So, Jewish elements in Shinto may in fact be Jewish, but if they are Jewish, it means they are not Ancient Japanese. -- Mkill 21:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt there were any Jews in China, considering the Lost Tribes were forced-resettled by the Assyrians onto their northwestern border. Every source I've ever seen for "Jews in Ancient China" was of the "Aliens built the Face on Mars" school. Are there any real sources for this idea?71.223.169.27 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC) --

Actually there was a Jewish settlement in Kaifeng, and a large stone tablet explaining the Jews arrival in China as merchants. I have photos of it in a collection I manage in the AGSL. However, that would have been too late to link the Jews with the Japanese and Shinto anyways. Remove the reference. Meateatingvegan 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So, is that reference even worth noting at all? -- Clevomon 21:32 23 December 2005

Decline of Shinto?

I am making some changes to the way statements are worded that imply that Shintoism is not practiced or taught any more. Please site me some sources if you think that this is wrong.--Scipantheist 15:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cultural Effects of Shinto

I thought I should make clear my reasons for editing this section. First sentence read:

The influence of Shinto on Japanese culture can hardly be overestimated. Although it is now near-impossible to disentangle its influence from that of Buddhism, it is clear that the spirit of being one with nature that gave rise to this religion underlies such typically Japanese arts as flower-arranging (ikebana) and traditional Japanese architecture and garden design.

Which I changed to:

Shinto has been called "the religion of Japaneseness", and the customs and values of Shinto are inseperable from those of Japanese culture prior to the influx of Chinese religious ideas that occured in the mid 6th century CE. Many famously Japanese practices have origins either directly or indirectly rooted in Shinto. For example, it is clear that the Shinto ideal of harmony with nature underlies such typically Japanese arts as flower-arranging (ikebana) and traditional Japanese architecture and garden design.

This seems more accurate, as the modern term Shinto and the earlier Japanese term Kami no Michi (Way of the Kami) did not come into use until foreign religious practices came to Japan, and terminology was needed to differentiate between them. -- Xastic 6 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

My apologies if I do this incorrectly, as I've yet to learn how to properly edit wikipedia articles. I just thought I should point out that, as the practice of using chopsticks was imported from China, then it's not very clear how they could have their origin in Shinto beliefs. Did the author mean to imply that waribashi (disposable chopsticks), which are a relatively recent invention, has origins in Shinto beliefs and practices? 210.130.236.30 07:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Curtis

Shinto in Modern Culture Would it be relevant to mention the use of spirits, spirits assigned to things and even the clear devotion to nature mentioned in this article, that is so obviously depicted in anime like the "kodama" in Princess Mononoke or the "mushi" in Mushishi?

Myth?

Don't know if it was here or elsewhere, but Shinto was referred to as a bunch of Myths.. Don't think it's fair, to say many people, including Myself Believe in it.

Secondly, the Christianity Article is huge, and yet this one is Small, so i'm going to add as much information as i can to this article, whilst keeping it as neutral as possible.

I think if you're adding stuff like "Shinto is Jewish", or "Shinto is x", you should at least have clear stuff to support it, it's offensive to say things about other religions without actually knowing about them :(

Thanks,

"Myth" can have both a positive and negative connotation. I think it would be wrong to say, "kami are a myth," but it's OK to say, "Shinto has extensive mythology about Amaterasu, Jimmu Ten'nô, etc." In the latter case, "myth" doesn't necessarily mean "false," it just means a collection of fantastical stories involving gods and magic, etc. The reason that the Christianity article is large than the Shinto article is that more English speaking Wikipedia users are Christian than Shintoist, and they write about what they know. If you have first hand knowledge of Shinto beliefs and practices that you can add in an NPOV way, you are more than welcome to do so. In fact, I would like to encourage you to add things if you have time. As for the Jewish thing, feel free to remove it. Some crank added it, and we've been wanting to take it out for a while. It doesn't really belong in the article. --Carl 02:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That's correct. In religious scholarship "mythology" doesn't imply a truth value. In this sense, most, if not all, religions have mythology associated with them. I haven't checked whether or not the Christianity article uses the term, but it would apply just as readily to the Bible as to the Kojiki. Also, the Jewish thing should probably be taken out or moved to the bottom under a section on fringe theories. --Xastic 06:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The term myth as meaning something that isn't true is only the mainstream definition of the word. It does not originally denote something that is untrue. I'm guessing the modern usage of it has it's origins in the so-called "Age of Enlightenment", when hordes of unsatisfied budding atheists claimed that anything that they cannot verify is not true. I feel that it shows as much ignorance when it is used as an word synonymous with untrue, by atheists, as it is when used by religious people with the same definition. I'm sure you can see how strongly I dislike the modern usage of the word. There exist Christian, Islamic and Judaic mythology. Though mainstream followers don't apply the word to their faith, people who are primarily mythologists, such as myself(as I'm Christian) have fewer or no qualms against using the word. Though it should be noted that the mythology of Islam is extremely minor since the majority of it's stories are present in the Qu'ran. Satanael 18:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

State Shinto

For reference, this is the paragraph that was cut:

It has been proposed that the uncharacteristically aggressive beliefs upon which State Shinto operated may have been inspired by the application of a number of incongruously Western religious ideas, such as universality and evangelism, to certain, otherwise benign, mythological elements of Shinto, a national folk religion. For example, the notion of the Emperor being a divinely mandated ruler is not particularly unreasonable if this dominion encompasses Japan alone, as was intended in the creation myths of the Kojiki and Nihonshoki. If one extends this mandate to the world, however, one can quickly see that such a notion becomes problematic.

I think I understand your reasons for cutting this; I'd actually expected someone to object to it right after I put it up. It is, however, relevant information about a socio-cultural theory relevant to State Shinto, and I think there might be a way to give this information in a way that is not POV. The paragraph is paraphrased from an article by Kenji Ueda that's referenced at the bottom of the page. Xastic 08:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't happy about cutting it, but the paragraph felt a little off. Just slightly un-wiki-esque, if that makes any sense. Can you rewrite it so that the theory is attributed? As in, "Kenji Ueda of blah blah, among others, theorizes that…" I almost tried to just rewrite it to make it more npov, but I wasn't sure I was up to it. If you think you can, please do! --Carl 14:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone who obviously does not speak english as their primary language has added information to this section that utilizes poor grammatical structure and misspellings. Can someone clean this up?

Fixed it, I think. --Carl 12:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well done. That was a lot of clean up. Just performed one or two minor grammer and puctuative simplifications to what you did. I hope you don't mind.

I think the article should say something more about why (and how) Shinto lost its position as the state religion in Japan. I also wonder if and how I should make a (more specific) request for this part of the article being elaborated. -- chsf 20:44, 8th Februaty 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. In popular settings people seem to want to believe that all Japanese just dropped this form of belief and that it has no state/nationalistic relevance whatsoever, which is not at all true. Article should reflect this I feel. LandorS 14:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC) LandorS

not a religion

japanese people do not think of shinto as a religion, it is more of a culture, similar to being an ethnic jew, but with no corresponding judaism to convert to.

While it is certainly arguable that Shinto has little in common with western religions, I think 'religion' is the least bad way to describe it in English. Most Japanese people treat Christianity and Buddhism in much the same way as they treat Shinto, but that doesn't mean that Christianity and Buddhism aren't religions.

In addition, although Japanese texts on Shinto tend to assume that the reader is Japanese, few of the ceremonies actually exclude foreigners. Apparently, a noticeably high proportion of shrine weddings have one foreign partner. (According to the priest at the shrine where I will get married.) It's a part of Japanese culture that doesn't really spread, but it isn't completely exclusive. I'd say it is a religion, for classificatory purposes.

David Chart 06:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's very definitely a form of spirituality. It looks to me like proof-in-practise that either the conventional concept of religion is too narrow, or we need a new lower-level concept - "proto-religion"?

Julian Morrison 16:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the base question is something like : 'Is "religion as ritual", without belief, still as much a religion as "religion as dogma"?

Actually, Shinto's approach is historically the norm; Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and (to a lesser extent) Buddhism and Hinduism have an unusual approach. In most religions, especially polytheistic ones, belief is secondary to practice. Consider the ancient Romans, for instance--a philosopher might have almost any theories he liked about the gods, from that they were real to they were metaphors to they were lies, but he almost certainly wouldn't advocate stopping sacrifices to them. The Greeks, Romans, Norse, and Slavs seem to have had roughly the same approach to "belief" as Shinto; a similar approach is also found in Confucianism and Taoism. In many ways, the approach taken by all such systems is similar to Pascal's Wager: if the gods are real, we do well to please them, and if not, well, we're none the worse for doing these things.71.223.169.27 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

New portal on religion

Brisvegas and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with your religion being one of the portals. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. We need to find people who would like to take responsibility for their faith's portal. Brisvega looks after the Christianity portal, and I look after the Islam portal. You can find your religion's portal by looking at the Religion & Spirituality section on the portal template at Template:Portals. I've been notified that your faith's portal can possibly be deleted if no one looks after the portal. --JuanMuslim ^1m 17:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

percentage

What percentage of the Japanese population believes in Shinto? --Abdull 09:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That subject's a little vague and controversial. I'd rather a figure on it stayed out of Wikipedia. (I personally like to think almost all of them do, but they would mostly disagree.) elvenscout742 16:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

For statistical purposes, people don't "believe in Shinto", but people register at Shinto shrines (for whatever reason, maybe they just like to carry the mikoshi at a matsuri). That figure was 117.378 million in 1995, according to the Office for Religious Affairs at the Agency for Cultural Affairs. -- Mkill 21:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I have read, I feel that one does not really choose to believe (or doubt) Shinto doctrine. Instead, one choose to adhere to it as a lifestyle or a set of duties and relationships. It is a very community-oriented religion, as opposed to doctrine-oriented religions such as Islam and Christianity. Luis Dantas 00:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

i agree. religion is seen more as a part of culture in the East. an interesting observation is you don't see much people fighting over religion here as in the West. Akinkhoo 09:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ideas to improve iformation about Shinto

The best way to get effitiant and correct information on Shinto is to talk to religious figures or believers about its different branches. Have the write about it. Also books and other sources can be added to improve this website.

The problem is that books are rare and believers are Japanese. Julian Morrison 21:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it POV?

This piece of text has been removed from the article today: Shinto is considered an occult religion by some due to its ritualistic practices, meditations, and associations to Tao and Buddhism. Some people also view it as Pagan due to its ancient history. I am not sure it should be left out. Such a qualified statement seems to reflect speculation and perhaps lack of reliable information, even confusion, but it seems a bit harsh to label it as vandalism. Luis Dantas 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Lemme see. "Occult religion", like what, omikuji? "ritualistic practices" unlike every other religion on earth, of course. "Pagan", only in the very broadest sense of not being Christian. "due to its ancient history" unlike say, Buddhism? Plus this whole ventriloquist's dummy named "some people". Which people?

The whole excerpt is strangely meaningless - unless you're a bible belter for whom "occult", "ritualistic", "pagan" are attack words.

Ignorant POV. Leave it out.

Julian Morrison 14:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Pagan may not mean simply "non-Christian", unlike what most people believes. Paganism is the cult of Nature and spirits/deities that influentiate the world and human lives. Shinto is basically a Pagan religion, although it's not called so because everyone thinks of Europeans or Native Americans when they hear "pagan". And of course, Paganism is not a bad/occult/sacrifice religion (such as Shinto). So I think it should be clarified as Pagan. --Midasminus (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Shinto definition

The following statements add more noise than signal to the article and should probably be edited. "On the one hand, it can be seen as merely a highly sophisticated form of animism and may be regarded as a primal shamanist religion. On the other hand, Shinto beliefs and ways of thinking are deeply embedded in the subconscious fabric of modern Japanese society." This implies that other forms of animism/shamanism are not deeply embedded in the subconscious fabric of their believers. Also, depending on the defintion of "sophisticated", it may not be NPOV. To say, for example, that Shintoism is more "intellectually appealing" or "refined" or "ahead in development" (all of which are synonyms for "sophisticated") than other forms of animism is certainly NOT NPOV.

"The word Shinto was created by combining two kanji: "神" shin meaning god (the character can also be read as "kami" in Japanese) and "道" tō meaning Tao ("way" or "path" in a philosophical sense)." While this definition pops up all over the place, it is wrong. Kami are not gods. Shin, I believe, means "reality" or "truth". An excellent source explaining kami can be found here.here.

Yes, 'kami' and 'gods' do not mean the same thing. (This is pointed out in the article on Kami, where "Shinto scholars point out that such a translation can cause a serious misunderstanding") However, I'd like to also mention that while "道" (to) is the same character is used for the Chinese word "Tao", "神" (shin) is the same as the Chinese word for a god, or a diety. Since many Japanese characters were borrowed from the Chinese in the past, the meanings of 神 would have changed to fit their uses. This in turn causes confusion when trying to interpret their meanings to English today, since there is no English equivalant. I may change the definition to reflect this in the future, unless someone gets it first. And, yes, shin means "truth". S. Alatar 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Shin" meaning truth is written with a different kanji: 真. Though 神 is closer to our word for "spirit," the word for "god" (in the christian sense) in Japanese uses the same kanji as Shinto, and is usually written 神様, comparable to "Great Spirit"210.130.236.30 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Curtis

210.130.236.30 is right here, but I want to add that saying that 神 does not mean "god" is a rather Shinto-centric (for "神") and Christian-centric (for "god") perspective, as both are used to mean gods of all religions. The Supreme Being is indeed often referred to as 神様, but 様 here is mostly honorific, somewhat like "the Lord" versus simple "God". A dictionary definition (my translation) of 神 is "A superhuman being that brings humans both good and bad fortune, reward and punishment; and is an object of faith and worship." The rest is details of what it can mean in different contexts, and there's no reason to unilaterally state that one meaning is more correct than another. Besides, if you believe Wiktionary, god's primary meaning is "a typically immortal being with superior powers", which fits nicely in all its generality (also 1913 Webster says "a being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc."), so misunderstanding might not arise from meanings of the words themselves as much as difference in their common usage in their respective cultures. 82.103.215.236 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the shin in Shinto means "truth" is, frankly, ridiculos. Yes, the phoneme shin can mean truth, but is written with a different character altogether, as somebody pointed out higher. My dictionary has 102 different entries for kanji that are read shin. One can't just simply go through them, pick one out and decide it's in fact the real kanji used in the word Shinto. Only one is - the one that's also read kami. And the differences between kami and gods/deities/spirits or whatnot are elaborated in the Kami article. TomorrowTime 17:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Women as theological figures

I have created the above page: can someone contribute as relevant please (and for any other religions).

Jackiespeel 17:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

documentation of theophany by kami

Does anyone know if there is documentation of visitations upon the living by kami? Chris 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out Nakayama Miki and see if that's what you're looking for. Fg2 05:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, this sets my mind at ease a little. :) Chris 18:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hell and Demons?

There are clearly demons and evil in shinto belief, but is there a Hell? Can one go to Hell if they die in Shinto? Basically, what's the deal with the afterlife according to shinto religion? 154.20.135.89 05:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

See Yomi for starters Fg2 05:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that answered my question :). 154.20.135.89 05:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Shamanism?

What is the source for regarding Shinto as a form of shamanism? I realize this is a fuzzy area, but I had always been given to understand that it was an animistic system, in which the priest's mediating/otherworldly role was quite minor. Perhaps I've been misled? -- Visviva 01:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Omikuji

Hope I'm not being too picky, but Omikuji isn’t really comparable to “drawing lots” as stated in the article. Drawing lots is typically a system used to decide on a course of action, whereas omikuji, while it follows the same outward form (i.e., selecting from a number random hidden sticks), it is a system of fortune-telling. Proposed edit: omikuji (a form of fortune telling)

Impurity Section

In the Impurity section it says"For obvious reasons, most female shrine members are pre-pubescent girls" I dont see the obvious reasons, could someone please tell me what they are. I guess they will be obvious once i understand. SpokaneWilly 05:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence. It's unclear what the author means by "shrine members," whether they are pre-pubescent girls, and what the obvious reasons are. At least those matters would need to be addressed before the sentence becomes credible. Fg2 05:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the article is that blood is also kegare - impurity. As such, mensturation and childbirth were the larger reasons for the exclusion of women from holy sites such as Fuji and (Mount Koya?) As I am on a bit of a time constraint (finals) and have none of the literature to give reference to for verification, an update from me of this section will have to wait. Perhaps someone else?... Foltake 08:49, 30 November 2006

Ratings and Edits

Well, we've been ranked and added. I'm happy with being assessed as B-rank, but maybe we should push for that last bit to good article? And why has there been such a rash of vandelism? --Iriseyes 17:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole "heaven" derivation

I've been reading the kojiki translation, and have come to a bit of a quandry; is the word "heaven" a form of bias in translation, or is it accurate? I'm not too up on Chamberlain, but i'm sure that because of the word "heaven", i immediately think of christian mythology and not Japanese. What is the derivation of the word "heaven" ? I'd be interested to know wether or not it provides an accurate idea of where the Kami where "born", because i derived that that place was called a "plane". James S 09:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Plane" is a better word, but it doesn't work perfectly either. "Heaven" is, in fact, a translation bias, because Heaven as a location is a Western concept for the most part...plane is a good word but not perfect either. Perhaps "divine space?"--Iriseyes 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Why doesn't Shinto have an infobox like virtually every other religion with an article on Wikipedia? It looks to be a perfect candidate for such an infobox. Lexicon (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Important Shrines

The shrine list is more of a list of tourist sites than shrines central to the religion. Atsuta and others need on the list. The list as it is should be called "Famous Shrines".

Frankness in history section

19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
"the ancestral deities of the Emperor of Japan and the Imperial family were given prominence over others and a narrative made up to justify it."
I do not object to the highlighted phrase, but wish such we lived in a world where such frankness was possible in articles on other religions, such as Christianity or Islam.

Kami and Ghosts: contradictory sentences

1 June 2007
Can someone who is knowledgeable on Shinto clear up the following two sentences:

Those who died would automatically be added to the rank of kami regardless of their human doings (It is thought that one can become a ghost under certain circumstances involving unsettled disputes in life).

The part in parenthesis contradicts the main sentence. I suspect the second part is contrasting Kami with the Western myths of ghosts who e.g. return to seek revenge or to atone for their actions etc. If so, the second sentence should begin e.g. "Unlike ghosts in Western mythology who ..."

No contradiction. You can be a ghost, especially an angry ghost, and a kami at the same time. I don't know enough about Japanese ghost beliefs to properly clear this up, though.

David Chart 06:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding, a ghost (especially the angry kind) is essentially the wrathful form of an ancestor god, or the spirit of one who has never received ancestor worship. They are similar to the wrathful forms of non-human gods, in that they're usually created by resentment or other ritual pollution, and can usually be propitiated by sacrifices. Nagakura shin8 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics

Why actually is the Yasukuni controversy put there? Yasukuni isn't a characteristic of Shintô, but a controversy triggered by certain religious/ideological believes. Instead there should be a point "Current controversies and criticisms" like in Christianity for example, where Yasukuni and other points, if there are any, should be summed up and linked to corresponding articles. Sven Lotz 09:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Priests

I think this article is lacking without a section on priests- their role, Japanese terms, costume (mentioned briefly in another section), training, ceremonies and rituals, etc. The section on practices covers some rituals, but doesn't distinguish between the role of priests, volunteers and regular parishioners in them. Such a section would also of course briefly describe miko. --DrHacky 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

---

HAPPY Gion Matsuri Day Today. It's Tue July 17, 2007 at 16:14 in Cabarroguis(Town approx 30 minutes drive SE of Cordon),Quirino(Province SE of Isabela(Province approx 8 hrs drive NE of Manila,Metro Manila)),Philippines. My site is at http://www.michaelmanalolazo.winnerbb.net Thanks.

Shinto and Buddhism

Does Shinto have anything to do with Buddhism?? Are they alike????????

Thank you.70.254.190.249 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Dot E70.254.190.249 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a huge issue, on which people take different positions. Until 1872, Shinto and Japanese Buddhism were very closely linked, with many temples (Buddhist) having a shrine (Shinto), and vice-versa. However, there is very little resemblance on a fundamental level; Shinto is much more concerned about this world than the next. This actually deserves its own article.

David Chart 01:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Moral/ethical aspects of Shinto?

I encountered a plausibly relevant analysis in an early 20th century monograph on the Taiko and Taihō reforms -- possibly deserving to be expanded into the text of this article:

" ... [The] lack of the moral assumption of the ruler has, except in some political phraseology borrowed from China, characterized the entire history of Japan, until the new [Meiji] Constitution of 1889 has granted to the people freedom of conscience, the Emperor standing above all faiths considered as moral principles.Note 1

Note 1: [The Emperor's] performance of the hereditary Shinto rites is ethical, and lacks moral significance.. His celebrated Educational Rescript of October, 1889, implies that Japan has from early times been bound together by moral ties, and exhorts himself and the people alike to virtue. It cannot be said to reflect any belief that the responsibility of maintaining the morals of the nation falls upon the Imperial person, and less that the Sovereign holds his throne by virtue of his ethical excellence. Moreover, the morals herein inculcated is, save the renewed assertion of the theory of the Imperial succession, eclectic in character and embraces Confucian, Buddhist, and Christian, as well as traditional native virtues. Even this much of the moral care of the Sovereign, still devoid as it is of exclusive moral dogmas of a purely national character, has been made possible by the progress of history. It would have been extremely anachronistic had the Rescript been issued in the pre-Reform days.[pp. 131-132, emphasis added]

• Asakawa, Kanichi. (1903). The Early Institutional Life of Japan: A Study in the Reform of 645. Toyko: Shueisha. [New York: Paragon Book Reprint Corp., 1963].

To me, this seems interesting -- appears important, but I don't quite see how there is enough in this one source to justify more than this terse posting on a Talk page. Maybe it could function as a catalyst ...? --Ooperhoofd 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Apollo

Can anyone provide more information about the blessing conferred on the Apollo 11 mission? Is there a source for that or was it just something the writer heard somewhere? I don't doubt its true (I saw a shrine to Thomas Edison in Japan), but I'd like to know more. --CarlJ7

Yes, this actually happened. The article links (linked?) to the web page of the monk who actually did the procedure. However, I haven't edited this article in a while, so the link might not be there any longer. --Iriseyes 13:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Most-known shrines

I thought Jennylen's recent edit was sensitive and subtle. I have two questions -- not suggestions, but trivial concerns which arise only because of the context:

• 1. ==Important shrines== -->> [edited to become] -->> ==Most known shrines==

I wonder if there is still a better word choice? I can't think of anything more idiomatic than "Well-known Shrines" ... which isn't really that much of an improvement. I wonder if we mull this over in the back of our minds, we might hit on a marginally-improved formulation? Just a thought ....

• 2. Line 182: Yasukuni Shrine (Tokyo), controversial shrine dedicated to the 'peace of the nation' and seen by some as a symbol of Japan's militaristic past.

I wonder if removing politics from the underlined clause is the best choice. There is no POV in the re-worked phrase, but the Yakasuni Shrine certainly does unquestionably arouse strong feelings. The mere mention of the shrine here (or in any other context) does introduce a distinctly different tone than is to be found in the remainder of the article's text. I can clearly appreciate the rationale for Jennylen's edit, and I'm not questioning impeccable judgment. Rather, I find that I am mildly troubled by the phrase as it was before the directness was ameliorated, and -- at the same time -- I continue to feel a bit uncertain about resolving those troubled feelings by elegantly side-stepping the triggered issues. Again, I wonder if we mull this over in the back of our minds, we might hit on a marginally-improved formulation?

Bottom line: The fact that I feel compelled to mention these minor points just serves to demonstrate that Jennylen's edit was handled with fine dexterity. --Ooperhoofd 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all thank you for your kind opinion about my editing. About your most interesting thoughts, I wonder if just "Shrines" and to use a first sentence as "Of the many existing Shinto shrines, the most known are:" will be better. And in the other thought, you may change "seen by some as a symbol of Japan's militaristic past" perhaps by "center of a debate about Japan's war-time issues" if wanting to avoid the "militaristic" word totally while alerting about the debate in course which the interested reader will probably look up in search engines.Jenny^Len☤ 20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't want to change a thing, at least not right now. I truly want to ponder this a bit. It didn't occur to me until I re-visited my thinking about Yakasuni in the crisp context of Jennylen's edit. From today's slightly changed perspective, I'm a bit seduced by the notion that it's better, more Japanese, more congruent with Shinto to ameliorate that mistakenly direct language. The impact has now been softened.

Is it wrong to conclude that former Prime Minister Koizumi's strategy (in terms of Yakasuni) was to side-step deftly away from issues which remain unresolved even now? I'm now wondering if I've been mistaken in failing to parse the immutable logic of what he did? what his predecessors did?

For now, I would let Jennylen's edit stand untouched. I guess I'm saying that I need to sleep on this. --Ooperhoofd 23:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Zodiac whistles

The following text was added to the article:

Shinto followers often own 'zodiac whistles'. These are special whistles made out of clay, modelled on the animal of the user's zodiac animal. It is said that if the user blows the whistle in a time of need then the spirit of their zodiac will assist them.

Does anyone have further information about this?

Fg2 21:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The article "Prayer"

The article Prayer has been nominated for Peer Review. It's weak in information on Japanese Buddhism, and the only mention of Shinto is in a photo. The article, the talk page, and the peer review are good places to insert material and sources, discuss directions for the article, and make suggestions. Possible topics include prayer by adherents of multiple religions or sects, prayer in sects as varied as Nichiren and Ōbaku and Shingon Mikkyō, prayer in present-day and in historic Shinto, the types of things people pray for at Shinto shrines (abundant harvest, good marriage, safe birth, success in studies...), ema, omikuji, hyakudo mairi, Jizō statues, State-sponsored religion (including Kokubun-ji and Gokoku-ji, the Ise Shrine, State Shinto etc.), recitation and copying of sutras, yamabushi, the monastic tradition, new religions; the blessing of automobiles, the fishing fleet, the sumo ring. The Ainu bear worship. Osorezan. Okinawan religion. Fg2 12:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am reposting this here hoping that someone more familiar with the Shinto religion will see that there is a request for such an entry in an article not traditionally associated with Shinto. To me, this is an omission which by itself constitute POV, yet it seems we have no one qualified and willing to fill the void. Thank you. --Blanchardb 13:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Shinto vs. Shintō

Is there a specific reason the macron is not used in the word Shinto? It seems as though that it is common to use the macron if the romanized word calls for it, but this is not the case with Shinto. --Torsodog (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's in authoritative English dictionaries without the macron as an English word. See Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster (on-line versions). Also see Encyclopaedia Britannica etc. The Hepburn romanization of the Japanese word has a macron; the English does not. Take a look at the first sentence of the article and you'll see our pattern: we use the English word for the subject, then present the Japanese script (神道) followed by the romanized form, which as you noted has the macron. Throughout the article, we use the English word. Fg2 (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So since we are referencing the English word and not the Japanese, the macron isn't used. Got it. I had a feeling that was going on, but I wanted to make sure. Thanks. -Torsodog (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another huge reason for not using the macron is that foreign words that are deemed common place tend to have punctuation marks like the macron stripped from the word. This is to make the word more accessible for English speaking nations. Another example would be résumé. While it is traditional to have accents on the 'e's in the word, it is very common place to see it written as resume. With the advancement of computer technology in the Western world, it is easier to type resume than résumé (unless you memorize the Alt+xxxx code that is). Going back to my original statement, since Shinto has no preferred English translation, it is left romanized and untranslated in English text. Regardless on the ramanization system used, it would have eventually be macron-less anyways since Japanese words are becoming more common place in English speech. Think Shogun or Tokyo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.86.254 (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Shinto/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

My grade C: see explanation =Talk:Shinto&oldid=273051742 here on the main talk page Shii (tock) 22:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

beseech

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.41.3.21 (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Four Affirmations

Bearing in mind Shinto's supposed lack of dogma, where do these "four affirmations" come from? At least a citation would be nice. If there not, then perhaps they should become "four things that the majority of Shintoists feel important" rather than "affirmations?" I don't think that they are fairly on the mark. But I am not aware of the existance of any "affirmations."--Timtak (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I found a reliable source! http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2056.html

Not

Bad Formatting of References

Somebody needs to clean up the references in this article. "(Averbuch, Irit pp.83-87)" & similar citations appear bracketed in the main text, whereas they should go in footnotes. Also somebody has tacked a load of sources as bullet points onto the bottom of the references section, which does not make it clear what part of the text is referencing these sources.

Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates for the proper ways to write & format citations. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done my best to sort it out. There are a few books listed which are not directly cited. Rather than delete them, I've put them in a 'Further Reading' section, as some other articles have this. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

History section?

Where is the founding date? famous Shinto priest? where is all the history? Does Shinto even qualify for being religion when there is no texts written? --Korsentry 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Considering almost all of Japan's native people (how big of an almost I don't know for certain) follow the ideology of shinto(and zenbudhism) I think it qualifies as a religion. There is no known founder or start date to the religion and it started off as nature worship. Unlike Christianity or other western monotheistic religions Shinto does not have a holly book of stories or what have you, that doesn't mean that the religion just started yesterday.71.94.63.105 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A holy text is typical of monotheistic religions, but not necessarily traditional indigenous belief systems. Greco-Roman paganism didn't have any definite source texts either, just a series of traditions passed down over the centuries. It's not a requirement to be a religion.75.137.184.182 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Considering how often this page is vandalized (most changes to it are vandalism-related), wouldn't it be better to semi-protect it, limiting editing to registered users? urashimataro (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a bad article

Shinto is one of the world's oldest religions, unfortunately this article does not support the depth and breadth of Shinto in Japan or its history. As such and being a Shinto lay historian I am going to endeavour to get this page on track. I am going to do a complete rewrite of this entry to see if wiki can present a good article about this topic. Unfortunately this current page has been taken directly from only about 2-3 texts and they are clearly a Christian interpretation of the 'pagan' religion. I will start this over and restructure it first and then flesh it out. Patience and I welcome all discussion and input to make this better than it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takashi Ueki (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see my "Downgraded to C" section below. I agree with you wholeheartedly: Shinto should be described for what it is, not how it relates to Christian concepts of religion. Specifically, the "theology" of Shinto should be mostly removed because the Kojiki is not a theological text and did not lay out the rules for preexisting institutions. Sections I would want to see, if you don't mind the suggestions, are pre-Buddhist religious practices, the period of Japanese-Buddhist syncretism (e.g. shugendo being a practice based on Japanese beliefs but justified by Shingon theology), and a description of State Shinto and the drastically changed function of ethnic religion after WW2. I think that would give a very enlightening summary of Shinto, although I am not Japanese myself. Just be sure to cite everything! Shii (tock) 18:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

By all means I will cite, I am working on a complete work now. If you would like to see one of my edits, see Yasukuni Shrine, one that was clearly biased and problematic. I have sections on history, important persons, religious practices, important holidays, and traditions. We will see how it goes from there. What do you all think about a section on gods in relation to regionalism? Takashi Ueki 1:55pm May 16th —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

That sounds like a good idea. Other articles on ethnic religions don't seem to summarize these local cults, but I think talking about the importance of locality and place would be an improvement over the strict Amaterasu->Izanami+Izanagi->others hierarchy. Shii (tock) 07:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting of this page

I have begun the sectional rewriting, and am attempting to add citations as possible, please give me some patience and I will be happy to take critical review as the work progresses. The article was laughable initially, but I am going to make a run at a complete overhaul. I will add a history section, with a timeline, religious developments, and important people given the time. I will also change some photos to the more relevant shrines and images, and not the travel guide pictures that are currently displayed. I will use my own photos as I have a very large collection from many shrines in Japan. Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad formatting of "Practices" section

I tried to correct some misspellings in the "Practices" section, but found that the "edit" links did not relate to the content. Something is seriously screwed up in the HTML. Can anyone put this right? Thanks. Bricology (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is regular vandalism to this page, it is very conerning as this must be considered "hate" related vandalism. My wish is that this page can be somewhat locked to prevent consistent vandalism by unregistered users and those wishing to damage the truth. If this can be done, please do it. Takashi Ueki (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this verifiable?

Quote: "It is generally accepted that the vast majority of Japanese people are Shinto. This same number may also be considered Buddhist and neither faith has exclusivity within its dogma. Most people in Japan are both by practice."

Is "generally accepted" correctly applied here? 96.255.106.92 (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Taoism vs Daoism

This is not the place for discussion of esoteric arguments of spelling. I have chosen to address this by adding alternate spellings so that there is no argument here. I care very little for this argument, and if you want to discuss this topic or add relevant content, feel free, however if you are simply going to change the spelling of a contested word, please go elsewhere. Both are acceptable based on many sources, but I will add both for the benefit of all. Reference the section on Daoism/Taoism here in Wikipedia and you will see. Takashi Ueki (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Shinto

There should maybe be an article on criticism of Shinto, since there are already entries on criticism of Buddhism, criticism of Hinduism, criticism of Judaism, criticism of Christianity, etc. ADM (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This would be a very boring page. It would say that Shinto supported nationalism and the response would be that this is either untrue to Shinto theology or government masquerading as Shinto. I think the critics and apologists would be arguing at cross purposes. Shii (tock) 17:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Shinto is not a national institution now, and criticizm pages usually are simply points for argument starters. Also the criticism frequently is based on one sect or another but applied to the religion as a whole, making the arguments spurious at best, lies at worst. Takashi Ueki (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the same is true of arguments against most belief systems - Christianity is often identified by the beliefs of extreme fundamentalists rather than moderates, Islam is often overshadowed by the publicity terrorists get, Communism is for many associated with Stalin's purges, and so forth. -moritheil^Talk 10:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

Question, is the "area" in the sentence "if anyone is injured on the grounds of a shrine, the area affected must be ritually purified" refering to a place in the shrine grouds where someone was injured or a spot where the person was injured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.73.132 (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A Conflict?

I noticed that it says that both Ko Shinto and Shrine Shinto (in the Types of Shinto section) are the oldest. Which is older, and if it is not known, could we change it to reflect that? 74.95.174.161 (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ko Shinto means "old Shinto"; I have no idea who actually practices Ko Shinto, and I thought it was just a historical category. Shrine Shinto, which is the original form AFAIK, is distinguished from Sect Shinto, which is an attempt by the leftover structure of old State Shinto to integrate several 19th century NRMs underneath the "Shinto" banner. Shii (tock) 21:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Koshintō actually is own sect (seperate from sect shinto or shrine shinto) as this article implies? Are there any sources for the word used this way other than Yamakage? Despite being a Japanese religion major, I had never heard of Koshintō until this wikipedia article.221.23.238.148 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What up Japanese religion major buddy. I think Koshinto is an academic category that does not have any corresponding sect. Shii (tock) 00:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Always nice to see a fellow. Concerning Koshinto, do you (or anyone) think it should be included in the 'Types of Shinto' section in this article? Would it be better to perhaps talk about it in the History section? I don't want to change things I am (obviously) not an expert in.221.23.238.148 (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Shinto and shoes

The article says that in Japan, removing one's shoes is an influence from Shinto. Any source on this? I know that other Asians, such as the Chinese, also tend to remove shoes in the home, whereas Shinto is a Japanese religion. This would seem to contradict that Shinto is the main motivating factor for shoe removal. -moritheil^Talk 10:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed as spurious Shii (tock) 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Shoes and Shrines

In what shrines are you supposed to remove your shoes, in the five that I visited in tokyo, none had any signs or people crying at us and pointing at our feet. I understand that Tokyo receives heavy tourism and even more foot traffic around anything that glints in the sun; like the Meiji shrine, which has floors made of granite or slate, made to tolerate millions of people. Unless they counted the Jika-Tabi (note: I was not wearing Jika-Tabi just because I was going to Japan, they happened to be my only comfortable footwear) I was wearing as not shoes or it only applies to indoor carpeted shrines, this leaves me in a rather confused state. The only time that anyone ever fussed at me was when I sat on the steps at the foot of the Meiji shrine.

User:Aryeonos 71.94.63.105 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

New Section to go after 'Shinto and Buddhism', quote referenced with permission from the ARC:

{{editsemiprotected}} ===Shinto and Ecology===
It is the forests, and not the buildings, that mark the true shrines of Shintoism. The deities are invited to these forests, where they and their environment are protected by the local community, which in turn is protected by the deities.

So although the 'chinju no mori' or sacred groves around Shinto shrines are revered as the dwelling place of the kami spirits, it is the kami which are worshipped, not the trees.

Most of Japan’s largest and oldest trees (some dating back several thousand years) lie within chinju no mori, protected because of their sanctity. The following was extracted from a paper given by Reverend Kuniaki Kuni, Chairman of the Association of Shinto Shrines, at Visby’s Faith and Forestry Gathering:

For the Shinto, purity and righteousness are important factors—preserving the beauty of nature and the purity of heart. However, the decline in religiousness in Japan has led to increased littering in public places. Rubbish can be found on the mountain trail of Mt. Fuji which has become a public issue. I am increasingly realizing the role the Shinto can play to help tackle these issues. It is important to remember how our ancestors appreciated and recognized nature’s blessings. We must reflect on our sense of values since often we place too much emphasis on materialism. To realize the reduction of CO2 emission prescribed in Kyoto Protocol, and to improve and resolve the world’s environmental problems, we must recognize that each individual plays an essential role. Also, together with governments and leaders of various fields from around the world, we, religious people, must persevere in our efforts.

As part of their environmental ethos, then, members of the Shinto faith have devised a “long-term commitment” to protecting the environment in cooperation with The Alliance of Religions and Conservation. With support from the U.N. they will be attending the Windsor Conference in November 2009 to present their plan for Sustainable Management of Sacred Forests, which will include management all of their sacred forests in sustainable ways, and the purchasing of timber solely from sustainably managed forests on behalf of their 80,000 or more shrines. Laurajanejackson1984 (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, but the entire section is an almost word for word copy of the source. Celestra (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Shrines Section is pitiful

I am going to rewrite it. Let me know how it goes. Takashi Ueki (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Yamatokotoba" and "kami no michi"

The article states the opposite, however; these two terms are of different meaning! "Yamatokotoba" refers to words native to Japan (as opposed to words derived from China etc.). "Kami no michi", 神の道, is equal to the term Shintou, 神道, in meaning (the way of the gods), but different in that it is the native Japanese reading, in other words the "yamatokotoba version" of the term. "Shintou" is the adapted Chinese-like reading of the two Chinese characters meaning "god" and "way" (both abstract and actual ones). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.99 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary

The summary section prior to the actual article seems too long, does anyone else think it should be shortened?96.49.141.252 (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was consensus against move, with a whiff of WP:POINT — æk^Talk 04:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

---

{{movereq|Shintō}}

Shinto → Shintō —

• Hepburn romanization says that it should be written Shintō. As Hepburn is the standard way of writing Japanese in Latin characters, that's what the article title should be.   75.33.218.91 (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Perfectly a loan word. See following dictionary results.

• Dictionary.Com
• Encyclopedia.com
• FreeDictionary.com
• Merriam-Webster

　―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: The MOS guidelines clearly state that macrons should not be used for Japanese terms commonly used in English - specifically mentioning "Shinto" as an example. Making this a formal move request quite frankly just wastes everyone's time. --DAJF (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose "Shinto" is the English word that is the name of the religion in English of the Japanese religion "Shintō", so it is the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH compliant, whereas the suggestion is not. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH Flamarande (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Move: The Manual of Style isn't law; any arguments based solely on it, without any logical reasons as to why misspelling a name is better, are invalid and can therefore be discounted. Furthermore, the most easily recognized English name should mean the most familiar one to all English speakers, not just native speakers. Therefore, the entire population of Japan must be included in this group, since all Japanese children are required to learn English in school. Therefore, since they most certainly recognize the proper Hepburn form of the word, rather than the Anglicized version, it should be used. --Jean-Luc Pikachu (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment have you seen Japanese "Engrish"? English Wikipedia really will disappear following that reasoning. I suppose this article should be rewritten in the most common bad grammar used in Japan for English because of WP:ENGVAR on which variety of English should be used? 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Finally Recruited a Real Expert

I have found a high ranking Shinto Priest to assist in the accuracy of this article. There appear to be some competing interests in getting the "new shinto" religions recognized and this should be expanded. Also I will be bringing a discussion of the Jomon period back into this as clearly Shinto did not just pop up in 300 BCE, but now with actual citations of archeological evidence. Also I noticed a great amount of editing of cited text. Clearly the citations are to quote the work accurately and if you change the text you need to either cite the work you are using or refrain from doing so. I've also noted that there seems to be a bias for either questionable or really poor online articles to be cited. Random unpublished and non peer reviewed work has no place cited in a good article. Just because somebody online said it, does not make it true. Also making major changes without any discussions or logging in is a very questionable practice. I am going to ask for limitations on this article to keep the sources clear. This has been vandalized regularly and cited material removed even though it is accurate and appropriate. There is a long way to go here, but in a couple of weeks, I will have a complete audit, with a Shinto Historian/Priest, and try to come to a near final article in 2-3 weeks. Takashi Ueki (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A Shinto priest may well be an expert, but at the same time may not present an unbiased point of view. Perhaps that is why the article seems to present Shinto belief as fact. I think that the article needs a few more "it is believed that"s.--Timtak (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

'natural' spirituality

I have combined the three criticisms of the phrase above in the first sentence for further debate. I believe that Jinja Honcho's site begins with a similar affirmation. I think that the idea is that other religions are seen as having a founder (thus are human-made, artificial) whereas Shinto is seen to have evolved, "naturally" out of the environment, or human interactions with the environment. All the same, anything that involves human acts may be argued to be non-natural/human-made. --Timtak (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The very first sentence, "Shinto (神道, Shintō?) or kami-no-michi is the natural spirituality of Japan and the Japanese people," absolutely reeks of a lack of neutrality. How exactly can a country, or any other entity, have a "natural spirituality." Kronos o (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think "natural" might mean "nature-based". Shii (tock) 03:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What does "nature-based" mean? (1) Based upon worship of nature (2) Having a natural foundation/naturall arising. I think that (1) is undisputed but (2) may be Shinto POV.

Poor Syntax

Characterizing Shinto as the "natural spirituality of Japan" is wrong-headed, and probably just reflects a poor command of English. I would instead suggest "traditional, nature-centered religion of Japan", which I hope will better convey the writer's intention. The phrase currently used seems to imply, in particular, that it is unnatural for a Japanese person to be a Buddhist or a Christian. This would represent a highly biased value-judgement that would obviously be inappropriate for a fact-based resource like the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.233.185 (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

what does the 'natural spirituality of the people' even mean

smells like religious fundamentalism. --94.69.75.245 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just Wrong

Shinto was invented in the 1870's; the use of an old name seems to have confused the writer of the article. Before that period, Shinto was one of many "spiritualities" in Japan and was selected and *massively* altered by governmental edicts as a response to the threat from the Christian west, taking a lot from Confucianism (almost all of its underlying theory). I don't know exactly how one fits "*the* indigenous spirituality" into that historical framework since it is neither alone nor indigenous.

But, hey, it's Wikipedia so I guess facts aren't as important as citations, even if they cite wildly inaccurate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.248.115 (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Fairly good revision

This article gets edited a lot by know-nothings, so I'll make a note of the current revision, which is fairly good: [1] Restore to it! Shii (tock) 00:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

"Refimprove" tag.

Hi all, I noticed this page has a {{Refimprove|date=July 2008}} tag on it. I think there is no reason this article is not FA status. I suppose the first thing is to get the refs. While we are citing them I think a lot of the page should be re-written for better copy-editing as well. I am of course going to work on this myself, but if anyone else can suggest citable sources It would be much appreciated. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have looked through the refs that are here and most of them are lacking in peer review and quality. I have a fairly large (and growing) library of peer reviewed and scholarly books on the subject. Many were authored fifty years ago or more, but they have stood the test of time and have been continually updated during re-printings. Books like G. B. Sansom's "Japan: A Short Cultural History", which is cited in at least 95 other books (according to google). W. G. Aston's translation of the "Nihiongi". And Basil Hall Chamberlain's Kojiki (a bit obtuse due to its age and use of Latin, but still highly regarded). As well as "Shinto the Kami Way" by Ono Soyoko, it is much more approachable and contemporary. I have others and more are on the way, but these are well known and all highly regarded in the academic world. I hope no one objects to me rewriting sections based on these references. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One major flaw in these books is their lack of critical context. Aston may be okay-- it's been a while since I read his work-- but Chamberlain definitely suffered from a combination of Japanese propaganda and a Christian lens. The reason there are so many old books on the subject is because the prewar Japanese polity was bound up with ancient history and legend. It concerns me that the resulting article might focus more on the Hakkoichiu (i.e. 1930s inventions) than the Tokoyonokuni (ancient traditions). Unfortunately I have not yet found a better compilation in English than the recent Shinto in History: Ways of the Kami (Breen and Teeuwen, 2000), which it itself wanting, and I don't have access to that at the moment as I've graduated college. So, I read your message earlier but didn't have anything to reply with. To become a featured article in my mind this article must focus much more on the self-explanations of non-esoteric Japanese writers. Shii (tock) 22:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you about Chamberlain, and I went ahead and ordered Shinto in History: Ways of the Kami by Breen. I will give it a read and try to incorporate its useful bits into my revisions. I think some of the other older authors are quite good though, and would like to cite them where appropriate. Colincbn (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ono Sokyo is almost certainly reliable (I've only read him in Japanese, but that's solid), but he has been dead for twenty years, and his position is a bit dated now. In particular, he seems to push the origins of Shinto further into the past than most current scholars would, and also seems to accept significantly more of the legends as being historically based than contemporary opinion does. Breen and Teeuwen have just (this year) published A New History of Shinto, which I haven't read yet but which should be pretty reliable, given the authors. Shinto in History is good, but it's a collection of articles, not an overview, so its coverage is very uneven. You might also take a look at The Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, which is all online, and all peer-reviewed. You can find the Shinto-related articles by looking at the titles. The English Encyclopedia of Shinto is also a good peer-reviewed source for checking individual points, although I don't recommend reading it straight through. It's probably a very good place to find a concise cite for a single fact, though. Simple Guide: Shinto by Ian Reader is also a good, simple overview. For Japanese works in translation, Shinto: A Short History is available. I haven't read it, but I've read Japanese books by original authors, and they are very good. I hope this helps a bit. David Chart (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with David here. Just be aware that Japanese writers on Shinto usually have an interest in proving that some legend or another is of very great age, and American writers were until recently overconcerned with proving political/religious points, and both sides used to create a false pan-Japanese syncretism. Ideally, the works we cite should avoid all of those problems. All those listed by David are great examples. Shii (tock) 04:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I forgot I was working on this... Breen and Teeuwen have put out a new history of Shinto which is the best work I've ever read on the subject. I will sprinkle it liberally throughout the page when I get home today. Shii (tock) 00:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical error

In the article text under History under Post-War the following sentence no parse good English:

There are, however, several Shinto shrines in America, which has a large number of people of Japanese descent.

As written, this appears to say that the Shinto shrines have a large number of people of Jspanese descent. While it is clear that the latter phrase is meant to modify "America", it is ambiguously worded. I would fix this myself, but the page is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LrdDimwit (talk • contribs) 19:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence "It serves as a pagan religion from the ancient times until World War II, and its defeat and surrender." should include "Japan" somewhere unless the author intended to imply Shinto itself was defeated and surrendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.181.154 (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Expansion

I am continuing to expand this article to its full culmination of history, and relevance. However the section on impurity, purification, and some other article matter is very thin. There needs to be a full discussion of the relevance of impurity and purification as an in depth part of this very rich and deep religion. They make it sound as though these are like washing your hands. Although the blessing of Apollo 11 and other events may be interesting facts they are not relevant to Shinto as a major religion and should be a footnote not a core article discussion. I will re-edit these sections after the history section is complete.

Pardon my lack of citations, my citation document has been lost and I will have to recreate it. Give me some time. Takashi Ueki (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think so, as I remember most religious surveys of modern Japanese society show that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fengzi555 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Abstract "Natural" Forces...?

So, how exactly are trees, rivers, and rocks abstract? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.186.17 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Buddhist ancestor worship"?

Say Confucian ancestor worship if you like. It would still be wrong, but less hysterically inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.244.132 (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Downgraded to C

I am an expert in Japanese Buddhism, not Shinto, but this article is hilariously bad. A few examples from the first two paragraphs:

1. "Shinto is the Japanese religion": two citations without page numbers. One is to a popular encyclopedia of world religions-- the type of book that is notorious for misstating the nature of Far Eastern religions.
2. "Some kami ... represent ... processes": A bold claim indeed. I'd like to see a source for that.
3. Self-contradiction between "The earliest Japanese thoughts do not refer to a unified religion" and "Some differences exist between Shintoism (the ancient Shintō) and the many types of Shinto taught and practiced today". The first statement was added by me and is correct. The second, despite being sourced, is very confused (what is "Shintoism", anyway?).
4. "compound words [in Japanese] use Chinese pronunciation": Not all of them.
5. "[Shinto] is considered the native religion of Japan." By who? Hint: the category "religion" was invented by Western scholars.
6. "...to which few people give religious connotations". The previous sentence of this article was from the Western academic's POV: in this sentence, Western academics are ignored entirely. Now we need to figure out whether Wikipedia is going to stick with the modern academic analysis of Shinto or how it was popularly seen in Japan in each respective era. Pick one or the other, or even both, but don't contradict yourself.
   
   A few more prize examples of the awful state of this article:
7. "Though Shinto has no absolute commandments for its adherents outside of living 'a simple and harmonious life with nature and people', there are said to be 'Four Affirmations' of the Shinto spirit." Weasel wording for an unsourced claim, which is then repeated in full.
8. "Kagura is the ancient Shinto ritual dance of Shamanic origin." There is only one Kagura? Also, how does Shinto differ from shamanism? The previously unmentioned prehistoric shaman connection comes out of left field.
9. "the customs and values of Shinto are inseparable from those of Japanese culture" Sounds like a budding D.T. Suzuki wrote this passage.

Shii (tock) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at this nonsense passage:

A more personal purification rite is the purification by water. This may involve standing beneath a waterfall or performing ritual ablutions in a river-mouth or in the sea (misogi). This practice comes from Shinto history, when the kami Izanagi-no-Mikoto first performed misogi after returning from the land of Yomi, where he was made impure by Izanami-no-Mikoto after her death. These two forms of purification are often referred to as harae (祓).

First: pick a term, misogi or harae. You can't explain both at once. Second: don't repeat just-so stories from mythology at face value. Wikipedia is supposed to cite secondary sources. Shii (tock) 00:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Shintos are amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.235.110 (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"I agree"

My sister is Japanese and practices Buddhism like her family, I myself was raised Baptist. Buddhism is a way of life, this "worship" word is way out in left field and fueled by the ignorance of our christian leaders, this I know first hand. It would be nice to block this word so that it is necessary to explain the practice of a culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.228.198 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Introduction of writing

im really uncertain where this should go so im sorry if this is not the proper place. without being too in-depth i would like to mention a need for a revision in the, if i remember, kofun section, which deals with the introduction of writing. It says writing came from China and Buddhism came from Korea (Paekche), but ther is very strong evidence and has for the most part been shown that writing was introduced via Korea as well. China > Korea (Paekche) > Japan. see Miyake 2008 unpublished Hawaii University dissertation or book "A Reconstruction of Old Japanese" this is a small but very important detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.208.104 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure which sentence you are referring to. In the Kofun Period section it only says: "The Paekche Kingdom ... imported the Chinese writing system ..." No idea whether this is correct or not as I don't know anything about Korean history, but in any case it does not say anything about introduction of writing to Japan as far as I can see. bamse (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Lurie - Realms of Literacy: Early Japan and the History of Writing (2011) - says "The Japanese encounter with Chinese writing was a complex meeting of different languages and different degrees of social organization that included several polities on the Korean peninsula." (p.83) He goes on to discuss the Seven-Branched Sword, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Afterlife?

The section on the afterlife doesn't actually say anything about the afterlife. Shouldn't it be renamed, or perhaps actual content about the afterlife could be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.181.51 (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it somewhat, although I don't have any citations available right now. Shii (tock) 05:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Traditional Shinto does not have a "afterlife" per se. The individual goes on to live as a ancestral kami at physical death, and therefore remains close to the family. In a way, the person does not die. They just escape their body, but remain the same person as before. Only as a kami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.219.173 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nationalism and religion

Whenever the article says "people of Japan" or "Japanese nation", I can't help thinking that the whole idea of nationalism was born around 19th century; there's no way that vocabulary should be used to describe an old religion. There should be a much more explicit distinction between two things: when do we refer to modern "state Shinto" or whatever, and when we refer to pre-nationalism shinto (if there was such thing) etc. All in all, this reads almost like a pamphlet from modern shintoists than an encyclopedia article. --Sigmundur (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello I wrote this sentence from japan,
If possibole as Editing belows sentence.

I'll Adding it,Next paragraph of Koukogaku,Historysections.

+ + + +

I stop My requests.
Because Urashimataro-san made it a nice section of Shinbutsu shūgō and the jingūji and Shinbutsu bunri　in Shinto shrine.

I think That sections is copying or summary to "Shinto"'s Subjects better.

I knew My English is Gloomy...(Infact it's used B-ing translater...) ;-p
I would some one Makes nice sections...so He made it!
Thank you　Very much! Urasimataro-san.

I Confused,"Shinto" and "Shinto shrine"....

Arigato, from .jp
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakisakisaki (talk • contribs) 02:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Mental Health

Motohisa Yamakage in his highly regarded Essence Of Shinto: Japan's Spiritual Heart says that sometimes the initiate or practitioner of Shinto may undergo a psychosis on a semi-regular basis. I would wager that it is from initiation but he is not clear on this. Is there any scholarship that is clearer than him?

This is important because the same or similar [sic, same, ok?] experience happens in Korean Shamanism, Yoga [sic, see David Gordon White's Sinister Yogis, yoga is a form of shamanism] and Qi Gong has the Qi Gong Deviation psychosis

The pitch would be, according to Motohisa Yamakage, that through the self-loss, an offering of human spirit or ki or life force or ectoplasm.. to the attendant kami, brings dramatic ki fluctuations.

in The Darkened Room by Alex Owen, it is said that the spiritualists considered mania as a rite of passage. Similarly this is so in Korean Shamanism.

I take these matters very seriously, I had an experience like this myself, and I am a practicing shaman living in Montreal Canada. Influenced by the occult of the 1990s.

I also recommend The Idea Of The Holy by Rudolf Otto for further reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troll ov Grimness (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Dating of Shintoism

Isn't it around 700 BCE? But no where mentioned. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You would be better off saying 700 CE. However, nobody beats Hinduism in using fanciful dates for propaganda purposes. The article states 600 BC which is way too early already. There is a difference between "seeing elements" of Shinto and Shinto itself. Like much of Japanese history, what you think of as Japanese (Shinto, Emperor, Samurai, etc.) occurred well into the common era. Japanese culture is very young. They didn't get going really as "Japanese" until after Rome fell to put things into perspective. Westerners confuse continuity of ethnicity with age of culture when it comes to Asian history. Westerners see their own history as a chain that goes back to Greece, Egypt, and Ancient Israel but with each individual ethnic group coming and going. The age of the ethnicity within this framework is used as a proxy for its level of contribution. Ancient Greeks lasted 800 years (1200 BC -400 BC), Romans 800 years (300 BC-4/500 AD), Germans (tribes) 400, etc. Each group comes and goes but the culture remains under the care taking of a new group or collection of groups. In Asian history, for the most part, the same ethnic group continues the tradition and so it gives the appearance of age from an ethnic perspective when it is just really showing a lack of acceptance for ethnic diversity in the preservation of the culture. Even modern Greeks and Italians do not consider themselves the same people of "their" storied past, nor should they. They are the decedents of all the slaves that were brought over and the conquerors that that conquered the original ethnicity. For instance, Modern Italian ethnicity starts really in the late Middle Ages and Early Renaissance. Although they feel proud of the history of the geographic region they do not maintain continuity with that culture unlike in many Asian cultures. The Japanese very much see themselves as the same people of 700 AD Japan. Sure technology and clothing has changed but their "heart" is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.50.156 (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I had added 600 BCE, and provided a source too, the same day when i opened this section. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing you per se. You followed the rules. Even a cursory search on the web gives dates from 1000 BC to 200 BC. Wikipedia rules are if you can cite it from a somewhat reliable source then you are good to go (barring discussion and consensus if there is a dispute). Most of the literature on Shintoism is not very precise about its origins because it does not really have one (so you can't say " Founded in..") since it is based in folk culture, animism, and ancestor worship- all non-historical developments, OR rather what we now call Shintoism probably did not come into play until the Yamato clan became dominant 200-300 AD and their form of animism and ancestor worship became the dominant flavor, evolving into the state religion. Frankly, you can even argue that Shintoism didn't exist until the publication of the Kojiki in 712 AD since a Religion is defined by literacy and organized societal worship, but that goes too far for me. From a historical perspective very little is known about Japan and the people who eventually became the Japanese before 400 AD so already in my mind to make a statement going back to 600 BC seems suspect. By the Japanese people's own cultural understanding, Shintoism is the "native" belief of the Japanese people who in turn trace themselves to Yamato. However, the Jomon people and followed by the Yayoi people (300-100 BC), not to mention the Ainu people, were most likely not of the same ethnicity of the Japanese people. Until the Yamato clan migrated in force from Kyushu (0-100 AD) and spread the direct descendants of the Japanese people throughout the Japanese islands, most of Japan was populated by "indigenous" peoples (whether they were earlier distant waves of Japanese, other Asians [other Asian ethnicities are purported to have at one point populated Japan; academics argue over this], or North Asian migrants of West Asian descent- mixed Asian/European descent). It is HIGHLY unlikely that Shintoism developed until it had absorbed and/or fought off all these other religious systems. It is even possible that Shintoism came from non-Japanese. Hence back to Yamato and their interactions with these other people. Additionally, clans almost develop their own sects when it comes to religion. You see this in many animistic and polytheistic religions. Look at Ancient Greece. Even in monotheism, Yahweh is simply the God of the Ancient Hebrews made dominant to the point that it "exterminated" the other gods (even a commandment to its believers!). So in the end to even give a rough guess that Shinto developed at 700 BC, 600 BC, or even 200 BC is suspect. Anyway, good job on your work for the article :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.50.156 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest removing the "citation needed" tag from the basic claim in the "Cultural heritage" section. Speling12345 (talk) 7:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014

"Founded in 660 BC according to Japanese mythology" It's not mythology. It is the main religion of Japan to this day. It is history and should be referred to as such. "Founded in 660 BC according to Japanese history" 66.229.245.185 (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It was an undiscussed change, it used to be just "Founded in 660 BC" before. Changed it. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Shinto religion as a means to prolong the existing Imperial status

Shinto has been used as a means of prolonging the existing Imperial status. Shinto atheists and non-shinto atheists are repeatedly merged as one group for political reasons, mainly in order the imperial status quo be maintained as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.211.88 (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A brief about Dao vs Tao

The old westernized Tao pronunciation is not the currently accepted use in Publishing and Literary circles. The Library of Congress uses "Dao" as the Pinyin system is considered more accurate and ISO also has adopted it as has the UN, and most other international organizations.

...proponents for both sides of the Daoism-Taoism debate make valid arguments. Some prefer the Wade-based Taoism because it is more familiar than Daoism and because the borrowing is a fully assimilated English word anyway; such words are generally unaffected by later systems of romanization. However, many of these traditionalists will accept using pinyin for more recent Chinese borrowings. Others prefer pinyin-based Daoism because of growing acceptance internationally of Hanyu Pinyin as the standard romanization for Chinese, as reflected in other recent spelling changes such as the pinyin Beijing that replaced the Wade Pei-ching or Chinese Postal Map Romanization Peking. In conclusion, three illustrative outcomes of Daoism vs. Taoism are given from publishing, library, and Wikipedia spheres.

First, publishing houses have profit concerns about changing romanizations of foreign books. Many more English translations are titled Tao Te Ching than Dao De Jing, making the former spelling more familiar to native speakers. Academic publishers are more likely than others to adopt pinyin; Columbia University Press changed the titles of Burton Watson's translations from "Chuang Tzu" to "Zhuangzi" and from "Han Fei Tzu" to "Hanfeizi".

Second, libraries have independent concerns about revising legacy Wade-Giles catalogs to contemporary pinyin. After the Library of Congress converted to pinyin in 1997, librarian Jiajian Hu (1999:250-1) listed three reasons why they deemed Wade-Giles unsatisfactory and added four more.

   * First, it had phonetically redundant syllables.
   * Second, it failed to render the Chinese national standard pronunciation.
   * Finally, it wasn't able to show the semantic distinctions between multiple readings of single characters. …
   * The Pinyin system of romanization of Chinese is now generally recognized as standard. …
   * Most users of American libraries are now familiar with pinyin romanization. …
   * The use of pinyin romanization by libraries facilitates the exchange of data with foreign libraries. …
   * Pinyin has more access points than Wade-Giles for online retrieval.

Therefore - Dao it is. I will continue to make that change.

"Taoism" and "Daoism" are actually pronounced exactly the same. Wades-Giles just used "t" to represent an unaspirated Voiceless alveolar stop (which to English speakers sounds exactly like a "d"), and Pinyin used "d" to represent the same phoneme. English speakers ignorant of the rules of the Wade-Giles system tend to pronounce "t" as an aspirated voiceless alveolar stop, which is a mistake. The Pinyin spelling doesn't have the same problem.75.137.184.182 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Action-centered religion?

"It is defined as an action-centered religion" I can't find any reference to what an "action-centered religion" is. The citation is "Williams, 2004" which also can find no reference to. Is this a real classification of religion? What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.151.71 (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been bold and deleted that idiom for the moment: it can go back in when elaborated upon ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I've seen the concept referred to as "ritual-based", "Action-centered" would, in my guess, be a reference to the idea that Shinto is a set of rituals, less so a set of doctrines. I note, though, that the distinction may be limited to State Shinto, which is the article I've been researching/improving. I agree with your decision to remove it, just posting this to offer some direction if someone wants to fix that up. Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Animist or not?

'Animist' and 'animism' are not mentioned in the article. Yet there are sources that say that Shinto falls into the animist category. The question of whether Shinto is animist is in the Talk archive, but I think that it needs to be addressed in the article. High school students need this, I know of at least one high school textbook that says that Shinto is an animist religion. Please could those who know of references to this matter address the question in the article.Strayan (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Not. I added this line: Early anthropologists called Shinto "animistic" in which animate and inanimate things have spirits or souls that are worshiped. The concept of animism in Shinto is no longer argued. [ref]George Williams (2009). Shinto. Infobase Publishing. pp. 151 note 13.[/ref] Rjensen (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, that very same book does actually refer to Shinto as "animist" on page 29, and this source [ref]Picken, Stuart. Historical Dictionary of Shinto. p. 40.[/ref] suggests there are elements of animism in Shinto. (On the other hand, there seems to be no mention in "A New History of Shinto". Is there an issue with Shinto having been through an animist phase? (Is animism something of a dirty word?) I think it might be good to explain why Shinto is not considered animist by scholars given that it is frequently described as such in non-specialist texts - including Wikipedia's own page on animism. OsFish (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I also have now in front of me a book: Yamakage, Motohisa (2006). The Essence of Shinto. Kodansha International. p. 31.　which says "The sensitivity through which Japanese people can see the vital energy of the Kami in all of nature is also rich in spirituality, since it feels and perceives various kinds of spirits. From a Western point of view this way of perception is called pantheism or animism, whicb means a way that perceives the spirit in every living organism or natural formation." The author is a retired Grand Master of the Yamakage shrine, so his view might count for something. (Or is his idea specific to his form of Shinto, or is his understanding of "animism" a peculiar one?)OsFish (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That Shintō is NOT animistic is such an extraordinary statement that it, not the opposite view, must be justified. I do not question the statement's correctness, but it is so unusual that you must explicitly state why Shinto is not animistic, particularly when what you say seems to agree with the definition of animism. I have dozens of books about Shinto yet, as a reader, am very confused by this sentence. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I've checked the reference again used for the idea that animism in Shinto "is no longer argued", and what it actually says is that the concept of animism is outdated, not that Shinto is not animistic. It's also a footnote. Given that animism is plainly still used as an idea (according to google scholar), I think it's best to change the article (remove the line and add something else). I defer to Taro Urashima who has (dozens minus two) books more than me to make that change (pretty please). OsFish (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2016

There is a huge space between two sentences on this one so someone needs to remove all the enter button presses. 168.8.56.7 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Picture of shinto priest and priestess (??)

The description for the picture reads "Seen at a ritual at Yasaka shrine, when elderly people, dressed as Shinto priests, chanted songs, whilst younger priestesses performed a very slow dance Kagura." So, it seems even the picture says they are people 'dressed as priests' and not real priests. However, I'm pretty sure these are not the clothes traditionally worn by shinto priests. I'm pretty sure these people are just musicians/singers from some troupe, invited by Yasaka Jinja to perform. Anyone that agrees/disagrees/knows more about it? Geertrinkel (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It does appear to be unreliable, so I've removed it. Thanks for pointing it out Geertrinkel. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

General

This can just be a general section for anything else.76.5.150.106 (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Oh by the way, anyone know the name of that symbol that looks like a flaming drop of water?76.5.150.106 (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shinto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.naranet.co.jp/gallery-e/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212140632/http://heianjingu.or.jp/index_e.html to http://www.heianjingu.or.jp/index_e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Symbol of Shinto

I think that the symbol that best represents Shinto is the threefold tomoe, not the torii. The tomoe figures in many Japanese shrines and it is also used by the Tsubaki Grand Shrine of America. Someone should make a red threefold tomoe and add it to the template. Though the article "tomoe" is in a bad state, it says "Some view the mitsudomoe as representative of the threefold division (Man, Earth, and Sky) at the heart of the Shinto religion". This is the same trinity that is found in Chinese religion and Korean shamanism (represented by a threefold taegeuk in the latter).--87.2.113.191 (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Symbol of Shinto

I think that the symbol that best represents Shinto is the threefold tomoe, not the torii. The tomoe figures in many Japanese shrines and it is also used by the Tsubaki Grand Shrine of America. Someone should make a red threefold tomoe and add it to the template. Though the article "tomoe" is in a bad state, it says "Some view the mitsudomoe as representative of the threefold division (Man, Earth, and Sky) at the heart of the Shinto religion". This is the same trinity that is found in Chinese religion and Korean shamanism (represented by a threefold taegeuk in the latter).--87.2.113.191 (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Symbol of Shinto

think that the symbol that best represents Shinto is the threefold tomoe, not the torii. The tomoe figures in many Japanese shrines and it is also used by the Tsubaki Grand Shrine of America. Someone should make a red threefold tomoe and add it to the template. Though the article "tomoe" is in a bad state, it says "Some view the mitsudomoe as representative of the threefold division (Man, Earth, and Sky) at the heart of the Shinto religion". This is the same trinity that is found in Chinese religion and Korean shamanism (represented by a threefold taegeuk in the latter).--87.2.113.191 (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:5010:5800:F504:B47E:FD8F:2109 (talk)  

Hinduism

YEEEEEEKKK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:5010:5800:F504:B47E:FD8F:2109 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Article Bregading.

It has come to my attention that a small group of users, about 90 at the time of writing on Reddit, has tried to joke edit this article multiple times with a variation of the religion called "kawaiishinto". They claim to praise "lolis" (a word that can be translated or is slang small girls in some sort of variation), and are trying to make a joke about a real religion to defend their posting of debatable child porn as a "joke". While people have done a great job reverting their edits so far, I feel that this article may need to be locked if this behavior continues. Rudito22 (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. I reverted their edits a couple of times, but i didn't know where it's coming from. Kind of weird. SpartaN (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely and deleted their hoax draft. Let me know if this nonsense continues. El_C 07:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2019

Shinto (神道 Shintō) or kami-no-michi (as well as other names). I wanted to add that "kami-no-michi (神の道 Road to God)" to part of the top. Reminent (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

According to kotobank, 'kaminomichi' can also refer the word of the Christian god (https://kotobank.jp/word/%E7%A5%9E%E3%81%AE%E9%81%93-233858) but 'Shinto' refers only to the Japanese religion Shinto (https://kotobank.jp/word/%E7%A5%9E%E9%81%93-82299)leveni (talk) 1:03pm, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Confusion between Shintoist and ordinary Japanese people who follow Shinto traditions as part of Japanese customs

Making it clear, there is a difference between Shintoist, devote practitioners of Shinto, and ordinary Japanese people practicing Shinto traditions as part of Japanese customs. Most Japanese people are non-religious, visiting both Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples as part of traditional Japanese customs. Some even have "Christian-style weddings". Japanese people do not need to be part of a Shinto sect (a Shinto religious institution, aka "Sect Shinto") to practice Shinto. Cheers! 115.66.203.56 (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A fair point. It's probable a good idea that we try to make this clear in the lede. I'll add a sentence to the lede trying to straighten this out for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok it was a bit strong.

It was B grade and has fallen to C Grade. Its clear that people vandalizing have attempted to conflate Shinto and Nationalism; and downplay the importance of this set of beliefs. I will take this project back up and get it back in shape with proper language and citations. I'm going to ask for some latitude as things are a bit messy and will require restructuring at times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takashi Ueki (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Takashi Ueki: Hi Takashi Ueki and thanks for your Talk Page message. I see that you've been gone for about a decade, so welcome back to Wikipedia. To clarify things, I am the editor responsible for many of the edits to this article in recent times. My intent has never been to downplay the importance of Shinto nor to conflate Shinto with Japanese nationalism, merely to get this article into shape through the use of WP:Reliable Sources, namely the work of academics who have published on this subject. Please do use the Talk Page to raise any points where you feel that the article is proving misleading. It is better that we discuss them here first rather than ending up in any edit wars.

I've not reverted the changes that you made to the lede yesterday, although I have edited some of them down and removed bits of them. This is not because they were factually incorrect, but more because they did not really fit with Wikipedia's prose style and lengthened the lede quite considerably. We have to bear in mind that Wikipedia needs to be readily accessible to readers who may have no familiarity with Japanese history and culture beforehand. That means trying to keep things as clear and concise as possible, while of course striving for accuracy. It is also important that we use sources written by academic specialists (who may or may not be Shinto practitioners themselves), rather than those put out by religious organisations; the same should be true of any religious movement, not just Shinto. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I had been watching over time to see how these pages developed, along with a few others that I edited relating to Shinto a few years back. I feel like an intervention is needed, and I apologize about the blunt approach. I'll take a read and see where we are. The lede of the other world religions have certain information and this does not; so I would like to make it consistent. I appreciate that there is a style of writing here, I'll adapt to the simpler style now prevalent. I have not grown out of touch with the literature, nor the analysis of modern authors. How a religion is presented is important and needs to have some features of self definition because of the basis of theology. People can decide for themselves the accuracy of religious beliefs taken as fact by believers. I'll take my cues from the Islam and Christianity pages to allow for some consistency across platform in regards to presentation. To be clear I am not a regular practitioner of Shinto (though I have taken part in Shinto events), but have had some interest in the topic from an academic viewpoint for a long time. Please allow me the latitude to get this back to at least the "B" status it was. I will start some additional sandbox rewrites and present them here, but it's fairly inefficient to make small edits and discuss. Takashi Ueki (talk)

Thanks for our response, Takashi Ueki. I'd be a bit cautious about using the Christianity and Islam pages as a template for the Shinto article, to be honest. The Christianity article is not in a good state and should not be regarded as a model for anything (the unfortunate truth is that many really important articles at Wikipedia are still in a terrible state). Articles on religions that I would recommend you look at are Heathenry (new religious movement) and Rastafari. The former is rated as a Featured Article; the latter as a Good Article. Very few other articles devoted to particular religious traditions have these high-level ratings. The Bahá'í Faith article is also rated as a Featured Article, but received that ranking back in 2004, and Wikipedia's standards and approach has adapted significantly since then; if it were to undergo a Featured Article Review today I am sceptical as to whether it would pass. (Indeed, Wikipedia's approach has probably moved on quite a bit from back when you were editing in 2009). Certainly, when it comes to the types of references that we need to use, and the style of citation we should employ, the Heathenry and Rastafari articles will be the best model.

To clarify, I certainly don't expect you to raise every minor edit you want to make at the Talk Page first, but if you plan on making any major alterations I do think it would be best to just raise the point here first. I look forward to working with you in improving this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

eight million kami

It is noted that there are 8.000.000 kami, but in Japanese, words like '8000' are indefinate.

• 八千 = 8000
• 八千草 = a variety of herbs
• 八千代 = eternity ( 代 meaning generations)

Would it be possible that some context is lost? (ex. a source saying there are 1001 ways to use a paperclip, it's actually saying there are 1001 ways to use a paperclip) Qube0 (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is that in Japanese, 8000 is often used as a placeholder number? It's definitely worth either noting this in the article or linking to the place that I just linked to. RedPanda25 21:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Kanji

The addition of the kanji for Shinto is from the first citation that gives the lead weight in the Article. Zongqi (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Western

the use of "Western" is very vague and seems (to me) misleading. what is "Western"? West of Japan? West of the Iron Curtain? the Americas?

the religions coined "Western" in the text aren't explicitly named, but seem to be the big four (Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam); Buddhism is certainly from the Himalayas and the other three come from Israel/Egypt/the Arabian peninsula, neither of which are usually called "Western".

can someone clear that up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.93.201 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Western as in Western world. I'll add a Wikilink in to the article at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes this is I believe a commonly used slang for Western world. Its not an actual reference of direction from a point of origin.Eruditess (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Mostly in East Asian tradition it is not a place but a particular energy or Ki, as can be seen in the name Western Pureland Buddhism. Zongqi (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Addition of kanji to lead

The Kanji should be in the lead, The Animism aspect of the religion should be respected within the word. The citation is provided removal from foot note is recommended. Zongqi (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The kanji in question is already provided in a note. It does not need to be in the main text of the lede too. Adding kanji to the main text of an English-language encyclopaedia serves no purpose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Gogyo Gogen

User:Zongqi, please stop adding the claim that Shinto is "based on the Gogyo Gogen doctrine" to the opening paragraph of the lede ([2]; [3]; [4]; [5]). As per WP:BRD, you really should not be edit warring to restore this text after its validity was challenged. The claim that Gogyo Gogen is somehow a central feature of Shinto is completely misleading and idiosyncratic. Of the two citations that you have added to bolster your claim, one is purely from WikiWand, a mirror site which is completely inadmissible as a WP:Reliable Source. The second (Bernhard Scheid's "Reading the Yuiitsu Shintō myōbō yōshū: A modern exegesis of an esoteric Shinto text") is a Reliable Source, but does not support the claim that you are making; it makes a passing reference to gogyo on one page (p. 135) and hardly stresses it as an idea in any way central to Shinto thought. By comparison, note that "gogyo gogen" and "gogyo" are not included as entries in Professor Brian Bocking's A Popular Dictionary of Shinto nor Stuart D. B. Picken's Historical Dictionary of Shinto, perhaps the two foremost encyclopaedic dictionaries on the subject. Even a Google search brings up virtually no useful information on "Gogyo Goyen." It just isn't an important element of Shinto and is most certainly not information to include in the lede. It should be immediately removed and not restored unless you have gained consensus for its addition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that since I started writing the above message, User:Bkonrad has removed the WikiWand citation, highlighting that it is not a Reliable Source. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.tsubakishrine.org/aikido/index.html Zongqi (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello please find attached https://www.tsubakishrine.org/aikido/index.html Hello please find attached a reference used on this page to the American shrine Just because something is not well known does not make it true. This doctrine is also the foundation of Tradional Japanese Medicine. Zongqi (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This new website that you have found probably doesn't constitute a Reliable Source either; certainly, it is not a high quality one. Moreover, while the new webpage includes the words "Gogyo Gogen," it still does not support the claim that you are making. You have provided no evidence that Gogyo Gogen is an important element of Shinto, let alone that it is central to the religion. Furthermore, you really should not be removing the disputed tag which I appended to your new additions [6] (I have restored the tag). If you are going to continue ignoring these concerns, might I suggest we get a WP:Third Opinion from an experienced editor? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, this site is attached to Tsubaki Grand Shrine in Mie Japan, the page is already a link on this page. So do you need another reference as I can provide it.Just state what you would considered a good reference. As I need to move on. Here is another link to a site I also have a anthropological book on Japanese culture also, if you would like this cited also. https://shinto-realm.tumblr.com/post/17871594572/triangle-circle-square-three-principles. Thankyou Zongqi (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

To prove your point, you would need to provide top-quality sources, written by academic experts in the study of Shinto, that unambiguously state that "Gogyo Gogen doctrine" is central to Shinto. You would also need to provide a compelling explanation as to why the academic texts about Shinto that I have cited do not even mention "Gogyo Gogen" to begin with. Thus far all you've done is pull out webpages probably found through a Google search, none of which even appear to support your claim that "Gogyo Gogen" is a central element of Shinto. As per WP:BRD, the validity of your information has been seriously challenged - you need to prove your case rather than just edit warring and refusing to get the point. That's how Wikipedia works. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with what User:Midnightblueowl has said above; this claim is absurd and is not supported by the sources that have been advanced. — Goszei (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou, first let us look at the web page, it was not googled it is on this page as a external link.

Tsubaki Grand Shrine of America – Tsubaki Grand Shrine of America: Jinja Shinto in North America, branch of Tsubaki Grand Shrine in Mie Japan. At the bottom of this page is the Shinto Cosmology called "Gogyo Gogen". triangle circle square. Let's start here.feed back please Zongqi (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If you're looking for feedback, I don't mind offering some pointers, because I do appreciate that you are fairly new at Wikipedia and presumably are still learning the ropes. You must appreciate that Wikipedia is based on WP:Reliable Sources; wherever possible, that means that we use academic sources, published by established scholars in peer-reviewed journals and academic monographs. Wikipedia exists to summarise what those high-quality sources say. Other types of source can be used, but caution is required, especially when looking at websites or other sources written from a religious point of view. Really, if we're writing about a religion (any religion, not just Shinto), we should not have to resort to web pages written by the religion's practitioners, many of which will have a particular axe to grind or push a view that other practitioners might not accept. I don't really know where you've got this notion that "Gogyon Gogen" is central to Shinto from, because it's a really unusual claim - presumably, you obtained it from the Tsubaki website itself? It would, however, constitute a fringe theory, and that's something that you can read more about here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zongqi: Quite apart from whether there a reliable source mentions the term, if as you claim it is so essential to Shinto, that concept needs to be elaborated within the article. older ≠ wiser 12:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply, before we move on, the web page is on page as a external link. At the bottom of this page is Gogyo Gogen. So the Tsubakis Grand Shrine is not a reliable source of information?. http://www.tsubakishrine.org/index.html Zongqi (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It really would not be an ideal source for Wikipedia to use as a reference; being listed in the External Links is a different matter. If you look, for example, at Heathenry (new religious movement) and Rastafari, articles on religions that have reached Featured Article status here at Wikipedia, you will see that they do not directly cite the websites of practitioners. There's no reason why the Shinto article should either, especially as we have more than enough top-quality academic sources to draw on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, but we can cover this later, now this book clearly states Inyo Gogyo setsu, please explain this before I move onto medical text examples. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=DR2PAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=gogyo+shinto&source=bl&ots=T23g9Nfw3n&sig=ACfU3U1yhQ5avsXG36118l6ejqQYPshneg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5l7WS06TtAhULyzgGHWSlDdAQ6AEwIXoECCUQAQ#v=onepage&q=gogyo%20shinto&f=false Zongqi (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Inyo Gogyo is Yin Yang Wuxing ( five elements) Zongqi (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly do you expect me to explain? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Why the cited book was not adequate, sangen and gogyo is mentioned as the cosmological influence of Shinto. Zongqi (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As stated above, the chapter in that edited volume is a Reliable Source, by Wikipedia standards. It is your interpretation of what that chapter says that is what I (and the two other editors that have posted here) reject. The chapter in question, written by Bernhard Scheid, mentions gogyo or "five phases" (not "Gogyo Gogen doctrine") briefly in a discussion of Yuiitsu Shintō myōbō yōshū ("Essentials of Names and Laws of the One-and-Only Way of the Kami"), a Japanese text written by Yoshida Kanetomo (founder of the Yoshida Shintō sect) in the late 15th or early 16th century. In his chapter, Scheid wishes to highlight how Yoshida Kanetomo was influenced by Taoist concepts and to position the latter's writing as part of a tradition which Scheid chooses to term "esoteric Shinto". At no point does Scheid claim that gogyo is a central underlying concept even in the late medieval text he is discussing, let alone in the entirety of Shinto. That is purely (it seems) your own belief, and is completely at odds with what all the Reliable Sources appear to say. For that reason, it is a fringe theory and, as per WP:FRINGE, should not be included in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply,I think collaboration with other editors is against the rules of wiki. One editor that can in and abruptly edited the page has never edited on page before. I think that Gogyo Gogen is not just my theory. I have provided many references from other sources a quick search on the web will show that The cosmological building blocks are at the very conception of Shinto. Gogyo Gogen, inyogogyo are also used in traditional medicine,Just search the term and you will see that it is not my theory. So Taoists, Confucian and folk religion are the main Influences of Shinto and Catholic only because of its similarly to certain Buddhist practices, please explain if there is anything I have missed. Zongqi (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Zongqi, you wrote I think collaboration with other editors is against the rules of wiki. Collaboration is in fact fundamental to Wikipedia. See WP:CO, as is consensus, see WP:CON. Netherzone (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes but there is a different between collaboration,consensus and canvasing a editor to come on page that has never edited on this subject before. Happy to talk and show more supportive reference material towards gogyo and the science behind Shinto. Maybe we should add a Gogyo Gogen cosmology section to this article and a Shinto Medical section. What do you think, look forward to all your opinions and moving forward to more productive future exchanges

 Zongqi (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - you mention canvassing, please explain in more detail. Thanks, Netherzone (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Zongqi is probably referring either to the fact that I requested a WP:Third Opinion (which I did inform them about), or that User:Goszei appeared, supported my argument, and removed Zongqi's additions (whether Goszei was responding to the Third Opinion or simply came across the Shinto article independently and noticed the nonsense in the lede, to which I had appended a 'Disputed' tag, I do not know). Either way, I did not communicate directly with Goszei prior to their edits. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, thank you for clarifying. I thought perhaps Zongqui meant me. I've been watching this article for a long time. I found it odd that Zongqui would think that collaboration among editors is against the rules of wiki. I agree with you that it is essential that any new sections or new content must be thoroughly referenced with citations to credible reliable sources (academic, peer-reviewed publications). And if new material has anything to do with medical, aren't there additional criteria for that? Netherzone (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"Maybe we should add a Gogyo Gogen cosmology section to this article and a Shinto Medical section." I can see the potential benefit of a brief discussion of Shinto-based forms of healing practice in the article (perhaps merged with the "Divination and spirit mediumship" sub-section), but any material on this topic would have to be appropriately cited to top quality sources (i.e. academic publications, not random websites). As for a "Gogyo Gogen cosmology section," no good evidence has yet been brought forth that it is central to Shinto cosmology - it should not be added to the article until that evidence is presented. Wikipedia does not exist to promote fringe theories. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

We would have to reference the original source information before translation for most of the cited top quality cited publications. I think that much can be lost in translation. Gogyo Gogen has more than likely may have been translated and summetised as Buddhist or Shinto Cosmology due to lack of knowledge. Zongqi (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not meaning to be an antagonist but many intersectional cultural inhibitors can obscure information. Zongqi (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi, I am Springnuts, an editor who has not previously edited this article or in this area of Wikipedia, nor do I believe I have interacted with any involved editors before. I have read carefully through the entries above, and I want to pay tribute to all editors involved for their evident wish to improve Wikipedia, and to help other editors. I am particularly struck by the constructive way in which the more experienced editors have sought to help User:Zongqi understand why their edits here are not finding consensus approval. I also understand the intense frustration User:Zongqi is feeling that their edits are being reverted, and I pay tribute to them for not allowing that frustration to boil over into angry 'ad hominem' comments. Without wanting to be sound patronising, because I am not being patronising, well done all of you! As far as the question at issue is concerned, I feel that Midnightblueowl has offered watertight justification for the concerns expressed, and therefore my 3O is that the claim that Shinto is "based on the Gogyo Gogen doctrine" should not appear in the lede, because it is a fringe theory. Springnuts (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou yes I agree,due to the current translation of evidence provided, I have not had the time of late to bring better references forward but when I do I will present them to this talk page. To be critiqued. By other editors. I think that as mentioned before a section on Health would be a great addition to the page. We all should work together to bring this forward in a balanced and non biased manner. Zongqi (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Add a Paragraph to explain what parts of Shinto are religion and what is mythology

1. Shinto is classified as a religion, but simultaneously a large part of the Cosmogony, Pantheon and creatures are categorized as Japanese Mythology. It should be clearly described in a paragraph which parts of Shinto is a religion and what is mythology and put it in layman's terms. Before 1946 CE, not much of the Shinto religion was categorized as mythology. It should be explained why and how this change occurred. For examples see the pages Buddhism and Hinduism pages. There is a page about Hindu mythology, but it has very little information. The page Buddhist mythology has more information. On the Christianity page very little is described as mythology although there is a big separate page on Christian mythology. How do official representatives, priests, the Association of Shinto Shrines and Tsubaki Grand Shrine of America explain this? I'm not a Shinto expert, so I politely request knowledgeable people to help clarify it so that readers can better understand Shinto.
2. Secondly, the word "myth" should be carefully used. For example labeling certain aspects of other religions such as Christianity and Hinduism as mythology could be blasphemy. See Religion & Myth: "Grassie, William (March 1998). "Science as Epic? Can the modern evolutionary cosmology be a mythic story for our time?". Science & Spirit. 9 (1). The word 'myth' is popularly understood to mean idle fancy, fiction, or falsehood; but there is another meaning of the word in academic discourse. A myth, in this latter sense of the word, is a story that serves to define the fundamental worldview of a culture .... Using the original Greek term mythos is perhaps a better way to distinguish this more positive and all-encompassing definition of the word." - Artanisen (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible typo

(In the festival segment on shinto)

> However, since the late 20th century, many shines have held their festival celebrations on the Saturday or Sunday closest to the date so that fewer individuals will be working and will be able to attend.

I feel like it's a typo for the word shrines, but just to double check someone who knows way more about shinto should make sure if that's not intentional.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galopus (talk • contribs)

 Done Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Found yet another typo

> tradition holds that, if a boy he should be brought to the shrine on the thirty-second day after birth, (Rites of passage)

It's another typo alongside accidental spelling of shrines as shines in the festival subsection.

Galopus (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)