Talk:Shinbutsu-shūgō

First Paragraph

Congratulations on your hard work, but the especially the first paragraph looks like a synthetic research or thesis.

The debate over the relationship between Buddhism and Shinto

What is "the" debate?

These are remote consequence, than direct results. I am guessing the first bullet is referring to maybe a post-war "shinto-ist"? This kind of attitude is more a product of Meiji-WW2-Showa religious policies. The second is maybe a fruit of advanced studies post war. Putting these into contrast and presenting them as if there is a "debate" is somewhat abrupt.

The resulting relationship between Buddhism and Shinto in Japan is so deep and complex that at least two distinct and mutually exclusive views exist on the subject, and this is the root of a discussion that hasn't yet come to a conclusion.

As mentioned above, the two points mentioned are not necessarily face-to-face "opposite" sides debating over something. (They can't, can they?) Which "discussion" does this mean? If Shinto is first or Buddhism first?

On the one hand, the Shinto establishment states that Shinto is the indigenous religion of Japan and that it has existed as such continuously since pre-history[3]. Shinto consists of all the peculiarly Japanese rituals and beliefs shaped by Japanese history from prehistory to the present[3]. The term "Shinto" itself was coined in the 6th century to differentiate the loosely organized local religion from imported Buddhism[3]. This is the concept normally accepted by both society and traditional historians[4].

Who is "the Shinto establishment"? Because there are many kind of Shinto, this has to be made clear.

What does "This is the concept" refer to? Looking back into edit history, the preceding sentence was added later, so it has to be made clearer.

On the other one finds the position of Japanese specialist Toshio Kuroda (and his supporters) who, in a famous article ("Shinto in the History of Japanese Religion," published in English in 1981) has argued that Shinto as an independent religion was born only in the modern period after emerging in the Middle Ages as an offshoot of Buddhism[4][5]. Kuroda's main argument is that Shinto as a distinct religion is a Meiji era invention of Japanese nationalist ideologues (see the next section)[4]. He points out how the state formalization of kami rituals and the state ranking of shrines during the Heian period were not the emergence of Shinto as an independent religion, but an effort to explain local beliefs in Buddhist terms[4]. He also says that, if it's true that the two characters for "Shinto" appear very early in the historical record, for example in the Nihon Shoki, this doesn't mean today's Shinto already existed as a religion because they were originally used as a name for Taoism or even for religion in general[4]. Indeed, according to Kuroda many features of Shinto, for example the worshiping of mirrors and swords or the very structure of Ise Shrine (Shinto's holiest and most important site) are typical of Taoism[4]. The term Shinto in old texts therefore does not necessarily indicate something uniquely Japanese[6]. According to the first view, then, the two religions were at the time of their first meeting already formed and independent and thereafter just coexisted with non-essential exchanges while, according to the second, Buddhism, meeting local beliefs in Japan, actually produced today's Shinto.

I am not trying to say this summary is invalid, but it appears that this whole part is better discussed in Shinto than in this article.

Yutaka Sozoryoku (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I took some time to think over what you are saying, but I don't really understand. I describe a controversy, but nothing I say is controversial. I find it ironic you find controversial something I wrote to guarantee a neutral point of view. I wanted to warn readers that there is no agreement over to what extent the two religions fused, and there isn't. If you think there is, please prove it.

About the existing debate over the nature of Shinto, I am quoting two books, both current, one by Joseph Kitagawa, one by Breen and Teuween describing Kuroda's ideas, all four eminent specialists, and their ideas are obviously and completely incompatible. Isn't this a debate about the exact nature of the relationship between Buddhism and Shinto that hasn't yet come to a conclusion? That these are two sides with little in common seems uncontroversial to me, but I can support this with quotations, if you wish. You make it sound like I am fabricating the controversy. This is most definitely not the case. If anything, I toned it down. Please read the article:

• Dismantling stereotypes surrounding Japan's sacred entities by Fabio Rambelli, Japan Times, July 15, 2001 excerpted from Monumenta Nipponica, 56:2.

As mentioned above, the two points mentioned are not necessarily face-to-face "opposite" sides debating over something. (They can't, can they?) Which "discussion" does this mean? If Shinto is first or Buddhism first?

How can the two points of view I illustrate NOT be opposites? Please explain. Did Shinto as an organized religion exist all along or is it a Meiji fabrication? Both ideas are still current.

About what the Shinto establishment is, this seems so clear to me that I would like to ask you in return if you know a variant of Shinto that wouldn't support the definition Kitagawa gives.

Finally, I agree that this section belongs to the Shinto article, but it first and foremost belongs here. Surely a discussion about the nature of the relationship between the two religions belongs to the Shinbutsu Shugo article, don't you think? This section is about Buddhism as much as it is about Shinto. I have thought about opening the debate about Shinto in the Shinto, but for the time being I'd rather not.

This section is I think essential because it warns the reader that it's far from clear even to specialists where Shinto ends and Buddhism begins, and that they should therefore take everything they read about Shinbutsu Shugo, including this article, critically and with a grain of salt.

If you want I can provide citations, but I feel they are no necessary. The second sentence you marked is already a direct quotation: it is verbatim the words used by B & T (see references). urashimataro (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Made changes

To Yutaka Sozoryoku: I made changes that I believe keep the essence of what I wanted to say and eliminate your sources of doubt.

WP:MOS-JA violating title?

Does the title, in its use of diacritics (macrons), not violate the WP:MOS-JA convention on spelling? NipponGinko (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)