Not so thematic methinks

[konming]

At least Marignon won't follow undead. They do follow demons however...

[HoneyBadger]

It's my (limited) understanding that Buddhist demons are actually the good guys-they just happen to look and act in ways that might be thought of as evil, but are infact intended to be instructive.

[Wrana]

First, what is wrong with your approach is that you think that there is "pure" Shinto belief. Shinto IS sincretic in its very nature, just like religion of antique Rome was. And as religious activity of Chinese common folk still is. It had always accepted gods, saints and spirits of foreign origin in its cult. So yes, multiarmed deities ARE of Buddhist origins. BUT they are still worshipped by Shintoist and depicted in Shinto temples (considering "shrines" - I used "temple" here as catch-all category, but am aware that large temples are mostly Buddhist. Still, Shintoist worship in them, too. I can't say for sure whether Shintoist ceremonies take place in them, but given a nature of Far East religious sincretism, this wouldn't surprise me.)
My information is based on both literature (Ovchinnikov, Abaeve, partly Torchinov) and my contacts with some orientalists in both Moscow and St-Petersburg Universities. You can doubt me on the basis that they are mainly Sinoists, and I'm more interested in China, too, but nothing I know indicates otherwise than what I said. And your mistake seems to be not in some obscure Japan specifics, but rather in basic premise.
To HoneyBadger: mainly yes. It's not quite correct to use "good" and "evil" in respect to this mythology, as it doesn't use such terms itself. Such creatures act to restore a harmony when the balance is tilted and there is a threat to universal order. But this order isn't "peace and love" and a threat to it may come not only from the direction commonly percepted as "evil". And Buddhist religion also includes Mara, who is deity of deception and relatively close to some perceptions of Christian Satan. I don't remember offhand whether any servants of him were mentioned, but such wouldn't surprise me. And of course, term "demons" is used in western translations due to the fact that Jesuits used it first after seing depictions of such creatures...

[VedalkenBear]

Mm. While I have great respect for Sinologists, I find that their information when they apply it to Japan seems to be... lacking. I say this because I was taught by a Russian Sinologist and also by Japanese nationals, and the differences were interesting, to say the least.

I don't necessarily believe that Shinto is 'syncretic by nature'. I believe that the Japanese are syncretic in their religious practices as a whole. If Shinto were inherently syncretic, why did the Nakatomi clan (whose purview was the Shinto system at the time of the Buddhist importation) fight tooth and nail to keep Buddhism out of Japan instead of incorporating it? They even assassinated entire wings of the fledgling Japanese state to do it. In part this was to ensure their own power base, but if Shinto were syncretic, then this battle would not have been necessary.

The Rome analog does not work, either. I do not argue that Japanese religious practice is very syncretic. I argue that it is impossible to know what purely Shinto (as opposed to amalgamated Shinto/Buddhist) beliefs existed at any point in Japanese history because by the time that we have written records on the matter, the religions are already side-by-side and some syncretism is taking place. This is not the case with Rome. We have written records for a far earlier period than in the case of the Japanese state, and I can only believe that the pagan Roman religion was syncretic.

However, one can also point to the syncretism in Rome's religion as a practical matter, as a byproduct of its expansion. Rome co-opted foreign deities to, in a sense, better assimilate its conquered peoples. An interesting point is that there is evidence in the Man'yoosyu that the Yamato state did the same _with the Shinto religion_ in its attempt to unify the different Japanese peoples. That is, Amaterasu was the 'clan god', if you will, of the Yamato clan, and so she is preeminent. Onnotengu, Susano-o, and the other Shinto kami were given important but subordinate positions to co-opt them into the state.

Again, though, the records we have seem to be after the activities in question finished. They postdate the actual effort, and seem to be an attempt to use the new technology of the written word to make the cooption permanent.

As for your sources, you yourself admit that most of them are operating somewhat out of their bailiwick. While I do not doubt that their insights can be quite useful, especially in a comparative sense between China and Japan, I have found that there is a temptation to view Japan through China's lens, which most Japanese historians deny is a valid approach in the general case. I do not believe that Japan is quite the 'unique snowflake' that some nationalistic Japanese historians make of it, but it is clearly not a mere knock-off of China that such an appropriation of methods can fully explain.

I wonder if KO has any insights into this, as it really falls under his area of expertise.

[Kristoffer O]

> Mm. While I have great respect for Sinologists, I find that their information when they apply it to Japan seems to be... lacking. I say this because I was taught by a Russian Sinologist and also by Japanese nationals, and the differences were interesting, to say the least.

> I don't necessarily believe that Shinto is 'syncretic by nature'. I believe that the Japanese are syncretic in their religious practices as a whole. If Shinto were inherently syncretic, why did the Nakatomi clan (whose purview was the Shinto system at the time of the Buddhist importation) fight tooth and nail to keep Buddhism out of Japan instead of incorporating it? They even assassinated entire wings of the fledgling Japanese state to do it. In part this was to ensure their own power base, but if Shinto were syncretic, then this battle would not have been necessary.

Most syncretistic religions reflect society and might be very syncretistic during one period and less so later on. Generally I would say that shintoists are more inclined to incorporate worship of buddhist spirits than the other way around.

The conflict between religious beliefs are rarely a matter of faith, but rather of politics, so I don't think syncretistic tendencies in shinto would have mattered in a conflict with a newly arrived culture.

> The Rome analog does not work, either. I do not argue that Japanese religious practice is very syncretic. I argue that it is impossible to know what purely Shinto (as opposed to amalgamated Shinto/Buddhist) beliefs existed at any point in Japanese history because by the time that we have written records on the matter, the religions are already side-by-side and some syncretism is taking place. This is not the case with Rome. We have written records for a far earlier period than in the case of the Japanese state, and I can only believe that the pagan Roman religion was syncretic.

> However, one can also point to the syncretism in Rome's religion as a practical matter, as a byproduct of its expansion. Rome co-opted foreign deities to, in a sense, better assimilate its conquered peoples. An interesting point is that there is evidence in the Man'yoosyu that the Yamato state did the same _with the Shinto religion_ in its attempt to unify the different Japanese peoples. That is, Amaterasu was the 'clan god', if you will, of the Yamato clan, and so she is preeminent. Onnotengu, Susano-o, and the other Shinto kami were given important but subordinate positions to co-opt them into the state.

Interesting.

> Again, though, the records we have seem to be after the activities in question finished. They postdate the actual effort, and seem to be an attempt to use the new technology of the written word to make the cooption permanent.

> As for your sources, you yourself admit that most of them are operating somewhat out of their bailiwick. While I do not doubt that their insights can be quite useful, especially in a comparative sense between China and Japan, I have found that there is a temptation to view Japan through China's lens, which most Japanese historians deny is a valid approach in the general case. I do not believe that Japan is quite the 'unique snowflake' that some nationalistic Japanese historians make of it, but it is clearly not a mere knock-off of China that such an appropriation of methods can fully explain.

> I wonder if KO has any insights into this, as it really falls under his area of expertise.

It was a while since I studied shinto, but I have more experience with shinto than japanese buddhism. In my view most of the buddhist spirits are more or less adaptations of chinese versions of hindu gods. The myo-o are great examples of many armed buddhist spirits with a hindu legacy. Only their chief Fudo is mostly depicted as two-armed.

Other buddhist spirits of hindu origin are the tenbu, celestial beings, devas. They appear as statues, art and in mandalas. Dragons, yakshas (seems to be called yasha in japan) and other mythological beings might be included among the tenbu.

Early buddhism was formed in a hindu context and especially the later northern branches of buddhism are quite heavily influenced by hindu mythology. Tibetan buddhism not the least. Since buddhism came to Japan from China and Korea it was inevitable that the hindu traces were brought along. To my knowledge theravada buddhism is less populated by godlike spirits of hindu origin.

I'm not sure how much impact these celestial beings have on day to day religious lives of japanese buddhists, but they certainly appear in temples and sutras. I believe they are more important in esoteric buddhism.

This summer I have been playing with the idea of giving Jomon some attention and add some celestial summons like the myo-o and other buddhist spirits. There is still plenty of unused material in the east

[HoneyBadger]

The more I study China and (especially) Japan, the more I'm drawn to Korea. I wonder if we'll ever see a Korean themed nation? There are certainly enough interesting elements to make a compelling one.

[Wrana]

I agree that KO would answer much better!
I also agree with much of what you said. Actually, this was the main reason I answered as I did - we have no actual knowledge about any "pure" Shinto, untouched by outside influence. And the fact that Japanese are sincretic in their religious practice as a whole makes me doubt that any such thing ever existed. Certainly they periodically tried to fight Chinese influences - with varying degree of success. Even Vietnamese did so. And had a fact that their Bronze-age civilization surpassed proto-Chinese at some time on their side. They are still heavily influenced by China culture. Japanese were influenced in less degree, obviously. But influenced they were - and their civilization started much later so its very birth was under the Chinese influence. Sometimes we can find out the exact degree of such an influence, but sometimes (expecially in early cases) we just can't. Of course, the mere fact of Japanese single Emperor dinasty and generally much higher degree of society stratification makes Chinese analogy not always applicable directly. Another thing is that sometimes one foreign influence was used against another - classical case is with Christianity, but Indian influences also show up in Japan iirc - and in Vietnam such conflicts were common (introduction of Buddhism in North Vietnam was stopped for a long time by the fact that North elites saw it as barbarian influence which shouldn't be allowed in civilized state).
As for heavy fighting against an introduction of Buddhism, I think that you already gave some explanation to that when you pointed out a relations of early Japanese religion with clan structure. It may be not so much fighting to ensure their power base as fighting against something introduced by enemy clan (not that one can always be clearly divided from another in such cases). This is a wild guess, of course - I don't remember that episode to any good degree and Japan is far from being the most interesting country for me...
And another fact which I remembered today and which is more on the game topic is that Japanese Buddhism also adopted some Shinto deities - depicting them in classical Buddhist way! So Indian-looking Japanese gods aren't so out of question!

[Wrana]

Thank you.
Considering the east - I have an idea that Korea and/or Vietnam can also make appearance. Though it's possible that they can be redundant in some elements that actually differed them from China - e.g., Korea always had much better cavalry than China due to the fact that Koreans' ancestors came from the Great Steppes, but in the game as it stands now Tien Chi already has very good cavalry...

[Wrana]

(forum had eaten previous attempt, repeating in short)
Actually these terms can be somewhat misleading when we speak of Chinese mythology - spirits which are part of Celestial hierarchy fight not for "greater good", but to keep universal harmony and balance (not equal to "peace", of course). And those who "do good" can also become targets of their wrath - if they tilt the balance too much. And of course, term "demon" here has its origins in how early Jesuit missionaries/scientists described what they saw...
Considering Korea - it seems our thoughts run in similar way
(http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...716#post632716)...

[theenemy]

If its possible, I would like to hear from KO himself why he chose to encorporate the Deva as a pretender for Yomi. There isn't any source better than the developers.