Talk:Buddhism in Japan

— Assignment last updated by Dslaym (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"Japanese culture maintained an uneasy relation to Buddhist culture"?
The statement "Japanese culture maintained an uneasy relation to Buddhist culture. While the Chinese culture was admired, Buddhism was also regarded as a strange influence." does not appear to make sense. It appear to be Shinbutsu bunri -someones perspective - perhaps what Department of Divinity ("jingikan") established in 1869 might have promoted as a part of newly developed State Shinto doctrine. Malaiya (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Problems re Kamakura Buddhism, Zen schools
I hesitate to think that I could offer any improvement to this awe-inspiring article, but here goes.

The section Buddhism_in_Japan appears under Buddhism_in_Japan, suggesting to naive readers such as myself that Kamakura is a school of Japenese Buddhism. Of course, it's nothing of the sort, but merely a scholarly misnomer for Buddhism during the Kamakura period in Japenese history. I would prefer the more accurate title, Buddhism during the Kamakura Period.

The first sentence of the section Buddhism_in_Japan hides its subject through the use of passive voice. As god is my witness (I mean Grammarly), this is usually a bad idea. The long second sentence is undocumented, surprising, and unexplained. This paragraph, like several others, reads as if it were part of an article titled "History of Buddhism in Japan." Here are a couple of alternate ways to start out that the naive reader may find more useful, one from Brittanica, and one that I just came up with:

Zen, Chinese Chan, Korean Sŏn, also spelled Seon, Vietnamese Thien, [is an] important school [tradition] of East Asian Buddhism that constitutes the mainstream monastic form of Mahayana Buddhism in China, Korea, and Vietnam and accounts for approximately 20 percent of the Buddhist temples in Japan. ~ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zen

Missing Citations
I'm not too sure if anybody's on this yet, but...

There are quite a few missing citations that seem that they have been in limbo since 2013. They're not hard to find, skimming through the article will be enough to locate the majority of the missing citations. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criag S. (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Main article: Japanese Zen. The Zen tradition began with the Chinese meditation master Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma's emphasis on meditation distinguishes Zen from earlier forms of Buddhism that emphasized reading, memorizing and commenting on sutras, or forms that emphasized chanting such as Pure Land. The Chinese word for meditation is Ch'an, which got transliterated to Zen when Eisai, Dōgen, Ingen, and others brought Ch'an to Japan.

Page Notes (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV problems
A user whose many IPs all geolocate to the same position in Pune, India, has been repeatedly making edits that do not adhere to the neutral point of view policy. The edits have misrepresented sources, such as this:, claiming to indicate that 96% of the population are Buddhists, or edits that show only the ACA figures of about 67% and ignore other reliable sources and estimates that put it much lower, at 20-40%. The user's edits have a long history of incorrectly inflating the number of Buddhists, with improperly cited or unsourced/original content, in many articles, for example:. I'm asking them to stop doing this, otherwise the article(s) may need to be protected from IP editing. Their IP today was. I and others have left many warnings and tried to contact them via their talk pages, with no response. I hope they will see this. --IamNotU (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Indianisation
Buddhism originated in India, but it is absurd to describe the introduction of Buddhism as 'Indianisation'. Of course, it is also absurd to describe the introduction of a culture or technology that originated in Japan as 'Japanisation'. Moreover, Japan did not introduce Buddhism directly from India. The Buddhism that Japan introduced was influenced by Chinese Buddhism, and its architecture, Buddhist statues and scriptures were quite different from those of India, making it even more absurd to describe it as "Indianisation".--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Just like spread of Chinese culture/religion/language comes under Sinosphere, Same way Spread of Indian culture/language/Religion comes under "Indosphere" and "Indianization", Buddhism is indeed an Indian religion. Infact we call south east Asia "Indianized" because of the same reason i.e Spread of Buddhism/Hinduism there. Buddhism indeed was introduced to Japan from China and Korea, But their buddhism itself was evolved from the Indian Mahayana Buddhism. So clearly it is an Indianisation. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The source you cite does not describe the introduction of Buddhism into Japan as 'Indianisation'.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Total bullshit indeed. Japanese Buddhism was imported Chinese Buddhism.  Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  11:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But wasn't Chinese Buddhism itself was imported from Gandhara? Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it underwent many changes in China before going on to Japan. By the time it enters Japan, it is a sinicized kind of Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism . Though its root is in India, its not really accurate to use "Indianization" in this context. If anything, it would be Sinicization. Javier F.V. 12:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But wasn't Chinese Buddhism itself drawn from Indian Mahayana Buddhism? Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. But what source uses the word "Indianisation" with respect to Japanese Buddhism? We follow the sources, so if you have one, please provide it ... Skyerise (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, Consider checking the following sources which specifically mentions the spread of buddhism in japan as an "Indianization of japan" Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gordon White puts it in WP:SCAREQUOTES, which means he is implying that there is no such thing but that some people mistakenly use the term. The other book does the same thing: 'Indianization of Japan and China was different than in Southeast Asia, both "Indianizations" produced a marked change in philosophy'. You'll have to do better than that. The cultural influence of the influx of Buddhism from China is generally considered by sources to be Chinese, not Indian. By comparison, the term Sinicization of Japan is used in multiple reliable sources. Skyerise (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I only see the book of Gordon agreeing with the "indianization" of it. He even further explains what Indianization of japan means by further explaining the transmission of buddhism and adaption of hindu deties in it. As for the other book, "Indianization of japan was different than indianization of indonesia".
 * This itself is a proof that it is "agreeing" with Indianization. It only tells us about the difference between the cultural spheres (Indianization) in these 2 countries (indonesia and Japan). Infact the name of the para/chapter itself is "Indianization of japa
 * As for "Sinicization" I agree that japan was sinicized and multiple sources accept this, But Indian cultural sphere of common in japan as well, Infact buddhism shaped the culture of japan in every aspect as per the following books i quoted, which also calls it specifically "Indianized" Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * White doesn't use the term anywhere else in the book, just the once in scare quotes. Your other "source" directly contradicts you. Stratton writes at the begininning of Chapter 5: (p. 82): "It was no doubt carried into Northeast Asia during its own 'Indianization' period. The 'Indianization' spoken of here, however, was not like the one that took place in Southeast Asian nations. Instead, Indian influences had to contend and blend with already pre-existing, and more dominant cultural domains in different ways than they did in Southeast Asia where prior to Indianization there were no 'major' civilizations influencing the area." - Note how he uses the term without scarequotes for Southeast Asia, but uses scarequotes implying it is a wrong view when referring to Northeast Asia. Is English your first language? You don't seem to understand the subtleties of the use of scare quotes to say the opposite of what appears to be being said literally. I'm sure the other two editors involved in this discussion will agree on the meaning of this use of scare quotes. Skyerise (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mate he even puts Scare quotes before Indianization of indonesia. Here:
 * "Buddhism was the main avenue by which "Indianization" took place. Although the Indianization of Japan and China was different than in Southeast Asia, both "Indianizations" produced a marked change in philosophy. It was this change in philosophy that stimulated and produced some of the finest works of Asian civilization. It is still debated by many scholars as to the true effect, if any, Hinduism had on the Buddhist countries of Northeast Asia. Due to the "polytheistic" nature of Mahayana Buddhism some scholars suspect this might have played a role at some point. It is a fact that many of the Shingon deities, seen as protectors of Buddhism, are in fact derived from Brahmanic gods. However, that is a debate that requires a completely different study for its examination."
 * Here you can clearly see it doesn't use scare quote before "Indianization of japan" (I have highlighted it" but he uses scare quotes when talking about Indianization of indonesia and japan.
 * Does it mean he is disagreeing with Indianization of indonesia? Ofcourse not.
 * 1)-He doesn't put scare quotes before "Indianization of japan"
 * 2)- He puts Scare quotes while talking about indianization of japan and indonesia Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Moreover the paragraph you quoted also agreed with Indianization of Japan, But says it was different than indianization of indoenesia. The only thing is it puts Scare quotes before "Indianization of japan" but few pages later it doesn't use the same scare quotes again Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, both authors actual intended meaning is completely clear to a native English speaker. I am done here. If you can't convince the other editors on the article talk page, you may not make your intended change to the article. Skyerise (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes sure, Saying that the sources are contradictory when it quite clearly agrees with the Indianization of japan and even further explains how it is different from Indianization of indonesia.
 * I will discuss this with others. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically, both authors are clearly implying that the terms "Indianization" and "Indosphere" (a term in linguistics) are properly used only for a direct influence from India via an Indian language, and that where the influence was indirect and colored by Chinese language and culture, it is incorrect to use the term. This agrees with common usage. Skyerise (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Both of the scholars are literally agreeing with my claim and are often speaking about Indianization of Japan/china. Not to mention they are even explaining the difference between Indianization of Japan/china with that of Indonesia. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the view is WP:FRINGE and not accepted by historians, including the ones you are quoting. That's why the words are in quotation marks. The terms "Greater India" and "Indianization" are artifacts of Hindu nationalistic scholarship from the 1920s to 1970s and are both related to the transmission of Hinduism - not Buddhism. We have a whole separate article on the transmission of Buddhism, which is not normally referred to as "Indianization". That article is Silk Road transmission of Buddhism. Skyerise (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Zen School
Echoing the comments from the topic "Problems re Kamakura Buddhism, Zen schools" (which doesn't have a "reply" button or an editor listed), I think that the section on schools needs some work. Specifically, there are a lot of sources on Japanese Zen, but it is not well defined in this article. I think that a summary from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would be a good addition. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-zen/ The section is currently organized as more of a historical lineage rather than a discussion of the schools' philosophies. Please share any thoughts before I tackle these changes. —Zujine|talk 13:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)