Talk:Soil and grain

On the 神 problem
神 is usually translated as "gods" but it doesn't have all the meaning of "gods". Specifically, I think it is very strange that "Gods of XYZ" could be used as a synonym for "body politic". This indicates that the metaphysical language used comes closer to plain old "soil and grain" than an abstraction thereof. Unfortunately this ambiguity is not always understood by the political historians who deal with this issue. We're going to have to find more solid references to resolve the problem completely. Shii (tock) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 神 is usually translated as "gods"...
 * That's because that's what it means
 * but it doesn't have all the meaning of "gods".
 * and this is entirely mistaken.
 * Specifically, I think it is very strange that "Gods of XYZ" could be used as a synonym for "body politic".
 * 1st, you're describing it having additional meanings, not fewer meanings.


 * 2nd, this is very much just a you problem. European civilization was "Christendom" until the late modern period, the Islamic world is still the "community of believers", the Romans defended their lares and penates and the Greeks their shrines to their heroes. This is bog standard for human society outside of late modernity in the West and is less weird than fighting "for mom and apple pie".
 * This indicates that the metaphysical language used comes closer to plain old "soil and grain" than an abstraction thereof.
 * This is somewhere between entirely misinformed and orientalizing nonsense. The topic is and always has been exactly what it says on the tin. The only (somewhat) unique aspect about China's sheji is that they were part of a celestial bureaucracy and could get modifications for political reasons, like the specific identity of the grain god changing from a kid named Zhu to an ancestor of the new ruling house under the Zhou. At all points and times, though, it was still precisely polytheistic cult worship of gods for help with the harvest &c. — Llywelyn II   23:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion
has fuller treatment than what we do now and so is a good place to start expanding content. If for some reason we're turning up our nose at blogs even when they're written to a high standard by the Chinese prof at Tübingen, he's got an extensive source list at the bottom that could be used in its place. — Llywelyn II   23:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)