Talk:Shinnyo-en

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

bakkudaijo > bakkudaiju, Mahaparanirvana > Mahaparinirvana[edit]

Tiny corrections; from bakkudaij"o" to bakkudaij"u", and Mahapar"a"nirvana sutra to Mahapar"i"nirvana sutra. These are more accurate than the previous description. I forgot to leave these explanation when I posted on the discussion page on the other day.


Suggestions for improvement; intention to modify article[edit]

The article about Shinnyo-en can be modified and improved because:

  • It is not verifiable
  • It is not neutral
  • It reveals too much detail about Shinnyo-en to the general public.
    • Shinnyo-en is supposed to be esoteric.
    • Go to your nearby Shinnyo-en temple and ask the jimu-kyoku (office-people): some Shinnyo-en publications are designed for the general public (example: the pamphlet "What is Shinnyo-en") and some publications should be given only to people who are connected (example: the Kangi-Seki).
    • It is my understanding that, according to Shinnyo-en policy, the pamphlet "What is Shinnyo-en" is the limit of detail appropriate for the general public.

I intend to modify this article according to Wiki policy and Shinnyo-en policy.

--Danwri 20:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Article modified[edit]

Article modified per intention explained above. Will be doing ongoing work on this article to bring in additional material from "What is Shinnyo-En", and from other verifiable, neutral, and approved publications.

--Danwri 00:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Original research and bias added back with no discussion[edit]

Hirokayamasaki has been improving the page and refining the wording, and now it is well-written and almost free of grammar mistakes. Unfortunately, many paragraphs of un-verifiable and non-neutral material were added back, without a discussion on this "talk" page, and the article is again outside Wikipedia policy.

At the beginning of the non-neutral section, Hirokayamasaki added a disclaimer saying "the following was written by one follower ... questions should be asked" at Shinnyo-en, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic in their entirety. Articles should not have a bias section, especially not one that comprises 95% of the article (30100 of the 31500 characters), even with a disclaimer.

Hirokayamasaki has put so much good effort into writing this, it would be a shame to waste -- best would be if he were to host the material on a separate web site and include a link to it in the article's "External Links". I have made this suggestion on Hirokayamasaki's Talk page.

--Danwri 04:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree it is bias and non-neutral in anyway, the section he added "The Three Treasures", is clearly quite factual on what the religion preaches. (i.e. The Shinnyo En Teaching teaches...) Similar to this is the "Beliefs" section of Christianity. One question we can ask however, is whether or not it is factually correct.

Which leads perfectly to another problem, verification. The material from which this section is based are Shinnyo-En publications, which I am sure are definitely the most reliable source.

The problem is that they are supposed to be confidential and only allowed to be read by the followers of this religion . The easy way to verify the section to be factually correct is to ask one of the followers, because theoretically they are the only ones who can get access to these publications. Another option, of course, is to get everyone in the world to connect themselves to this religion, and if that happens, no one will be excluded from the publications and there will obviously not be a problem. This article appears to be written like an advertisement. --DryBitterMelon 14:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

anonymous This religion or cult is self proclaimed as an Esoteric one, supposedly based on the last(dying/resting) teaching of Buddha. I am familiar with it having attended many of its events in Japan. However, esoteric and objective don't mix well, much of the ritual, teaching and sacred events are made by the the leaders seemingly at their whim or at least in very ad hoc fashion. The leadership is steered as a dynastic family legacy; two Sisters daughters of the civilian/zaibatsu aircraft engineer, turned Shingon(Fire) priest founder and his wife as high priestesses. Another sister rejects and has no role in the new religion. Two other siblings that perished early on as children(one wonders about neglect?!), while the founder and his wife were promoting and perfecting the rites and narrative basis for the new religion are now deified in the teaching and exist as statues to be prayed to by followers.

One example of a lack of objectivity and followers zeal in purifying the narrative and obfuscating or scrubbing any perceived negative connotations from the public view; This is easily noted for example in the absence of and significant detail now to be found(even on the broader internet) about; the founder Ito, Shinjo's arrest in Japan and time in jail early on?! Noticed also by the speed at which followers come to edit and "undue" any objective additions to this article that are not sanctioned or already part of the public face the Cult propagates themselves(based are Shinnyo-En publications or Websites). These comments(naturally somewhat subjective, un-esoteric) won't last long I assure you, never the less; /*esoteric and objective don't mix well, Wiki entry predominantly maintained by cult followers*/ Example; entries are undone or vandalized immediatly by followers in Hawaii and elsewhere: Notice- Shinnyo-en: Difference between revisions. 11:03, 28 May 2013‎ ClueBot NG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (13,371 bytes) (-103)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by 67.49.178.238 to version by 108.218.150.214. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (1653314) (Bot)) (undo) P Address Lookup - Whois by IP Address : 67.49.178.238


[Querying whois.arin.net] [Redirected to ipmt.rr.com:4321] [Querying ipmt.rr.com] [ipmt.rr.com] %rwhois V-1.5:0020b0:00 ipmt.rr.com (by Time Warner Cable, Inc. V-1.0) network:Class-Name:network network:ID:NETBLK-ISRR-67.49.0.0-16 network:Auth-Area:67.49.0.0/16 network:Org-Name:Road Runner network:Tech-Contact:ipaddreg@rr.com network:Updated:2013-05-28 10:33:36 network:IP-Network:67.49.0.0/16 network:Admin-Contact:IPADD-ARIN network:IP-Network-Range:67.49.0.0 - 67.49.255.255

network:Class-Name:network network:ID:NETBLK-ISRR-67.49.176.0-21 network:Auth-Area:67.49.176.0/21 network:Org-Name:Road Runner network:Tech-Contact:ipaddreg@rr.com network:Updated:2013-05-28 10:33:36 network:IP-Network:67.49.176.0/21 network:Admin-Contact:IPADD-ARIN

organization:Class-Name:organization organization:ID:NETBLK-ISRR-67.49.0.0-16 organization:Auth-Area:67.49.0.0/16 organization:Org-Name:Road Runner organization:Tech-Contact:ipaddreg@rr.com organization:Street-Address:13820 Sunrise Valley Drive organization:City:Herndon organization:State:VA organization:Postal-Code:20171 organization:Country-Code:US organization:Phone:703-345-3151 organization:Updated:2013-05-28 10:33:36 organization:Created:2013-05-28 10:33:36 organization:Admin-Contact:IPADD-ARIN

organization:Class-Name:organization organization:ID:NETBLK-ISRR-67.49.176.0-21 organization:Auth-Area:67.49.176.0/21 organization:Org-Name:Road Runner organization:Tech-Contact:ipaddreg@rr.com organization:Street-Address:3562 Alohea St. organization:City:Honolulu organization:State:HI organization:Postal-Code:96816 organization:Country-Code:US

%ok

Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (May 2013)

Requested move[edit]

I do not see any guideline on the use of "en" (苑) on WP:MOS-JA, but it seems far more natural to me to write it as either "Shinnyoen" (since there is no space or hyphen or the like in the Japanese), or more preferably as "Shinnyo-en", which is how it is represented in the URL of the official website and throughout the website itself. Any objections? LordAmeth (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


No objections regarding changing its title from "Shinnyo En" to "Shinnyo-en." It's represented so on the printed material (public material, "What is Shinnyo-en?") as well.Justaped (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Excessive Quotes[edit]

The list of Shinjo Ito quotes at the end is probably inappropriate and should be removed. I would do that now, but they might still be useful in illustrating beliefs within the body of the article. I tagged it, in any event. —anamedperson (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the "Quotes" section is unsourced and does not appear to be appropriate in an encyclopedia. I propose to remove it. JimRenge (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the whole article suffers from lack of sources. I've added some {{citation needed}} tags as well hoping that those editors with access to proper sources would fix the problem. So far, honestly, I have failed to find such sources myself. I also agree with removing the unsourced material. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Reinosha - medium versus spiritual guide[edit]

The japanese term "Reinosha" has been repeatedly been edited back and forth between 'medium' to 'spiritual guide'. 'Rei'(霊) meaning spirit in Japanese, and 'no'(能) meaning talent or ability, 'sha'者 meaning person, I personally do not see any good reason why not agree to the translation that is given by official Shinnyo-en sources (http://www.shinnyoen.org/beliefs-practices/sesshin-training.html) and that refer to this term as 'spiritual guide(s)' within the context of their meditative practice called Sesshin. GasshoWiki (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The source doesn't even mention terms "霊能者", "reinōsha", or "medium. The source given in the article, however, verifies the interconnection between these[1]. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
When I saw this edit by 36.52.200.53, I wondered why the term "medium" had been removed or replaced by "guide"/ "spiritual guide". After checking independent and reliable secondary sources (Nagai, p.305; Shiramizu 1979, p. 417; Schrimpf 2003, p.7: Usui 2003, p.231; Clarke 1999, p, 232), I realized that these scholars use the term "(spiritual or spirit) medium" and reverted.
@GasshoWiki; You reverted again, arguing, "I personally do not see any good reason why not agree to the translation that is given by official Shinnyo-en sources". Please note that wikipedia prefers academic and peer-reviewed publications (WP:RS, WP:V). JimRenge (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@JimRenge; Thanks for mentioning about wikipedia preferences. Please see SHIRAMIZU's conclusion about Shinnyo-en Reinosha "the primary role of the medium is to be sought in the 'discipline of spiritual guidance'" Quote from http://web.archive.org/web/20131111042232/http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2193 (page 418) GasshoWiki (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2014‎

Section 'Dharma School' should be deleted[edit]

The section Dharma School has no references at all, therefore should be deleted. --Puthujjana (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Greetings! There seems to be some misunderstanding that I wholeheartedly reverted all the recent edits by @Ogress:[2], but that's not the case. Let me shortly try to go through my edits:

  1. In my first edit[3], I restored the names Mahavairochana Achala and Adamantine since I don't really know why they were changed in the first place.
  2. In the second[4], I restored a stub of paragraph since the old version was a lot easier to follow in my opinion. If we count the names as single words and exclude the articles, four out of nine words are wikilinks. And not just the higher linking density, but the words are rather "technical", if you may, such as Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen, vihara, śarīra, etc. I think the old: "The Theravada monastery Wat Paaknam in Thailand presented Shinnyo-en with relics of Shakamuni Buddha on July 30, 1966." is clear and short, though.
  3. My third edit[5], well the text is about Prajñāpāramitā Sutra but it's been wikilinked from the middle to Prajñāpāramitā.
  4. Fourth, I removed a link to Kyoto since we are already linking to a more specific place in Kyoto, that is, Daigo-ji. For example, if we have [[Riverside]] and [[California]], we don't link to [[Riverside]], [[California]] but [[Riverside, California]] instead
  5. Sixth, I removed a duplicate link[6]

But did I undo everything? No, not at all. From this diff[7] you can still see what's been left from the edits. I hope this hels to correct the misunderstanding! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. "Mahavairochana Achala" is not a real name that appears anywhere; it's confusing in English Acala (referenced directly in Japanese as Fudō Myōō) and the Mahavairocana Tantra, where Acala makes an appearance. The latter is an important text in the origin schools of Shinnyo-en.
  2. "The Theravada monastery Wat Paaknam in Thailand presented Shinnyo-en with relics of Shakamuni Buddha on July 30, 1966." is short, but you assume the reader knows what Theravada, Wat Paaknam (misspelled) and "relics of Shakamuni Buddha" (misspelled) mean. These all have their own webpage for a reason, and we absolutely should link to them. As for "monastery", well, I prefer we use or pipe to vihara (or gompa in Tibetan Buddhism) for clarity, because those terms are specific enough to require their own wikipages for explanation, but whatever. I rephrased the sentence to prevent wikilinks from jamming up, and for clarity: Wat P., a Thai vihara, presented Shinnyo-en with sharira (relics of the Buddha) on date. It's less awkward than "Theravada monastery Wat P. presented TOPIC with relics of the Buddha on date", which fronts less-important information IMHO.
  3. We do not know which Prajñaparamita Sutra is referenced, and in any case, all of them are discussed at the Prajñaparamita wikipage. At first mention of religious works, it behooves us to provide appropriate wikilinks.
  4. Kyoto and removing a duplicate link were part of the mix, we don't need them. That was just because I rolled back edits because tons of them were removed after I worked on the page to make it clearer and you rolled it all back. You were continuing to roll back edits when I stepped in and edited - I know because it told me "edit conflict".
In short, you appeared to have been systematically dismantling the edits I made to the page to improve it and reintroducing errors of spelling and stripping wikilinks - this is a wiki and while some minimalism is a goal (I removed a ton of KYOTO links myself), at some point we do actually want to provide links to other pages. I don't assume people are wading into a page on a NRM and assume they know all about Buddhology or Buddhology jargon. It's not like this is a page on the finer points of Cittamatra, where to even hit that term the reader will have to know about Buddhist logic to some degree. Ogress smash! 16:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, while vajra is both the correct translation and a Buddhist technical term, "adamantine" is an English jargon coinage that is essentially meaningless to English speakers. Ogress smash! 17:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Ogress, and sorry for the delayed answer. I am sorry if you feel like I've bee "systematically dismantling the edits" you've made. No no, I can assure you that's not the case. We've been editing quite a few articles together, and I really appreciate the work you've done there. So please, don't you ever consider that I am "dismantling" your work, okay? :-) Anyway, here are few short answers:
  1. I acknowledge your expertise when it comes to the language issues, and we've had a discussion about it at your Talk Page[8]. When it comes to [[Kyoto]], maybe I just have a stricter interpretation but I still see it per WP:SEAOFBLUE, although in our text we are having a word "in" in between the two terms. In my humble opinion, I think "Daigo-ji" already provides the most specific link, just like [[Manhattan|Manhattan, New York]] instead of [[Manhattan]], [[New York]] (of course having the "in" in between).
  2. For the stub paragraph, I still think that it's too much if four out of nine words are wikilinks. However, I'd like to suggest following: let's expand the paragraph a little and back it up by a source. What do you think?
  3. Linking from the middle of a term, Prajñaparamita Sutra, I still reject to that. Prajñaparamita Sutra is Prajñaparamita Sutra, and if we don't have an article about it, we an always redlink the term instead of linking it to something else.
  4. And "sesshin", it's already linked so I removed the duplication. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)