Jump to content

Talk:Sketches of the Life of the Great Priest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notes on English title

[edit]

Before anyone complains, I made sure to discuss this title on the refdesk before creating it. The justification for it is found here. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson's order

[edit]
Resolved

I was able to find a digital copy of a first edition from 1920 online, and Robinson's order appears to be wrong, which intuitively seems obvious, as the book is supposed to document the chronological life of Nichiren. This bothered me from day one, since the first time I saw Robinson's translation, so I can't figure out why he did this. What's the point of translating a book completely out of order of the events depicted? Working on this... Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fixed the order per the 1920 edition and the historical chronology. However, there seems to be some debate in the art auction literature as to the use and depiction of certain images meeting requirements for the first edition, and it may be that this is a second edition, not a first. Either way, the order now appears to be correct. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like William Pearl copied Robinson's order and posted it on the Kuniyoshi Project website without bothering to check the 1920 edition of the book. It's weird that some rando on Wikipedia has to fix the order of this book while nobody bothered to notice it was completely out of sequence. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the event that somebody asks how I know it is now in order, there are two reasons: 1) the order follows the 1920 print version of the entire work, and 2) the order follows the historical timeline of the documented (and obviously legendary in some respects) chronology per multiple sources. I will be adding these to the article in the next several days. Why Robinson published his analysis out of order is confusing to me. Either he didn't care or didn't bother to look at the history and publication order of the subject. As for citing the 1920 version directly, I've been working on it. I'm having difficulty translating it to complete a well-formed citation, but I'm making some progress. I hope to have it cited inline soon. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Tanaka 1926.[1] Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
In the Snow at Tsukahara, Sado Island
In the Snow at Tsukahara, Sado Island
  • ... that Monet decorated his house at Giverny with Kuniyoshi's In the Snow at Tsukahara, Sado Island (pictured), one of about 231 Japanese prints in his personal collection? Source: Moffett, Charles S. (1999). Impressionists in Winter: Effets de Neige. Phillips Collection. pp. 25-30. ISBN 0856674958. OCLC 39223532.

Created by Viriditas (talk) and Lambiam (talk). Nominated by Viriditas (talk) at 20:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sketches of the Life of the Great Priest; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • New enough, long enough (despite the bulk of the content, in the large table, not counting towards its length), and thoroughly sourced. Earwig found no problematic copying. QPQ done. Interesting hook, sourced and within rules; taking offline hook source on good faith. Good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sketches of the Life of the Great Priest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 02:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at reviewing this over the next few days. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Coincidentally, I’ve been meditating on how to fix the horrible layout of the series section, and I think I finally figured something out. I will attempt to give it a go in my sandbox later tonight or tomorrow, as I’m sure you will address that layout in your review. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the layout.[2] Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Viriditas, I've completed the review. Excellent article, I feel continued gratitude we have someone like you contributing to art coverage. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 11:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will begin addressing the issues over the next several days. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all looking really good. I really like the lead and how you've redone the Collections and Exhibits part from its original. Those long lists make my eyes glaze over. I've left a few comments below, sorry for my inactivity. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and content

[edit]
  • Perhaps Kuniyoshi [for some time] produced 'yakusha-e pieces/works (depictions of kabuki actors), but was unable to achieve any fame or notability in this genre.
  • Consider linking: Utagawa school, Kishi school, Sado Island (earlier) and Battle of Kōan
  • larger figures in the foreground against the background of the landscape background of the landscape is a confusing phrase. I think "against the landscape background" or "landscape in the background" would resolve it.
  • proclaiming the superiority of the Lotus Sutra to the exclusion of all other sects of Buddhism I'm not sure what to make of this, Lotus Sutra is not a sect?
    • The Lotus Sutra is a Buddhist scripture common to the Mahayana tradition which incorporates many different schools and sects. Conversely, the Theravada tradition does not accept the Lotus sutra as an authentic text of the Buddha; they only recognize the Pali Canon as authentic and everything else (like the Lotus Sutra) as later interpretations as they were written hundreds of years after the so-called historical Buddha was said to have lived. In the Mahayana tradition, Nichiren Buddhism is the school under discussion, but it and other schools have sects within their domain. To quote a good summary from decline of the Dharma: "Nichiren Buddhism [argues] that only its own teaching of Lotus Sutra devotion (through the chanting of the sutra's title, the daimoku) is effective during this era. For Nichiren, the only solution to Dharma decline was for the imperial government to embrace the Lotus Sutra and ban all other Buddhist sects. Only when this was done would Japan become a beacon of Dharma for the world, spreading the true Dharma and reversing the age of decline throughout the whole world." Should I add that as a footnote? Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the footnote is necessary, but In 1253, Nichiren famously criticized Pure Land Buddhism (Amidism) by proclaiming the superiority of the Lotus Sutra. This view of the Lotus Sutra as supreme was not shared by other sects of Buddhism, and to Nichiren, this rendered them invalid/ineffective (whatever is more appropriate). would clear up the confusion I see. I understand it's a lot more wordy, you may be able to cut it down. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)
  • I don't think the Jacqueline Stone quote adds anything
    • That's interesting, as I think it adds a lot and is the central theme of Nichiren Buddhism. First, it foreshadows what is to come in the third part of the series ("Nichiren's incessant attacks on the other Buddhist schools led to Hōjō Tokimune, the de facto ruler of Japan, exiling him to the Izu Peninsula in 1261") and what follows after that. The literature is also clear that Nichiren's polemics were based on attacking the other Buddhist sects, particularly his attacks on Pure Land, Zen, Shingon, Ritsu, and Tendai sects. These became known as the "four criticisms", or "four dictums". Would be interested to hear why you believe otherwise. To put it bluntly, the persecution of Nichhiren, as this series makes clear, was somewhat brought on by his own actions. That doesn't make it right or acceptable, but Stone's quote shows how Nichiren had a direct role to play in the path he took. That's why I find it important, and it nicely encapsulates everything I just said in a few words. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of the short description of works before their explanation. Reading "Tōjō Kagenobu", I don't know who he is, why he's attacking and I am left confused. As with "his prayers appear to be answered by a downpour": Why would he be praying in a stormy sea for a downpour?
    • I think you are reading it differently than me. The description is just that; the explanation follows in the next paragraph. I don't think it's a good idea to mix the description of the painting with the explanation. The description tells us what we are looking at. The explanation section goes into detail with meaning. Think of it like a Wikipedia article about a painting. 90% of them keep the description separate from the interpretation and thematic discussion. This is the same format. You may ask, why keep it separate? Because a simple description of the panel preserves those elements in their original context. This allows us breathing room to appreciate the work without any additional overlays. You seem to be reading this quite differently from me, expecting an immediate explanation for the elements, their placement, their intention, etc. But almost none of our painting articles do this. I will admit, some of our articles do this. I will choose one randomly: Baptism of Christ (Perugino, Rome). I'm not a fan of that style, and you can see it is entirely unsourced, mixing all of these things together. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit hard to justify the inclusion of Monet in the lead, if it was simply one of over 200 Japanese prints he owned.
    • I will revisit it, although I think the original point was 1) This was indicative of the influence of Japonisme in the west and on the art world in general, and 2) Kuniyoshi came to the attention of the west in this way. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand these points, but if they are to be included in the lead such significance should be established in the body. As it stands, reading the lead tells me that Monet's ownership of this print was exceptional in a way the body doesn't support. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions)
        • The greater historical significance is as follows 1) Snow at Tsukahara, Sado Island, is generally considered the best work in the series, a work published in Japan from 1835–1836 2) Japan opened up to the larger world sometime around 1854 3) Felix Braquemond began discovering similar works around 1859 4) Facsimiles of Japanese woodblock prints began to be distributed in France in the early 1860s 5) Monet was fascinated with snowscapes and ukiyo-e, and likely discovered the print after 1871 6) The interest and enthusiasm for this work then spread to the larger public with the late 1870s representing a maturation point, and the early 1890s a saturation of the market. 7) The "exceptional" part of it is mostly unstated: the end of Japanese isolationism led to a cultural exchange with the wider world, in this case, Japanese artists influencing the art world. I am not committed to having it in the lead section, but it seems to me to be fairly important. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • It occurs to me that I neglected to note that the cultural exchange was bidirectional, as Kuniyoshi was apparently greatly influenced by European art, which I think I remember reading he procured illegally from traders, as Japan was a closed society at the time. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm wondering if I can work this into the body. I may come up with some new material to try and meet your objections to Monet in the lead. I will give it a go later. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
              • I temporarily removed it from the lead.[13] I tried to put together material about Japonisme, but that still wouldn't really justify mentioning Monet in the lead per your objection. The material that I saw shows that Kuniyoshi influenced French art in many ways, from Manet to Monet. Your objection is that the material in the body at this time doesn't support it, which I would agree with. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • who fish using trained comorants to make their catch → who catch fish using trained cormorants (not perfect, but the use of fish as a verb here is quite confusing and produces a garden-path sentence)
  • Having read a bit of Baskett, page 85, I think the fact they were folded up when used in religious manuals is valuable insight into how they were consumed.
  • Similarly, I think omitting that he was healing the fishermen by exorcism leaves relevant information out, and leaves the title confusing.
    • It wasn't omitted. Each entry in the series goes by many different names. For each title, I chose the one in the literature that had the most usage and acceptance. Baskett herself says the alternate title in this example is Nichiren Preaching to the Cormorant Fisherman, which is a variation of the original that I used. Why Baskett chose to go with a different title is unknown. Here is another variation just to compare: [16] I will consider adding more. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note, I used the title from the British Museum.[17] They cite Robinson 1982, S6 no. 1; Bidwell 1968, no. 20; Suzuki 1992, no. 185. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is their summary: "Nichiren seated on a river bank, conversing with two cormorant fishermen in a boat below; a large pine tree in the lower right, a mountain range in the background." Nothing about an exorcism. It looks like Baskett is adding her original commentary to the interpretation and to the title. I can try to adjust for this. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        It turns out the whole "exorcism" thing comes from poet Laurence Binyon. He added that description to the 1913 catalog for the British Museum. As far as I can tell, subsequent scholars haven't used it. To be sure, I went into the Nichiren literature to look for mentions of it, as casting out spirits or demons was a thing in Japanese Buddhism. Strangely, I could find nothing. I did, however, find multiple instances of "Nichiren converting a fisherman", and Yu-ying Brown of the British Library notes that this may refer to "a famous incident in Nichiren’s life where a fisherman was persuaded to give up fishing and follow the Buddha." I did find several other different versions of the fishing story, but none of them had anything to do with an exorcism. The one that came closest, was of Nichiren visiting the spirit of a dead fisherman on the banks of a river and praying for him. I'm considering sticking with the "conversion" interpretation if I can't find anything supporting Binyon in current use. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Robinson 1982 is still being actively cited. He uses "Nichiren converting the spirit of a cormorant fisherman on the Isawa river in the province of Kai" which is pretty close to the version I'm using. I think the problem for you is citing Baskett directly. I will try and fix that. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just to be clear, Baskett is citing Binyon 1916, hence the issue. (Baskett 1980, p. 85). I don't see this description used in later sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm still unsure what to make of this, and I may just be catching you before you update it. You say in wikivoice that he is healing them, even though most sources are not talking about healing but rather "converting the spirit" which I understand to be different, or at least, not implied by the literal reading of healing. In the only source I understand supports healing, this healing is notably done by exorcism, which is the part the text emphasises. It seems strange to include that he is healing in wikivoice, drawing from this one source, but omitting the other things the source emphasises? I am sorry again if you just haven't updated per above. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have created a fix for this in my head; I am in the process of implementing it now. I will ping you when I'm done. It's a bit difficult for me because there are two sources I don't have access to that could help clear this up, and frankly, they are somewhat obscure and hard to find (in other words, most people don't have access to them). However, there are signs that other sources don't use the exorcism description. I think it's best if I just represent both POV for now. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                • Looks like the "healing" bit was my error.[18] I think the larger picture is coming in to play now. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The point is that Nichiren isn't "healing" the fishermen here, they just happen to be there and some interpretations say he was preaching or converting them. What was really going on is that Nichiren (according to legend) was praying for the ghost of a dead fisherman who isn't pictured. I'm trying to clear this up. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think per WP:YESPOV we don't necessarily want to say he isn't healing them, but just give DUE weight in presenting that perspective of Baskett, allocating less wordcount to such a characterization than those explanations that are repeated across sources. To be honest, I'm not sure this can be done without making the section excessively long, and I would spin it out and summarize it here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC) I think it can be done here without spinning it out. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I'm trying to fix the larger problem. Baskett uses Binyon's title from his 1916 catalog entry for the British Museum (which they do not use in subsequent versions of the print in their collections), while she cites the holding of the Bidwell collection at the MFA, which does not use the title either! However, to address this, she notes in a very roundabout way that the print she is citing with the old title uses a different title (Nichiren preaching to the cormorant fishermen, Dailey 1968, p. 11), and even though she cites that specific entry and print, she uses the older title from 1916. Why? It's not at all clear, but she tries to connect the exorcism of the spirit with the spirit depicted in print 9 of the same series (Manifestation of the Seven-faced divinity at Minobuzan, 9th month 1277). So to me at least, it appears that Baskett intentionally used the 1916 title given to the print by Binyon to show a common thread of exorcism between the two prints, even though the interpretations and scenes are quite different. Nichiren, in fact, is not "healing" the fisherman. His presence there is to "heal" the spirit of a dead fisherman who is not pictured. This is part of a larger discourse about Nichiren and it's what Baskett is referring to as an "exorcism". Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I'm going back to the source to review this with you, but before I leave a larger comment I see there's some WP:CLOP in "viewed as untouchables since they took life to provide for themselves" VS "viewed them as untouchables since they took life in order to feed themselves". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I have two more comments from the source that are off-topic:
                          1. "was thought to" gives doubt that was not found in the source.
                          2. Baskett's summary of the series as a whole's reception given on page 85 should be included.
                        • From your comment, I understand you are saying the the ghost is being healed? I have never heard this interpretation of "heal by exorcism", but it seems this is because I am not as familiar as you with Buddhism. Could you give me some reading that can support this is a concept? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Read the title Baskett uses: Nichiren Exorcising the Ghost of the Cormorant Fisherman. This refers to a dead cormorant fisherman (his ghost), not to the fisherman depicted. Kuniyoshi's student notably expanded on this famous story, which you can read more about in detail at here (depicted in Picture of the priest Nichiren praying for the restless spirit of the cormorant fisherman of the Isawa river (1885), also note the title): "Yoshitoshi depicted Nichiren...standing on the shore of the river, Isawagawa, in Kai province. Standing in the water is the ghost of Kansaku, a cormorant fisherman whose soul could not find rest after he had died as a result of fishing in a sacred area...Kansaku had appeared to Nichiren in a dream and had begged him to save his lost soul. Waking up, the priest found himself on the shore of the Isawagawa and he immediately started to pray for Kansaku...The scene shown...took place...in 1274. The story of Nichiren and the cormorant fisherman is the basis of the kabuki play Nichiren shonin minori no umi ('Priest Nichiren and the water of Dharma')." You will notice that Baskett also doesn't discuss Nichiren healing or exorcising the fishermen depicted in the image. This is because the story has to do with Nichiren healing a dead fisherman who is not in the image. This also explains why there are competing titles. Finally, you will note the dates are the same: 1274. This seems to answer the question as to why Baskett cites the Bidwell collection but does not use their title. Bidwell's title, Nichiren preaching to the cormorant fishermen would in fact be wrong, when seen in this light. It's starting to make more sense now. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                            I think the title is more ambiguous than you give it credit for, but I believe based on what Kuniyoshi's student has said that your reading is correct. I did not understand the exorcism as from the river, but rather as from a person depicted. I believed he was praying for an exorcism of a person in part because other sources were saying Nichiren was praying over the fishermen portrayed in the image. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                            I just learned what Nichiren is actually doing in the panel! If you look closely at the image in question (zoom in), you can see that he is painting rocks with a quill. Apparently, this is how the "exorcism" was achieved. Folklore says that Nichiren wrote the Lotus Sutra on the rocks to give the ghost of the fisherman peace in the underworld. There is of course a much longer story behind this, which is part of classical Japanese Noh theatre.[20] I won't add that until I have proper sourcing, but I will try and make some changes to solve this issue. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                            Added a ref to the art museum at Oberlin, as that's the most accurate title by far. Found this in tourist materials for Fuefuki, where the incident in question took place: "The historical record of "Ukaizan Onmuyoji Engi", describes the legend of how Onmyoji Temple in Isawacho, Fuefuki City was established. Saint Nichiren was traveling around the Kainokuni area on foot to propagate the religion of the Lotus Sutra. He visited Isawa in 1274 where he encountered the ghost of Uzukai (a cormorant fisherman). In order to bring peace to the ghost Saint Nichiren carried out “Kawasegaki Kuyo” (a memorial service conducted on a riverbank). He ordered his followers to write characters from the eight volumes of the Lotus Sutra on pebbles and these were thrown into the riverbed for three days and nights. As a result, the ghost of the cormorant fisherman could rest in peace and a tombstone was placed at the site. Onmyoji Temple was later built here and the tombstone is the origin of the temple. By the end of the Kamakura Era, this story, "Ukairyo-O-Boreisaido" had spread far and wide in the Kanto area and about 600 years ago, during the Muromachi Era, Noh writer Zeami created the Noh song "Ukai" based on an episode from this story...The pebbles on which Buddhist scriptures were written were found in many regions in Japan. They are called Kyo-ishi stones. Among them, the most famous Kyo-ishi stone is preserved at the Onmyoji Temple in Isawa-shuku. It was offered by Saint Nichiren to pacify the unsatisfied soul of the Uzukai ghost." I will need to find more reliable sources before adding any of this, but it is good to know. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baskett argues that... I'm not sure argues that is the correct verb here, characterizes or says may be more appropriate.
  • Nichiren is not mentioned in the article on the 1281 invasion. This isn't too big a worry, as the article is awful. However, I hope you can tell me if the credit Nichiren was given was widespread to establish if Zwalf's characterization is DUE.
    • I don't expect it would be mentioned in the history article as we are talking about a religious art work. I just updated Zwalf's book edition. First thing I noticed is that I screwed up the attribution. Zwalf didn't write it, he was the editor. The entry in question was written by Victor Harris of the British Museum. He's listed as Keepers of Japanese Antiquities more than a decade after he wrote that entry. I will reproduce it in full: "The divine aid of the weather foiled the second attempted invasion of Japan by Kublai Khan (1281). Nichiren is popularly thought responsible for summoning the divine wind called shimpi, despite constantly preaching that Japan would be overthrown for ignoring his teaching." Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note, in regards to due weight, there's additional information about this event over at Kamikaze (typhoon). Although Nichiren isn't mentioned there, he is mentioned in this particular regard by British historian of Japanese military history Stephen Turnbull, in his book The Mongol Invasions of Japan 1274 and 1281 (2013). It's on pages 80-87, although the story is somewhat complex and convoluted. Turnbull points out that "One of the roles of Japanese Buddhism had always been the protection of the country through the involvement of invisible gods with the existing social order, and the basis for the claims lodged by shrines and temples was that their prayers had brought about the victory...It may appear to the modern ear that priests and monks made up stories which seem incredible to us today, giving the intervention of their kami full credit for the destruction of the Mongol armada in order to claim rewards. But this is to misunderstand the religious mindset of the times. Takezaki Suenaga fought, but he also prayed, because a belief in the ‘this-worldly’ efficacy of prayer permeated the whole of the samurai’s environment, and the battlefield was seen as a place where the kami and buddhas interacted with men...Seven hundred Buddhist monks had been involved in a seven-day long service for the repulse of the Mongols, and Hachiman spoke through a medium to tell them that he had been so strengthened by prayer that he was about to blow the fleet away." Turnbull does mention Nichiren in regards to the kami, but it's more roundabout. "A further dimension to the religious aspect of the invasions was provided by the priest Nichiren, because among the new Buddhist sects that developed during the 13th century Japan had acquired one that was to have a curious bearing on the Mongol defeat... Most importantly of all, in his 1260 tract Nichiren had warned that unless Japan mended her ways she would be visited by the spectre of foreign invasion, and the arrival of the Mongol envoys with Khubilai Khan’s demands for tribute transformed Nichiren's image into that of a visionary. It was the period of greatest numerical growth among Nichiren's followers, but their harsh and uncompromising stand against all other believers made Nichiren into a prophet without honour in his own country. Harsh persecution followed and Nichiren was condemned to death, although the sentence was finally commuted to exile. On his way to execution the procession passed a shrine to Hachiman, where Nichiren stopped and mockingly challenged the great kami to save him." Turnbull concludes by noting his connection to the Mongol attack in the form of a memorial today: "His most tangible link with the Mongols exists today in the city of Hakata, where a memorial to the defeat of the invaders bears on its side scenes from the Mongol attacks and from his own life. Towering above them is a huge statue of the prophet, as fierce and uncompromising in bronze as he ever was in life." Interestingly, Turnbull notes that the central memorial for the Mongol invasion has only two statues, Emperor Kameyama and Nichiren, giving a bit more additional weight to the notion of "popularity". The question you ask hinges on whether "Nichiren is popularly thought responsible for summoning the divine wind" outside of Nichiren Buddhism. My guess is the answer is no. Turnbull's book seems to make clear that everyone was taking credit for rebuffing the Mongols. Is it undue to say that Nichiren Buddhists believed he was responsible? I don't think so. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

[edit]
  • [5] Green tickY
  • [10] Red XN I think you meant to reference Seidlitz (1910), but looking at Paine I am not sure what function page 253 is serving by being referenced.
    • Yeah, something went wrong somewhere. I see that the original quote is on p. 188 of Seidlitz (1910), but that wasn't what I was quoting, as the quote is used somewhat differently there. I will either have to find the original I was quoting or change it. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • [15] Magenta clockclock Can you give a page number? My search of "Shichirigahama" and "Takinoguchi" are not returning results.
  • [20] Green tickY
  • [25a] Red XN Page numbers are also needed for this text. If you don't want to list a million pages in the <ref> </ref>, Template:Reference page is available, although I understand if you do not want to do this. I believe this one is on page 182, although [25b] remains needed. I am inclined to fail this as the source identifies this as "The correct version, as here depicted" is the competing Buddhist school version rather than the Yamabushi version, yet above the description is simply "depicts Nichiren in Komuroyama suspending a large rock thrown at him by a Yamabushi." I don't have access to this other source, can you quote it?
    • I left in the original description as sourced to Binyon 1916 Robinson 1982 and Suzuki 1992 by the British Museum; it is still authoritative.[25] This is a common problem in art. Often the original description of a work will lose its original interpretation over time. However, considering Frederick W. Gookin (1880–1962) was an expert, I am inclined towards making changes. The problem is that this isn't as simple as it appears due to the ambiguity of the material. For example, is the dispute as to which is "correct" over the "Yamabushi"? I don't think it is. They have been described as mountain warriors, a type of competing Buddhist sect. Or is the dispute about how the rock came to be floating in air? I think this is more likely. In other words, was it thrown at Nichiren by the Yamabushi from above, or was it levitated as a test of wills? Do you see the problem? This is why I left it as it is. Note, the text is freely available on Google Books. Binyon begins on 536 (p. 708)[26]. The relevant text is on p. 537 (p. 713):[27] ""Nichiren stands calm under a cliff [ledge?]...suspending in mid-air by the force of his prayers a huge rock prayed at him by a Yamabushi. Beside the saint is an acolyte; and beside the warrior-monk is a man with a huge axe. This happened on the 28th of the 5th month of Bunyei 11 (1274)." Added additional page number.[28] Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will look into this again tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks like subsequent exhibitions to the present day have stuck with the Yamabushi description. This includes the 1963 exhibition at the Museum of East Asian Art (Cologne). I should note the entire notion of a boulder being thrown at Nichiren originally comes from the legendary stories of the Buddha, so it appears as if this story was adapted to the life of Nichiren (just my opinion). Apparently, Gookin was also a Nichiren Buddhist, which might be why his commentary doesn't show up in the professional literature, even as late as 1975. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looking into this further, it looks like the other Buddhist sect is Shugendō, whose practitioners are known as Yamabushi. They practiced a mixture of Buddhism and Kami worship. It still isn't clear what Gookin means by the "correct" version, but my guess is he means they didn't throw the boulder but rather engaged in a contest, which would make sense since the imagery of throwing a boulder predates Nichiren by many centuries when it happened to the Buddha, according to the legends. Again, Gookin was a proponent of Nichiren Buddhism, which may explain why his ideas aren't found in the art literature beyond this one source. I tried to search the Nichiren Buddhist literature and didn't find anything, but I have a few more other places to look. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • [28] Green tickY

Suggestions

[edit]

Other

[edit]
  • Summary style / overly detailed Green tickY
  • No OR/CLOP Green tickY, Earwig fine (9.1%)
  • Stable Green tickY
  • Neutral Green tickY
  • Images Green tickY All adequately tagged. Captions are omitted, which I really appreciate.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 11:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave: I think I added just about everything that could possibly be added about this series. I found the missing reference for the censor and even added the anchor. If you think I should cut additional material, let me know, as I've pretty much cut 80% of the material you asked me to remove so far. I added mention of the four variations of the In the Snow at Tsukahara, Sado Island print. Two things that are missing stand out to me that I haven't mentioned: 1) The physical and technical process for creating the prints in the series isn't mentioned. This involves the type of wood used, the cutting and the printmaking. I could conceivably describe it in general terms based on other sources about Kuniyoshi's methods, but I didn't do so. I wonder if a link to such production methods would suffice if it exists. 2) I didn't mention the variations of the variations. In addition to the four variations of the snowy Sado Island print, there are variations of the entire set itself due to the process of making prints. This generally involves the different colors and gradations that are noticeable in the printmaking process. One reason I didn't mention it is because the only source I could find on the subject was the "Kuniyoshi Project" website run by notable art collector William Pearl, who is a benefactor of the arts in Hawaii, and possibly other places, I don't know (information about him is extremely hard to find as he keeps a low profile). Because Pearl is the only person who mentions the noticeable color variations in the series from different print collections, I left it out for the moment. Other than those two things, the article is fairly comprehensive. As for weaknesses, the only issue I've found is my personal description of what Nichiren is doing in the fisherman print section. I could find no reliable secondary source that says "Nichiren is writing on rocks" in regards to the print itself, however, it is my understanding that describing a work of art, whether it is a book, a painting, or a film, is fairly uncontroversial as long as it is easy to verify. In this regard: 1) If you zoom into the painting, you can clearly see with your own eyes that Nichiren is writing on the rocks with his ink brush. 2) This act of writing on the rocks outside of the painting is supported by multiple cited sources in the article, including the musuem and temple source published by the Fuefuki's visitor's bureau, to the ethnographer who cited the legend in a journal article in 1901. The question then becomes, why did every art historian for the last century fail to note that Nichiren was writing the Lotus Sutra on little rocks in the painting? I can't answer that. There are several sources that might explain it that I simply don't have access to right now (Robinson 1961, Suzuki, Schaap, etc.) Perhaps it is the case that these other sources do mention it, I don't know. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with your efforts here, and trust your judgement on determining if the article is sufficient in this state. The article does not need to be comprehensive, and some editorial judgement comes into what is contained vs omitted. Overall, I think the article is in a lot better shape than the start of the review, thanks to your great efforts in researching and rewriting. Passing now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sketches_of_the_Life_of_the_Great_Priest&oldid=1284184472"