Related to the previous post.
1. Was trying to look up Red Oni and Black Oni and of course it's deliriously being claimed (on wacky) that the appearance of Oni may have been influenced by Buddhism with some randome allusion to raakshasas. Huh? Why would raakshasas look so unique then in Japan? Do raakshasas of Buddhism (let alone Hindu religion) look that way anywhere else? (Didn't know raakshasas were so popular in Buddhism, unless Buddhism again used a relevant part of Hinduism to appeal to Shintos? I'm going to skip any argument that looking to Buddhism is unnecessary when there was already Hindu influence in Japan.)
The Oni looks very un-Indian and distinctly Japanese (distinctly Shinto, specifically).
Oni may be invisible except to Shintoists but they are well-described and ancient in Shintoism. (Even the Red and Black Oni featured in the little Hero tale are from a traditional narrative about the beginnings of the spread of rice farming in Japan, which can't be from yesterday.)
In fact, Oni look a bit like the Daoist God Pangku - sp? (of cosmic egg fame, mentioned briefly some posts up): being rather large/giant, having one or more kombu/shR^ingaaH and wearing pelts. Oni however seem to bear near-grimaces/pull faces IMO in depictions (the excited features scare away bad influences) and therefore sort of are reminiscent of the adorable wide grin on the face of the sacred Lion half of the Divine Animal pair guarding Daoist temple entrances. Oni however can also have irregular numbers of certain facial (eyes, horns) and other bodily features.
(Pangku's narrative itself is considered very similar to the Norse creation narrative: soon PIE-ists will encroach on Daoist Pangku as being "influenced" by the Norse men. Grief. Although, in defence of North-Western European heathens, I doubt they would encroach, not being PIE-ists.)
On the matter of Daoist temples too, Buddhism is typically being miscredited again: nowadays you see ludicrous claims that Daoist temples must have been influenced by Buddhist temples, by blind claimants pointing to:
* how there are two large dwaarapalakas in front of Buddhist temple entrances (which Buddhism obviously copied from Hindu religion) and declare that the common feature of a Dragon and a Lion in front of Daoist temples "must have been copied" from Buddhism. Uh, no. The layout of Daoist temples is very particular. I'd like to see Buddhist temples in other Asian zones - where they are not competing with Hindu or Shinto or Taoist religion - that have dwaarapalakas. Do Thai pagodas have them? Well, if they did that would obviously have been due to inculturation on pre-existing Hindu religion.
* even more absurd: that the famous Daoist trimoorti in Daoist temples "must have been copied" from the Buddhist trinity in Buddhist temples. What Buddhist trinity would that be? A reclining, sitting and standing Buddha? (That's a joke/guess by the way.) But is this a feature in Buddhist temples outside of Daoist-influenced regions*? (Or regions where Buddhism competed with Hindu religion's trimoorti, which also pre-dated Buddhism.) Consider that the Daoist trimoorti - Gods of Longevity, Prosperity and Good Luck who are (not sure in which order) the Gods of past, present and future of Daoism - is a core set of Daoist Gods in the Daoist Pantheon. The Dao in 3-part form consists of the Daoist trimoorti. Together they can therefore constitute the total cosmology of Daoism even by themselves. (Like the Jade Emperor can - even by himself - constitute Daoist Heaven/cosmology, at least as a summary.)
* Note by the way that even Thailand is not outside of Daoist influence: the reception of a hotel associated with the Suvarnabhoomi airport (and near to it) still had a shrine for the trimoorti of Daoism when I last visited. (Their features - everything from size and colour of their beards and their clothing and colouring - are very distinct and obvious as the Daoist Divine Trio, and only when people are not familiar with Daoism may they mistake these vigrahas as being of some random 'Buddhist' entities. Thailand does have significant Daoist influence, as does much of SE Asia.)
Why is it that whenever Buddhism blatantly copies/rips off/inculturates on pre-existing heathen Asian religion, Buddhism is credited with these things while the native religion is dismissed as having copied Buddhism? Even though Buddhism does not have the same features in most other places where Buddhism landed? (Making them actually unique features of the native religion that was inculturated upon by Buddhism.)
Gatver.
Back to the Oni of Shinto.
Here are the very famous Shinto Wind and Thunder Gods/Kamis (Fuujin & Raijin, who are Onisama-s)
![[Image: fujin_raijin.jpg]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MPmdQSa-h28/T95rRjD7M4I/AAAAAAAAIrM/YsW5p0Zly0M/s1600/fujin_raijin.jpg)
Some stills from a well-known modern classic - don't worry I won't gush, superlatives won't do it justice anyway:
us.cdn283.fansshare.com/photos/spiritedaway/zerochan-spirited-away-2101953976.jpg
The 2nd to last row, leftmost screengrab, shows a large wall-screen in the background of this Shinto Bathhouse for the Gods (Kamis), containing traditional Shinto depictions of Oni (in the img here these are in yellow, green and red).
Typically Shinto. Not Buddhist (except where Japanese Buddhism may inculturate on Shinto depictions). And not the way Hindus depict raakShasas either, be honest.
[color="#0000FF"]INSERT:[/color]
Oh and NO pointing to Tibetan (and as a consequence some Nepali) Buddhist imagery as "obvious inspiration".* The "inspiration" was the other way around. First of all, Tibet got converted to Buddhism very late. Second, it didn't just have a Hindu presence, it has had heavy Daoist influence. The type of Buddhism in Tibet, despite not being quite Mahayana, still has had influence from Chinese Buddhism, which itself more than absorbed influences in imagery and Deities from Daoism. (Also, where in the world does Buddhism have any *original* imagery? Daoist imagery is actually originally Daoist, despite Buddhism-peddlers dismissing it as Buddhist-influenced in obvious inversion.) So no need to pretend that Tibetan Buddhist paintings are "original Buddhist" when they are obviously E Asian in influence. Singaporean Chinese Daoists were discussing examples of vigrahas of Daoist Gods that were misused and mangled by unfortunately ignorant Tibetan Buddhists who imagine these Gods to have anything to do with Buddhism. One commented how these Daoist Gods were tattoed all over with Buddhist mantras (in the mantra the Daoist God is specifically named, so it's not like a mistaken identity/accident), which Daoists understandably find incredibly wrong (because it IS wrong).
* E.g. the masked Mahakala-s in Tibetan (and Nepali) Buddhist imagery are very Daoist in depiction (they directly compare to even the cute Sacred Lion at Chinese and Taiwanese Daoist temple entrances). Another tell-tale sign is the use of Longs [=Daoism's "Asian" "Dragons"] in place of Yaazhis in Tibetan and Nepali Buddhist imagery of the Bauddhified Hindu Gods. Longs are *very* distinctive, very unique to E Asia. They are NOT to be confused with "Nagas" - something someone at IF once ignorantly claimed - and although, on surface, people unfamiliar with both Longs and Yazhis may think they resemble Yazhis, Longs are so well-described (as a very *particular* amalgamation of features resembling those of other creatures - e.g. claws of one type of creature, whiskers of another, etc) that they cannot be mistaken for Yazhis.
Longs are NOT Buddhist but are exclusively Daoist - but were encroached on by Chinese, Japanese and Korean Buddhisms, since Daoism's Longs were already sacred and popular in Korean and Japanese native religions also. And either Longs had a similar pre-Buddhist presence in Tibet (not remotely impossible, considering Tibet borders both India and China and Daoism even in the more conservative estimates remains older than Buddhism and certainly much older than Tibetan Buddhism), or the Chinese Buddhist encroachment on Daoist Longs in E Asia was exported along with some other Chinese Buddhist influence into the lately-Bauddhified Tibet.
If entertaining any external influence on the traditional Shinto depiction of Shintoism's Oni, then the first obvious consideration should be Daoist (which has had some influence on what comes across to general audiences as "typical" "E Asian" imagery). But external influence is not necessary, as it's just Japanese Shinto, since Shinto Kami (and Oni) are not invisible to all.
1. Was trying to look up Red Oni and Black Oni and of course it's deliriously being claimed (on wacky) that the appearance of Oni may have been influenced by Buddhism with some randome allusion to raakshasas. Huh? Why would raakshasas look so unique then in Japan? Do raakshasas of Buddhism (let alone Hindu religion) look that way anywhere else? (Didn't know raakshasas were so popular in Buddhism, unless Buddhism again used a relevant part of Hinduism to appeal to Shintos? I'm going to skip any argument that looking to Buddhism is unnecessary when there was already Hindu influence in Japan.)
The Oni looks very un-Indian and distinctly Japanese (distinctly Shinto, specifically).
Oni may be invisible except to Shintoists but they are well-described and ancient in Shintoism. (Even the Red and Black Oni featured in the little Hero tale are from a traditional narrative about the beginnings of the spread of rice farming in Japan, which can't be from yesterday.)
In fact, Oni look a bit like the Daoist God Pangku - sp? (of cosmic egg fame, mentioned briefly some posts up): being rather large/giant, having one or more kombu/shR^ingaaH and wearing pelts. Oni however seem to bear near-grimaces/pull faces IMO in depictions (the excited features scare away bad influences) and therefore sort of are reminiscent of the adorable wide grin on the face of the sacred Lion half of the Divine Animal pair guarding Daoist temple entrances. Oni however can also have irregular numbers of certain facial (eyes, horns) and other bodily features.
(Pangku's narrative itself is considered very similar to the Norse creation narrative: soon PIE-ists will encroach on Daoist Pangku as being "influenced" by the Norse men. Grief. Although, in defence of North-Western European heathens, I doubt they would encroach, not being PIE-ists.)
On the matter of Daoist temples too, Buddhism is typically being miscredited again: nowadays you see ludicrous claims that Daoist temples must have been influenced by Buddhist temples, by blind claimants pointing to:
* how there are two large dwaarapalakas in front of Buddhist temple entrances (which Buddhism obviously copied from Hindu religion) and declare that the common feature of a Dragon and a Lion in front of Daoist temples "must have been copied" from Buddhism. Uh, no. The layout of Daoist temples is very particular. I'd like to see Buddhist temples in other Asian zones - where they are not competing with Hindu or Shinto or Taoist religion - that have dwaarapalakas. Do Thai pagodas have them? Well, if they did that would obviously have been due to inculturation on pre-existing Hindu religion.
* even more absurd: that the famous Daoist trimoorti in Daoist temples "must have been copied" from the Buddhist trinity in Buddhist temples. What Buddhist trinity would that be? A reclining, sitting and standing Buddha? (That's a joke/guess by the way.) But is this a feature in Buddhist temples outside of Daoist-influenced regions*? (Or regions where Buddhism competed with Hindu religion's trimoorti, which also pre-dated Buddhism.) Consider that the Daoist trimoorti - Gods of Longevity, Prosperity and Good Luck who are (not sure in which order) the Gods of past, present and future of Daoism - is a core set of Daoist Gods in the Daoist Pantheon. The Dao in 3-part form consists of the Daoist trimoorti. Together they can therefore constitute the total cosmology of Daoism even by themselves. (Like the Jade Emperor can - even by himself - constitute Daoist Heaven/cosmology, at least as a summary.)
* Note by the way that even Thailand is not outside of Daoist influence: the reception of a hotel associated with the Suvarnabhoomi airport (and near to it) still had a shrine for the trimoorti of Daoism when I last visited. (Their features - everything from size and colour of their beards and their clothing and colouring - are very distinct and obvious as the Daoist Divine Trio, and only when people are not familiar with Daoism may they mistake these vigrahas as being of some random 'Buddhist' entities. Thailand does have significant Daoist influence, as does much of SE Asia.)
Why is it that whenever Buddhism blatantly copies/rips off/inculturates on pre-existing heathen Asian religion, Buddhism is credited with these things while the native religion is dismissed as having copied Buddhism? Even though Buddhism does not have the same features in most other places where Buddhism landed? (Making them actually unique features of the native religion that was inculturated upon by Buddhism.)
Gatver.
Back to the Oni of Shinto.
Here are the very famous Shinto Wind and Thunder Gods/Kamis (Fuujin & Raijin, who are Onisama-s)
Some stills from a well-known modern classic - don't worry I won't gush, superlatives won't do it justice anyway:
us.cdn283.fansshare.com/photos/spiritedaway/zerochan-spirited-away-2101953976.jpg
The 2nd to last row, leftmost screengrab, shows a large wall-screen in the background of this Shinto Bathhouse for the Gods (Kamis), containing traditional Shinto depictions of Oni (in the img here these are in yellow, green and red).
Typically Shinto. Not Buddhist (except where Japanese Buddhism may inculturate on Shinto depictions). And not the way Hindus depict raakShasas either, be honest.
[color="#0000FF"]INSERT:[/color]
Oh and NO pointing to Tibetan (and as a consequence some Nepali) Buddhist imagery as "obvious inspiration".* The "inspiration" was the other way around. First of all, Tibet got converted to Buddhism very late. Second, it didn't just have a Hindu presence, it has had heavy Daoist influence. The type of Buddhism in Tibet, despite not being quite Mahayana, still has had influence from Chinese Buddhism, which itself more than absorbed influences in imagery and Deities from Daoism. (Also, where in the world does Buddhism have any *original* imagery? Daoist imagery is actually originally Daoist, despite Buddhism-peddlers dismissing it as Buddhist-influenced in obvious inversion.) So no need to pretend that Tibetan Buddhist paintings are "original Buddhist" when they are obviously E Asian in influence. Singaporean Chinese Daoists were discussing examples of vigrahas of Daoist Gods that were misused and mangled by unfortunately ignorant Tibetan Buddhists who imagine these Gods to have anything to do with Buddhism. One commented how these Daoist Gods were tattoed all over with Buddhist mantras (in the mantra the Daoist God is specifically named, so it's not like a mistaken identity/accident), which Daoists understandably find incredibly wrong (because it IS wrong).
* E.g. the masked Mahakala-s in Tibetan (and Nepali) Buddhist imagery are very Daoist in depiction (they directly compare to even the cute Sacred Lion at Chinese and Taiwanese Daoist temple entrances). Another tell-tale sign is the use of Longs [=Daoism's "Asian" "Dragons"] in place of Yaazhis in Tibetan and Nepali Buddhist imagery of the Bauddhified Hindu Gods. Longs are *very* distinctive, very unique to E Asia. They are NOT to be confused with "Nagas" - something someone at IF once ignorantly claimed - and although, on surface, people unfamiliar with both Longs and Yazhis may think they resemble Yazhis, Longs are so well-described (as a very *particular* amalgamation of features resembling those of other creatures - e.g. claws of one type of creature, whiskers of another, etc) that they cannot be mistaken for Yazhis.
Longs are NOT Buddhist but are exclusively Daoist - but were encroached on by Chinese, Japanese and Korean Buddhisms, since Daoism's Longs were already sacred and popular in Korean and Japanese native religions also. And either Longs had a similar pre-Buddhist presence in Tibet (not remotely impossible, considering Tibet borders both India and China and Daoism even in the more conservative estimates remains older than Buddhism and certainly much older than Tibetan Buddhism), or the Chinese Buddhist encroachment on Daoist Longs in E Asia was exported along with some other Chinese Buddhist influence into the lately-Bauddhified Tibet.
If entertaining any external influence on the traditional Shinto depiction of Shintoism's Oni, then the first obvious consideration should be Daoist (which has had some influence on what comes across to general audiences as "typical" "E Asian" imagery). But external influence is not necessary, as it's just Japanese Shinto, since Shinto Kami (and Oni) are not invisible to all.