![]() | On 17 September 2008, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the current article says that the first time we are introduced to shotuko is in 754, however the prince gives his ideas for constitution in the nihon shoki which was completed by 720.Prince Shotoku was born in 572and lived through 672.
I removed the following addition from an anonymous user as it is terrible English and made no sense to me:
If someone wants to decipher this and re-add it (assuming it's worthwhile), please go ahead.
- Amake 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
References
"According to `Japan The Nation of the Cross`, published by Tokuma Shoten there is a widely held view that in fact Prince Shotoku was a Christian immigrant from the Mainland who strongly fought against the secularized buddhist system." Or maybe he's a space alien or one of the reptilian overlords. There's also a link to a Japanese christian website at the bottom of the page. Who puts this stuff in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.200.20 ( talk) 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"Nevertheless, after the answer of Prince Shōtoku, the status of Japan did not change. Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to China and Korea. However, there were no countries to send tribute(朝貢) to Japan. They ignored Japan's humble national power."
This is supported by the following quote from a "Chinese book": 倭國乃日本國也. 本名倭旣恥其名. 又自以在極東因號日本也. 今則臣屬高麗也 - 郭若虛.《圖畵見聞志》 卷6. 高麗國 ("wa" is a Japan. Japanese think "wa" is a shameful country name, so they called their country as "nippon". Japan is a Vassal state of Korea. --Chinese book .《圖畵見聞志》
Googling for the qoute yields no results except this page and neither does googling for the name of the book (presumably 圖畵見聞志). There is no information on when the supposed book was written to support the claim that it describes the situation after the Ono no Imoko's mission.
Arguing about who paid tribute to who in historical times is a favourite past time of Asian nationalists - the tone and style of English leads me to believe that this was added by a Korean nationalist eager to denigrate Japan's past. When this article is cleaned up I think this part should be removed unless a reliable source (in a Western language) can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.61.120 ( talk) 16:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion. The information from "圖畵見聞志" has nothing to do with Prince Shotoku and is not reliable as a historical source. Descripting as if it were a fact is misleading.
Your lametst manner can't solve this discussion. Don't pushing your original research. Don't distoring original reference interpret.
Here is the full text. ○ 日本國 肥前州 田平寓鎭 彈正少弼弘 、 長門州 三島 尉 貞成 、 對馬州 太守 宗貞國 、 越中 守 宗盛弘 、 上津郡 追浦 泊耆守 宗茂次 遣人來, 獻土宜, 倭 護軍 信盈 等二人來朝。
來朝, 朝 means tribute.
Anyway, you still can't deny Japan paid tribute to korea. it is not a dubious. I've never seen any historians who claim that Japan did not paid tribute to Korea.
圖畵見聞志 is the one of the good example that old Japan's political power.
It is relation with this article. it mean "Japan never upper grade country than Korea, China" Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't distoring word. 臣 ; Vassal 屬 ; subordinate or under 高麗 ; Korea
郭若虚 was a Goverment Official with Famous Painter .
Not the historical fact? No, any evidence that it is a false?
Don't pushing your original resaerch. According to Samguk sagi, and anals of joseon dynasty, record of Japan's tribute are many. Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please prove counterpart source that this source is "invalid". Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 19:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you know who is the 郭若虚? He was a Goverment Official. His remark is reliable. also He is a thir country person's objective view. And, Even if he was a Painter, His Objective view is not a "invalid" thing. Don't distoring Original reference. Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if Prince Shotoku's existence is disputed, it is not still settled. Adding the word "mythological" is not a good thing. It should be like this.
-- Michael Friedrich ( talk) 16:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it is not my edit. but According to tokyo shinbum source, it's true. Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"According to 圖畵見聞志, Japan still paid tribute to Korea." This is the original research that Korean Web site Daum spread. [14]
『圖畵見聞志によれば、日本は朝鮮に朝貢した』 これは 韓国のWebサイトDaumから広まった奇妙な研究結果です。
この奇妙な研究結果の問題点は以下のとおり
1. 圖畵見聞志 is not a history document. Moreover, it is not a diplomatic document either. This is the commentary book of a picture written in 1080 by Guo Ruoxu (郭 若虚). [15] [16]
『圖畵見聞志』は歴史文書でも外交文書でもありません。郭若虚が1080年に記した美術の解説書です。
2. "倭國乃日本國也. 本名倭旣恥其名. 又自以在極東因號日本也. 今則臣屬高麗也" This is not writing the diplomatic relation of Japan and Korea. It is an explanation sentence that assists the article on "Fan of Korea".
"倭國乃日本國也. 本名倭旣恥其名. 又自以在極東因號日本也. 今則臣屬高麗也"の部分は、日本と朝鮮の外交関係を説明していません。朝鮮の扇子を解説した文書に添えられた注釈です。
Please look at the full text in this document. (都合のいい部分を抜き出さないで、全文を読んでください。) can some one translate this
彼使人。毎至中国。或用摺畳扇為私覿物。 (When coming to China, the messenger from Korea always presents the fan. ) (彼の国(高麗)からの使者は、中国に至る毎に、摺畳扇を手みやげにする場合がある。)
謂之倭扇。本出於倭国也。近歳尤秘惜、典客者蓋稀得之。 (This fan is called Wa-sen(倭扇).Even the aristocrat in China cannot obtain Wa-sen. ) (これを倭扇という。倭扇はもともとは倭国に産出するものである。しかし倭国の倭扇は近頃ではとりわけ秘惜されており、蛮夷との外交を司る鴻臚寺(典客)でさえも、おそらく倭扇を得ることは稀であろう)
倭国乃日本国也。本名倭。既耻其名。又自以在極東。因号日本也。今則臣属高麗也 (この倭国とは、日本国のことである。(日本国は)もともとの名を倭といったが、既にその(倭という)名を恥じ、また自国が極東に在ることを理由として、日本と号したのである。(朝鮮の使者が日本の扇子を持っているのは)すなわち、今、日本は高麗に臣属しているからだろう。) ("wa" is a Japan. Japanese think "wa" is a shameful country name, so they called their country as "nippon". If Japan is a client country in Korea now, the messenger from Korea might have a fan.)
Do you know who is the 郭若虚? He was a Goverment Official. His remark is reliable. also He is a thir country person's objective view. And, Even if he was a Painter, His Objective view is not a "invalid" thing. Don't distoring Original reference. Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The meaning of 則 is "If... "
"則"を正しく翻訳すれば、『日本が高麗に従属してる』は、推測であることは明らかです。
1. Prince Shotoku was born in 574, and died in 622. 聖徳太子は574年生まれで、622年に死にました。
2. The Goryeo Dynasty, established in 918, 高麗は918年に建国されました。
3. 'Experiences in painting' (圖畵見聞志) explains the history of the art from "Latter term of Tang Dynasty" to "First term of Song Dynasty". [20] 圖畵見聞志は唐・会昌元(841)年より北宋・煕寧 7(1074)年までの期間の美術を評論しています。 [21]
They wrote "Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to Korea". However,While Prince Shotoku lived, there were three countries in the Korean Peninsura. Countries of Korea were paying to Japan according to Legitimate History document that dynasty of China and dynasty of Korea edited
彼らは「日本はまだ朝鮮に朝貢をしていました」と書きました。しかしながら、聖徳太子の生きている間、朝鮮半島には3つの国がありました。中国や朝鮮の正当な歴史書は「朝鮮はまだ日本に朝貢をしていました」と書いています。
"Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to China" is true.
"Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to Korea" is a lie.
--
Eichikiyama (
talk)
11:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
1. What relation with 圖畵見聞志? 圖畵見聞志 wriiten 11 century, in 11 century, Japan was a Vassal State of Goryeo. It mean Japan still paid tribute to Korea. It is not direct relation with shotoku, BUT, It is a one of the good evidence that old Japan's political power.
2. Your sources are not explain that Japan did not tribute to Korea. irreravant.
3. Book of Sui, Book of Song is 外國列傳. if you see original full text... it say like that, "Wa said... " it is not a thir party record. Simply, It mean "Japan says like this to us...(not china say)", it is not mean "China considered like this".
4. Accordign to Book of Song [22], Baekje recieved 鎭東"大"將軍, Japan recieved 安東將軍.
鎭東"大"將軍 is upper grade title than 安東將軍. Bakje considered as a Great country than Japan by third country(China).
5. Samgu sagi source is not say that Korea paid tribute to Japan. irreravant. There is no history record in korea that Korea paid tribute to Japan.
6. Japan begged title "安東大將軍" to China. However, 秦韓, 慕韓, 六國諸軍事 were NOT exist country. What is the mean, Japan recieved title which unexist country's military ruler. this mean "fake title". Japan want this title one sidely, Song give this title without consideration. so this is not a objective record.
7. There is no record(China, Korea) that Korea paid tribute to Japan. But, There are many record(China, Korea) that Japan paid tribute to Korea.
8. "Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to Korea" is a true.
「古代北海道の交易品」の項では、1482年に夷千島王遐叉(かしゃ)と名乗ったものが、昆布200斤をもたせて李朝に使いを出したこと [24]
Need more source? I can find more. anyway, you still can't accept Japan paid tribute to korea. However, don't hide inconvenience for Japan. Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it would help a great deal if we stop using ancient historical documents and start using reliable sources that reflect current scholarly consensus. Cydevil38 ( talk) 13:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I think in the article where it says "Ōyama seiichi argued Prince Shōtoku was not a historical person at all" the next sentence: "Many other historians dispute this claim" is a little ambiguous as to what they're disputing, are the historians disputing the claim that Prince Shōtoku was a historical person or the calim by Ōyama that he was not? I feel that this could be rephrased to be less ambiguous. It might be possible to just add te word "also" after the word "dispute" of either replace "this" with "Ōyama's" to make the sentence easier to understand. I Feel Tired ( talk) 01:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is too short, especially when compared with other articles on Japanese historical figures. It is true that Shotoku may not have in fact done all the things that are attributed to him. But he and his life came to represent something much bigger and important in Japanese history: the triumph of Buddhism, central government, and political organization along Chinese lines. All that Buddhism later came to be in the Japanese political realm (the religion of the samurai, the warrior monks, etc), had its start in the movement represented by the life of Shotoku. Prince Shotoku stands large in Japanese history. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 07:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The article would benefit from a discussion of Shotoku's cultural role, such as the view of him as an incarnation of Avalokiteśvara, as is suggested by the pictures included with the article as well as in other entries. AusJeb ( talk) 20:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, completely agreed. I've been reviewing Michael I Como's look at the life and legend of Prince Shotoku and hope to expand this page with more detail, facts and influence on later religious figures, which is the main subject of the book. I've also added another photo, courtesy of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. Please stay tuned. -- Ph0kin ( talk) 18:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
All I wanted to mention was the fact that it should somehow be acknowledged that the Sui emperor did not find Prince Shotoku's address amusing and in fact it enraged him. I come to find that there is an intense battle going on between Wikipedians.
Personally I can corroborate most of what the person who wrote that Japan paid tribute to Korea. There is a lot of evidence, but it would be very annoying to cross-reference all the sources and evidence. In support of that person I would like to state that for every claimed fact or proven fact, there is always proper corresponding archaeological evidence, be it in records or in the form of artifacts. I would like the person who said there is no claim to "Japan paying tribute to China and Korea" to reinspect the state of Japan (in essence Yamato) at the time.
Here are some examples of constructive evidence which would support the idea that Japan probably did pay tribute to Korea and China: 1. The Seven-Branched Sword: On it I paraphrase, but in essence says it was crafted in joy of the Baekje monarch (emperor whatever you want to call the sovereign) for the sovereign of Wa (Japan) to be shown to future generations. 2. There is strong evidence for a deep-relationship between Baekje and Japan, ultimately Buyeo. The last statement is corroborated by an American anthropologist (read: 3rd party American) who believed the key to understanding ancient Japan lay in Buyeo, an ancient Korean kingdom. Why? There are artifacts found in both countries that are IDENTICAL. (i.e. 江田船山古墳 crown vs. the gold crown discovered in Gongju) Another example is the similarity between artifacts from one of the Kofuns in Japan and that of the tombs near Chaoyang city which are according to Chinese scholarship that of Buyeo POWs, but these skeletons are extremely well-preserved and there are a lot of expensive materials buried with the deceased. Korean scholarship believe that the tombs are that of important Buyeo officials and royal members because of the style. The dates also match up with the time period in which the Buyeo state would've existed when it moved its capital to where the tombs lie today. 2. When the Great (forgot his Japanese name) previous emperor died, his funeral rites were performed in Japan, these funeral rites are called: 百濟大殯. They were performed for three years, consistent with the tradition of Korea, the people were in national mourning. The year it was performed, 523 AD, the same time that King Muryeong, the 25th King of Baekje had passed. 3. The above fact can be corroborated with the genealogy volume to accompany the Nihon shogi which is under the possession of the imperial Japanese court. Furthermore, a Japanese historian, professor Ueda Masaaki was harrased when revealing his studies, by の右翼団体 (Uyoku dantai), essentially an ultra-nationalist PAC that among other things wants the world to acknowledge comfort women did not exist and Japan is in no way responsible for any incriminating activity that occurred during World War II. In their spare time, they make videos denying the fact that comfort women existed and that they were self-employed prostitutes. These videos can be easily looked up via web. 4. At the very least it must be acknowledged the imperial Japanese household must be intertwined with Baekje because a) the current Japanese Emperor in 2001 stated that he is a descendant of Baekje and b) that he has Korean blood in him too. The second statement was cut off by Japanese media. Only Asahi reported the latter statement. Another piece of evidence is the fact that in August of 2004, Imperial Prince Yasuhiko(朝香宮), an uncle of the current emperor came to Korea, specifically the tomb of King Muryeong in Gongju city to perform funeral rites. He even gave the mayor of Gongju incense from 1300 year old trees, which the imperial family uses for its rites.
Now I can't really be making all of this up can I, when there is scholarship in both countries who can verify the truth to the above statements? Globaldreamer ( talk) 13:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of evidence to back up the claims that Japan paid tribute to Korea
http://eng.khoa.go.kr/kcom/cnt/selectContentsPage.do?cntId=31070200
thats just one online ffs. They call me Mister Tibbs ( talk) 12:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince Shōtoku. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | On 17 September 2008, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the current article says that the first time we are introduced to shotuko is in 754, however the prince gives his ideas for constitution in the nihon shoki which was completed by 720.Prince Shotoku was born in 572and lived through 672.
I removed the following addition from an anonymous user as it is terrible English and made no sense to me:
If someone wants to decipher this and re-add it (assuming it's worthwhile), please go ahead.
- Amake 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
References
"According to `Japan The Nation of the Cross`, published by Tokuma Shoten there is a widely held view that in fact Prince Shotoku was a Christian immigrant from the Mainland who strongly fought against the secularized buddhist system." Or maybe he's a space alien or one of the reptilian overlords. There's also a link to a Japanese christian website at the bottom of the page. Who puts this stuff in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.200.20 ( talk) 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"Nevertheless, after the answer of Prince Shōtoku, the status of Japan did not change. Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to China and Korea. However, there were no countries to send tribute(朝貢) to Japan. They ignored Japan's humble national power."
This is supported by the following quote from a "Chinese book": 倭國乃日本國也. 本名倭旣恥其名. 又自以在極東因號日本也. 今則臣屬高麗也 - 郭若虛.《圖畵見聞志》 卷6. 高麗國 ("wa" is a Japan. Japanese think "wa" is a shameful country name, so they called their country as "nippon". Japan is a Vassal state of Korea. --Chinese book .《圖畵見聞志》
Googling for the qoute yields no results except this page and neither does googling for the name of the book (presumably 圖畵見聞志). There is no information on when the supposed book was written to support the claim that it describes the situation after the Ono no Imoko's mission.
Arguing about who paid tribute to who in historical times is a favourite past time of Asian nationalists - the tone and style of English leads me to believe that this was added by a Korean nationalist eager to denigrate Japan's past. When this article is cleaned up I think this part should be removed unless a reliable source (in a Western language) can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.61.120 ( talk) 16:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion. The information from "圖畵見聞志" has nothing to do with Prince Shotoku and is not reliable as a historical source. Descripting as if it were a fact is misleading.
Your lametst manner can't solve this discussion. Don't pushing your original research. Don't distoring original reference interpret.
Here is the full text. ○ 日本國 肥前州 田平寓鎭 彈正少弼弘 、 長門州 三島 尉 貞成 、 對馬州 太守 宗貞國 、 越中 守 宗盛弘 、 上津郡 追浦 泊耆守 宗茂次 遣人來, 獻土宜, 倭 護軍 信盈 等二人來朝。
來朝, 朝 means tribute.
Anyway, you still can't deny Japan paid tribute to korea. it is not a dubious. I've never seen any historians who claim that Japan did not paid tribute to Korea.
圖畵見聞志 is the one of the good example that old Japan's political power.
It is relation with this article. it mean "Japan never upper grade country than Korea, China" Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't distoring word. 臣 ; Vassal 屬 ; subordinate or under 高麗 ; Korea
郭若虚 was a Goverment Official with Famous Painter .
Not the historical fact? No, any evidence that it is a false?
Don't pushing your original resaerch. According to Samguk sagi, and anals of joseon dynasty, record of Japan's tribute are many. Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please prove counterpart source that this source is "invalid". Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 19:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you know who is the 郭若虚? He was a Goverment Official. His remark is reliable. also He is a thir country person's objective view. And, Even if he was a Painter, His Objective view is not a "invalid" thing. Don't distoring Original reference. Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if Prince Shotoku's existence is disputed, it is not still settled. Adding the word "mythological" is not a good thing. It should be like this.
-- Michael Friedrich ( talk) 16:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it is not my edit. but According to tokyo shinbum source, it's true. Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"According to 圖畵見聞志, Japan still paid tribute to Korea." This is the original research that Korean Web site Daum spread. [14]
『圖畵見聞志によれば、日本は朝鮮に朝貢した』 これは 韓国のWebサイトDaumから広まった奇妙な研究結果です。
この奇妙な研究結果の問題点は以下のとおり
1. 圖畵見聞志 is not a history document. Moreover, it is not a diplomatic document either. This is the commentary book of a picture written in 1080 by Guo Ruoxu (郭 若虚). [15] [16]
『圖畵見聞志』は歴史文書でも外交文書でもありません。郭若虚が1080年に記した美術の解説書です。
2. "倭國乃日本國也. 本名倭旣恥其名. 又自以在極東因號日本也. 今則臣屬高麗也" This is not writing the diplomatic relation of Japan and Korea. It is an explanation sentence that assists the article on "Fan of Korea".
"倭國乃日本國也. 本名倭旣恥其名. 又自以在極東因號日本也. 今則臣屬高麗也"の部分は、日本と朝鮮の外交関係を説明していません。朝鮮の扇子を解説した文書に添えられた注釈です。
Please look at the full text in this document. (都合のいい部分を抜き出さないで、全文を読んでください。) can some one translate this
彼使人。毎至中国。或用摺畳扇為私覿物。 (When coming to China, the messenger from Korea always presents the fan. ) (彼の国(高麗)からの使者は、中国に至る毎に、摺畳扇を手みやげにする場合がある。)
謂之倭扇。本出於倭国也。近歳尤秘惜、典客者蓋稀得之。 (This fan is called Wa-sen(倭扇).Even the aristocrat in China cannot obtain Wa-sen. ) (これを倭扇という。倭扇はもともとは倭国に産出するものである。しかし倭国の倭扇は近頃ではとりわけ秘惜されており、蛮夷との外交を司る鴻臚寺(典客)でさえも、おそらく倭扇を得ることは稀であろう)
倭国乃日本国也。本名倭。既耻其名。又自以在極東。因号日本也。今則臣属高麗也 (この倭国とは、日本国のことである。(日本国は)もともとの名を倭といったが、既にその(倭という)名を恥じ、また自国が極東に在ることを理由として、日本と号したのである。(朝鮮の使者が日本の扇子を持っているのは)すなわち、今、日本は高麗に臣属しているからだろう。) ("wa" is a Japan. Japanese think "wa" is a shameful country name, so they called their country as "nippon". If Japan is a client country in Korea now, the messenger from Korea might have a fan.)
Do you know who is the 郭若虚? He was a Goverment Official. His remark is reliable. also He is a thir country person's objective view. And, Even if he was a Painter, His Objective view is not a "invalid" thing. Don't distoring Original reference. Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The meaning of 則 is "If... "
"則"を正しく翻訳すれば、『日本が高麗に従属してる』は、推測であることは明らかです。
1. Prince Shotoku was born in 574, and died in 622. 聖徳太子は574年生まれで、622年に死にました。
2. The Goryeo Dynasty, established in 918, 高麗は918年に建国されました。
3. 'Experiences in painting' (圖畵見聞志) explains the history of the art from "Latter term of Tang Dynasty" to "First term of Song Dynasty". [20] 圖畵見聞志は唐・会昌元(841)年より北宋・煕寧 7(1074)年までの期間の美術を評論しています。 [21]
They wrote "Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to Korea". However,While Prince Shotoku lived, there were three countries in the Korean Peninsura. Countries of Korea were paying to Japan according to Legitimate History document that dynasty of China and dynasty of Korea edited
彼らは「日本はまだ朝鮮に朝貢をしていました」と書きました。しかしながら、聖徳太子の生きている間、朝鮮半島には3つの国がありました。中国や朝鮮の正当な歴史書は「朝鮮はまだ日本に朝貢をしていました」と書いています。
"Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to China" is true.
"Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to Korea" is a lie.
--
Eichikiyama (
talk)
11:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
1. What relation with 圖畵見聞志? 圖畵見聞志 wriiten 11 century, in 11 century, Japan was a Vassal State of Goryeo. It mean Japan still paid tribute to Korea. It is not direct relation with shotoku, BUT, It is a one of the good evidence that old Japan's political power.
2. Your sources are not explain that Japan did not tribute to Korea. irreravant.
3. Book of Sui, Book of Song is 外國列傳. if you see original full text... it say like that, "Wa said... " it is not a thir party record. Simply, It mean "Japan says like this to us...(not china say)", it is not mean "China considered like this".
4. Accordign to Book of Song [22], Baekje recieved 鎭東"大"將軍, Japan recieved 安東將軍.
鎭東"大"將軍 is upper grade title than 安東將軍. Bakje considered as a Great country than Japan by third country(China).
5. Samgu sagi source is not say that Korea paid tribute to Japan. irreravant. There is no history record in korea that Korea paid tribute to Japan.
6. Japan begged title "安東大將軍" to China. However, 秦韓, 慕韓, 六國諸軍事 were NOT exist country. What is the mean, Japan recieved title which unexist country's military ruler. this mean "fake title". Japan want this title one sidely, Song give this title without consideration. so this is not a objective record.
7. There is no record(China, Korea) that Korea paid tribute to Japan. But, There are many record(China, Korea) that Japan paid tribute to Korea.
8. "Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to Korea" is a true.
「古代北海道の交易品」の項では、1482年に夷千島王遐叉(かしゃ)と名乗ったものが、昆布200斤をもたせて李朝に使いを出したこと [24]
Need more source? I can find more. anyway, you still can't accept Japan paid tribute to korea. However, don't hide inconvenience for Japan. Kao no Nai Tsuki ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it would help a great deal if we stop using ancient historical documents and start using reliable sources that reflect current scholarly consensus. Cydevil38 ( talk) 13:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I think in the article where it says "Ōyama seiichi argued Prince Shōtoku was not a historical person at all" the next sentence: "Many other historians dispute this claim" is a little ambiguous as to what they're disputing, are the historians disputing the claim that Prince Shōtoku was a historical person or the calim by Ōyama that he was not? I feel that this could be rephrased to be less ambiguous. It might be possible to just add te word "also" after the word "dispute" of either replace "this" with "Ōyama's" to make the sentence easier to understand. I Feel Tired ( talk) 01:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is too short, especially when compared with other articles on Japanese historical figures. It is true that Shotoku may not have in fact done all the things that are attributed to him. But he and his life came to represent something much bigger and important in Japanese history: the triumph of Buddhism, central government, and political organization along Chinese lines. All that Buddhism later came to be in the Japanese political realm (the religion of the samurai, the warrior monks, etc), had its start in the movement represented by the life of Shotoku. Prince Shotoku stands large in Japanese history. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 07:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The article would benefit from a discussion of Shotoku's cultural role, such as the view of him as an incarnation of Avalokiteśvara, as is suggested by the pictures included with the article as well as in other entries. AusJeb ( talk) 20:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, completely agreed. I've been reviewing Michael I Como's look at the life and legend of Prince Shotoku and hope to expand this page with more detail, facts and influence on later religious figures, which is the main subject of the book. I've also added another photo, courtesy of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. Please stay tuned. -- Ph0kin ( talk) 18:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
All I wanted to mention was the fact that it should somehow be acknowledged that the Sui emperor did not find Prince Shotoku's address amusing and in fact it enraged him. I come to find that there is an intense battle going on between Wikipedians.
Personally I can corroborate most of what the person who wrote that Japan paid tribute to Korea. There is a lot of evidence, but it would be very annoying to cross-reference all the sources and evidence. In support of that person I would like to state that for every claimed fact or proven fact, there is always proper corresponding archaeological evidence, be it in records or in the form of artifacts. I would like the person who said there is no claim to "Japan paying tribute to China and Korea" to reinspect the state of Japan (in essence Yamato) at the time.
Here are some examples of constructive evidence which would support the idea that Japan probably did pay tribute to Korea and China: 1. The Seven-Branched Sword: On it I paraphrase, but in essence says it was crafted in joy of the Baekje monarch (emperor whatever you want to call the sovereign) for the sovereign of Wa (Japan) to be shown to future generations. 2. There is strong evidence for a deep-relationship between Baekje and Japan, ultimately Buyeo. The last statement is corroborated by an American anthropologist (read: 3rd party American) who believed the key to understanding ancient Japan lay in Buyeo, an ancient Korean kingdom. Why? There are artifacts found in both countries that are IDENTICAL. (i.e. 江田船山古墳 crown vs. the gold crown discovered in Gongju) Another example is the similarity between artifacts from one of the Kofuns in Japan and that of the tombs near Chaoyang city which are according to Chinese scholarship that of Buyeo POWs, but these skeletons are extremely well-preserved and there are a lot of expensive materials buried with the deceased. Korean scholarship believe that the tombs are that of important Buyeo officials and royal members because of the style. The dates also match up with the time period in which the Buyeo state would've existed when it moved its capital to where the tombs lie today. 2. When the Great (forgot his Japanese name) previous emperor died, his funeral rites were performed in Japan, these funeral rites are called: 百濟大殯. They were performed for three years, consistent with the tradition of Korea, the people were in national mourning. The year it was performed, 523 AD, the same time that King Muryeong, the 25th King of Baekje had passed. 3. The above fact can be corroborated with the genealogy volume to accompany the Nihon shogi which is under the possession of the imperial Japanese court. Furthermore, a Japanese historian, professor Ueda Masaaki was harrased when revealing his studies, by の右翼団体 (Uyoku dantai), essentially an ultra-nationalist PAC that among other things wants the world to acknowledge comfort women did not exist and Japan is in no way responsible for any incriminating activity that occurred during World War II. In their spare time, they make videos denying the fact that comfort women existed and that they were self-employed prostitutes. These videos can be easily looked up via web. 4. At the very least it must be acknowledged the imperial Japanese household must be intertwined with Baekje because a) the current Japanese Emperor in 2001 stated that he is a descendant of Baekje and b) that he has Korean blood in him too. The second statement was cut off by Japanese media. Only Asahi reported the latter statement. Another piece of evidence is the fact that in August of 2004, Imperial Prince Yasuhiko(朝香宮), an uncle of the current emperor came to Korea, specifically the tomb of King Muryeong in Gongju city to perform funeral rites. He even gave the mayor of Gongju incense from 1300 year old trees, which the imperial family uses for its rites.
Now I can't really be making all of this up can I, when there is scholarship in both countries who can verify the truth to the above statements? Globaldreamer ( talk) 13:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of evidence to back up the claims that Japan paid tribute to Korea
http://eng.khoa.go.kr/kcom/cnt/selectContentsPage.do?cntId=31070200
thats just one online ffs. They call me Mister Tibbs ( talk) 12:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince Shōtoku. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)