Could not load that page.

Talk:Korean shamanism

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

comments

Korean Shamanism has about a million adherents in China.

Is this meant to indicate that all one million ethnic-Korean Chinese people are shamanism followers? Is there a source? -Baixue

Shamans consider themselves Buddhists

It seems like it might be kind of hard to say how many people hold shamanism as their religion, since, when asked, most people who practice it self-identify as Buddhist. In fact, of course, the two co-exist--shamanic gods (some of whom are Buddhist or Taoist) for day-to-day, Buddhas for more ultimate concerns like salvation after death.

Maybe people with a Western view of religion (as in, you're either Christian or Jewish or Muslim or atheist or neopagan, but not any two at once) aren't the best people to collect data on Asian religion. Look at the hash that idea has made of the statistics on Shinto. Under normal circumstances, nobody but the most devout self-identify as any one thing, except for Christians. 71.223.169.27 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. However, I would note that the Choson Dynasty did try to impose one religion (Confucianism) on Korea to the exclusion of both Shamanism and Buddhism. We can really only report what reliable sources say about this topic. I believem, based on the note at the bottom of the article, that most of the current text comes from a public source document from the Libary of Congress Country Studies series. I'm in the process of trying to rewrite this on the basis of a monograph written by a professor at Kyung Hee University. JChap2007 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Small issues with writing; otherwise, immensely better

In general, I cannot praise the improvements to this article enough. Some actual depth in an article about Korea is a breath of fresh air; too many of the Korea articles just seem to be content with a big table or list, and precious little explanation. See, for example, the article on Korean honorifics. The shamanism article used to be little more than that, just a list of some gut without a scrap of detail about what, specifically, a shaman does.

That said, hanja for as many terms as hanja exist for would be quite helpful (apparently gut doesn't have one). They're useful in showing a) the syllable breaks in words, and b) the precise meanings of words. For instance, until I saw it written in Hanja, I just assumed the psychopomps god, Saja, meant "Death something," possibly Death Child (死子); imagine my surprise to discover it means something along the lines of "agent, messenger" (使者).

Also, isn't it the Wikipedia policy to use Revised Romanization? Don't sweat that too much, though. Nagakura shin8 20:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I don't know much hanja and cannot type it (nor can I type hangul for that matter), so in the best tradition of {{sofixit}}, feel free to add hanja characters where appropriate. However, as shamanism is a native/Siberian-derived rather than being borrowed by the Koreans from China, it wouldn't surprise me if none of the words that are used to discuss it were Sino-Korean. If the words aren't Sino-Korean, they will not have associated hanja characters. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I mean the compliments; it's much improved. Actually, though, a surprising number of Shamanic terms have hanja, at least for parts of the words. "Mudang" for instance is 巫堂.
I have no problem with going through and adding hanja for words I know the hanja for (the above, for instance), but I'd really like hanja for the types of shaman, as those are terms I'd never encountered before. Possibly someone more acquainted with the hanja for this specialized area can help? Nagakura shin8 18:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A quick search on http://alldic.empas.com reveals the following: 강신무 (Kangshinmu) = 降神巫 (Shamans characterised by the possession of a spirit/god - i.e. a charismatic shaman); and Sessŭmu = 世襲巫 (hereditary shamans). Please feel free to add this to the article if you so wish! I don't want to just unilaterally make changes. Although...if no one says anything in a week, I'll just go ahead and make the changes.. Dark_chancellor 10:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue with this passage in the "Origins" section

" Shamanism has its roots in ancient, land-based cultures, dating at least as far back as 40,000 years. ..... During a trance, the shaman’s soul left his body and travelled to other realms, where helping spirits guided him in his work."

From my research (I'll provide the source later when I get a chance to find it) there is no form astral travel in Korean Shamanism but rather the opposit where the shaman allows the dieties from other realms to enter her body for spiritual guidance and insight.

-Bill July 27, 2007

Refimprove tag

I've added a refimprove tag to this page because the entire page is sourced by one book: Korean Shamanism—Muism. Other references would be more than helpful. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If I had the time, I'd add my contributions from other sources; but in the meantime, if anyone DOES have the time, I would suggest using Don Baker's Religions of Korea in Practice, Korean Spirituality, and Laurel Kendall's The Life and Hard Times of a Korean Shaman. Being not well-read in this field, I don't know what other books are out there; but given that Baker is a respected historian, and Kendall is a respected anthropologist, I believe that an article that includes their works is at least better than an article based entirely on one source. — Dark_chancellor 10:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The part about the word 'shaman'

WHAT does that have to do with Korean culture? The Korean word for shamans is 무당 (Mudang). I don't think those two words are related to each other. If anyone has to say anything about the removal, say it. --119.149.173.53 (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're looking too much into what the English word might mean. Academia refers to a lot of people from folk religions who communicate with (or are possessed by for the purposes of communication with) deities as shamans. This is not to say that Siberian shamans are the same as Mongolian shamans, and thus are the same as Korean shamans. That's like saying Sri Lankan Buddhists are the same as Tibetan Buddhist, and thus are the same as Japanese Buddhists. Think of "shamans" as being an umbrella term that encompasses a large group of people who share the trait of "being an elite group whereby its members have the special ability to communicate with supernatural beings." I hope that helps. — Dark_chancellor 12:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant that the origin of the word 'shaman' has nothing to do with actual Korean Shamanism.--Younghyun1 (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I'll have to ask you to expand on that a little more; I'm having a little trouble understanding what you mean. Sorry about that. — Dark_chancellor 11:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark chancellor (talk • contribs)

I didn't explain clearly. I'll explain again. Here's the removed part from the original article.

The word "shaman" derives from Siberia and Central Asia, from the Tungusic saman. The term has been applied widely to refer to those experiences best described in Mircea Eliade’s classic work, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Eliade calls shamanism a “technique of ecstasy”, not to be confused with other forms of magic, sorcery or even experiences of religious ecstasy.

Sure, Korean mudangs can be called shamans, but my point is, what does the origin of the word 'shaman' have to do with Korean Shamanism?--119.149.173.53 (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you there?--Younghyun1 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Article image

The image shows what a typical Korean shamanistic ritual would look like, including the bit with cross-gender aesthetics, but shouldn't it show a female shaman as opposed to a more rarely seen male shamans? The fact that mudangs are predominantly female seems a distinctive enough characteristic that I think the article image should reflect it... Though this isn't to say that baksu mudangs are in any way inferior or unqualified. Just not as prototypical. --70.94.212.86 (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A Male Mudang

A Male Mudang is a Pansu, not a Mudang. It's like saying a Male Waitress--uhh... that's a waiter. Fixing it. I hope someone does sweeps in the actual article as well as the caption.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The male mudang is Baksu... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.246.84 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Initiation causes illness or cures it? One or the other it cannot be both.

Clarify this, it is the kangshinmu who undergo the self-loss which causes a manic psychotic episode otherwise similar to a kundalini awakening psychosis. Hyun-key Kim Hogarth in her book Kut: Happiness Through Recriprocity makes the case clear that beyond being a psychotic episode, that the self-loss is a sacrifice of 'ki', of vitae or lifeforce energy. Similar in principle to acupuncture. P.S., Dr. Wilhelm Reich was a western scientist who studied orgone, a LifeForce he theorized to be held within muscular tension. the British Spiritualists as well were interested in eastern religion and yoga. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is very clear in his History of Spiritualism book that it is a sacrifice of 'ki' or 'prana' that causes mania in the medium and starts the initiation.

The research done into spiritism has been very clear on this for over 100yrs so please clarify — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troll ov Grimness (talk • contribs) 19:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Central Asia

Why should this article and related ones have a WikiProject Central Asia template? Korea is not even close to Central Asia.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean shamanism. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean shamanism. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean shamanism. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

신교 means both "Shinism" (i.e. shamanism) and "Protestantism"

신교 (S(h)ingyo or S(h)inkyo) means both "Shinism" ("religion of the spirits", cf. Korean Culture 1998 p. 33 / Korean Journal 1985 p. 22) and "Protestantism" in Korean, although in the case of Protestantism it is a shortening of Gaesingyo (개신교), which means "renewed spiritual teaching (within Christianity)". This overlap is interesting, and may explain the large % of South Koreans identifying as believers of "Protestantism" in censuses.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you created the terminology section, because I think the article really needed it. However, I have not found any sources in Korean using 신교 to mean shamanism. (I only looked at modern dictionaries and encyclopedias though, so it's possible it's out there in scholarly works or older texts.) 무속 and 무교 are the terms I've come across most frequently in Korean sources, which is why I put them at the top of the article. Again, it's possible they're not the most common terms in English-language scholarship. Just wanted to explain my edits in more detail. Best, Lenoresm (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lenoresm. "S(h)inkyo/-gyo//-ism" and "Sindo" are frequently mentioned in thorough English-language academic scholarship about the topic, attesting a long tradition of this name in spoken Korean. As the sources say, it means an indigenous "belief in spirits", i.e. Korean folk religion, which contains shamanism. Based on a quick Google search for 신교, it seems that it is used on a variety of websites to refer to the indigenous religion practised at shrines (similar to Japanese Shinto, though far less important in Korea due to historical circumstances and hindrances). "Korean shamanism", which we use as the title of the article, is surely the most used in generalist sources because the leaders of this "religion of the spirits" are the shamans. 무속/무교, which are "shamanic practice" and "Muism", are indeed frequently used for the same reason.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

To create: redirect from Shinism

To create: a redirect to this article from Shinism. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Black magic?

Korean black magic should be mentioned in the article as well. Black Magic (마법- Mabob)

Also alternative terms: “muism and shaman mudang” (무당巫堂).


~~ Ted ~~ 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:918D:B2E1:3F13:E888 (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Korean Characters needed

Korean characters are needed eg like in the "Talismans and divination" section for "pujuk (bujeok)".

... An important component of the mudang's role is to produce talismans called pujǒk (bujeok)

Without the Korean characters English terms used in the article is no good. Its needed through out article not just in some areas. For translation accuracy.

~~ Ed ~~ 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:918D:B2E1:3F13:E888 (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Also romanizations used need to be standardized. I standardized a few (now uses "kut" consistently), but there are a few stragglers. I think the article should mostly use McCune Reischauer, with the exceptions being if any existing article uses Revised Romanization. toobigtokale (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Dlawoqja123's Changes

@Dlawoqja123: Hello, I just wanted to start a discussion regarding your recent removals and changes in the lead part of the article. As per WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss, you were bold in your changes to the article, after which these were reverted, and the next step would have been for you to bring the issue to the Talk Page to discuss. You should not have reinstated your changes, which could initiate an WP:Edit war. The appropriate thing would be for you to now revert your changes yourself, and then raise your concerns at the Talk Page. As it currently stands you have added material into the lead that is not supported by Reliable Sources in the article (i.e. added dang-gol) while removing information that is supported by those sources (i.e. Mu-ism). Please try and argue your case and build consensus for your desired changes, rather than seeking to unilaterally impose them onto the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Very well. First, I will talk about Musim. The term Muism was first proposed by Protestant theologian Yoo Dong-shik in his paper titled The History and Structure of Korean Mugyo, published in the journal Christian Thought. Before that, the term did not exist. There are no documents prior to 1976 that describe Korean shamanism as 'Mugyo'. It is a modern term created by a Christian and does not hold representative legitimacy. I am attaching Yoo Dong-shik’s paper.https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE00141904. Dlawoqja123 (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
The same applies to the term Mu (巫). In compound words like hereditary mu (sesŭng-mu) or spirit-possessed mu (kangsin-mu), we often borrow the Chinese character 巫 and its Sino-Korean pronunciation as a suffix. However, we do not use mu as a standalone term to refer to our shamans. In everyday Korean, mu refers to a radish (무), not a shaman. No one calls a shaman mu in ordinary speech. The character is only used in compound terms as a formal or academic suffix.
how should I explain it to you? I can show you some Google search results to illustrate this point.(https://www.google.com/search?q=%EB%AC%B4) I had previously suggested the term dang-gol (단골) as an alternative, which is sometimes used to refer to hereditary shamans. However, I also acknowledge that dang-gol may be too specific and not fully appropriate in all contexts. I am open to withdrawing that suggestion. Nonetheless, the fact remains: we do not refer to shamans as mu in regular usage. Dlawoqja123 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
There are still no WP:Reliable Sources provided indicating that dang-gol is an alternative term for mudang. Please remember that everything included at Wikipedia should be supported by Reliable Sources cited in the main body of the article. For that reason it is imperative that mention of dang-gol is removed from the lead.
I accept your point that mu-ism is not a common Korean term, and rather than it is a word invented in the 1970s, but that does not mean it is not a term applied to this religion. Indeed, we have sources cited in the article saying that it is. The fact that a term is not particularly common does not mean that it should be hidden from Wikipedia readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I have found a reliable academic source that confirms “Dangol” is a term used to refer to shamans (巫당) https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE01717409. However, I also agree that dangol is not a widely recognized or commonly used term today. It should certainly be included in the body of the text for completeness, but it is sufficient to use “mudang” as the primary term in the top.
The same applies to “mu-gyo”. While the term “mu-gyo (巫敎)” is indeed mentioned in the main body of the text, so it is not hidden or omitted. What I stated is that the term "mu-gyo" lacks representativeness because it was coined by a Protestant theologian in the 1970s, not that I attempted to conceal this information.
That said, I will add a clarification noting that the term mu-gyo was a neologism introduced in the 1970s by a Protestant theologian, and therefore should not be regarded as an authentic or traditional name for the belief system. Dlawoqja123 (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl thoughts on the above? User tried inserting this fact into the article but without an inline source grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I added the source. Could you check it? Dlawoqja123 (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Missing page number. I fixed formatting issues. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
sorry brother. thank you. i am weak english and english wikipedia. i will add missing page number soon. book is very old, so i need to go yonsei library... 121.155.127.8 (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
We do need the page number, really. Moreover, if possible it would be good to also have a secondary source cited there that explicitly states that Yu Tong-sik coined the term mugyo. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I dont know if your thick or something... all korean sources support 'dangol'. Yeah western sources might not provide the most clear "here its dangol" but having literally the ounce of willingness to just look it up provides enough detail. I dont even know what the edit is, but not including 'dangol' is crazy. ~2026-25923-54 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Don't insult others. If you do this again it'll lead to a block from Wikipedia grapesurgeon (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
holy power trip, its okay to be wrong now and again dont worry ~2026-25923-54 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
I literally expressed no opinions anywhere about what's right or wrong here, please be specific on what I'm wrong about. Again, do this again and it'll be a block from Wikipedia. I don't care about power, literally just want to keep abrasive people off here grapesurgeon (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Feedback

Normally I'd GA review but bit busy lately. I'll leave some feedback for you @Midnightblueowl. I think romanizations can possibly be made more standardized. Per MOS:KO-ROMAN, in general if a topic is primarily historical we do MR, but if it's still relevant we do RR. Many of these concepts are still relevant, so argument for using RR. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)