Catholics, Christians, Muslims, whatever you are -- How Do You View Buddhism?

[rossum]

Buddhism isnt a religion. Gautam Buddha was a prince who lived in India around 400 BC. On fine day he set out to find out about god, the reason for people suffering, reason for death etc. It is said that he attained Nirvana under a fig tree and thats when he realised that there is no god.He was said to be what scientists would today claim: A rational man.

Buddhism contains lots of gods - just read the opening chapter of the Lotus Sutra where the audience is listed as containing many tens of thousands of gods. However those gods are just other living beings suffering in the round of reincarnation. Just like us, they need to attain enlightenment to reach nirvana. A god may be able to help with material things, but no god can get you to nirvana - only you can do that.

In short, Buddhism has gods but they are not of any great importance.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I believe you are correct when you say many Japanese have an excellent understanding of moral law, though, like people of other faiths, not all do. I would also point out that the average Buddhist believer in Japan probably could not tell you what the five Buddhist rules of morality are, though, as you point out, this does not necessarily make anyone an immoral person. In addition, again as you point out, Buddhism on a philosophical level does indeed condemn the killing of living things and so abortion does go against Buddhist teaching in this area. Still, on the level of practice, Japanese Buddhism does not condemn abortion (at least not very loudly) and there is an evident contradiction between Buddhist belief and practice which makes many think that Buddhist institutions, through their silence, are complicit in insuring that abortion remains the number one form of birth control in Japan.

Thank you for that. I am a Western Buddhist, and it is useful to know how Buddhism is actually practiced in the East, as opposed to the high-level philosophical version we tend to get in the West.

One other aspect of Japanese Buddhism which seems to go against general Buddhist belief, and which has been criticized by some Buddhist leaders in Japan, is the practice in some temples of offering prayers and ceremonies for the purpose of assuaging the vengeful anger of souls that have suffered the pain and suffering of abortion. There is a common belief in Japan, perhaps finding its source in Japanese folk religion, that souls which have suffered greatly may hold living parties responsible for the suffering and can take vengence by causing misfortune to befall the living. Many parents who have procured abortions fear the vengence of an aborted fetus and often seek such prayers in their local temple. Many temples offer these ceremonies for a fee. As I’ve said, this is criticized by some Buddhist temples and leaders and does seem to go against Buddhist theology, but it is a part of lived Buddhism in Japan.

As you say, I suspect that this comes from local Japanese beliefs. When Buddhism arrives in a new country, it does not usually replace the local religion, but adds itself as an upper layer over the existing religion. The local gods remain in place, and can be prayed to to help you win the lottery. Buddhism, at least in theory, confines itself to enlightenment; such things as winning the lottery are beneath it and are delegated to the local gods. In practice there is always a certain amount of mixing between the two: Japanese Buddhism has been influenced by Shinto, Tibetan Buddhism has been influenced by Bön and so forth.

I would like to make it clear that I have a great deal of respect for Buddhism and I believe Buddhism has changed many lives for the better

Your respect for Buddhism has indeed been clear from your posts. Thank you.

but there is often a disconnect between Buddhism as a faith and Buddhism as it is practiced. This is true in other religions as well,

Sadly, all too true. As Gandhi might have said: “I like your Buddha, I do not like your Buddhists. Your Buddhists are so unlike your Buddha.”

rossum

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Whether or not Buddhism is a religion depends on how you define the word religion. There are numerous sites on the internet that discuss this very question, but it’s worth noting that many Buddhists, including the Dali lama, think that Buddhism is a religion. It is a non theistic religion, though Buddhism certainly does not deny the existence of God. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, most practitioners of Buddhism, at least in Japan, do suppose a God as an object of their prayer and ceremony. This may be in opposition to Buddhist practitioners in the West who seem to be more attracted to the philosophical elements of Buddhism and the novelty of meditation practices present in Buddhist monasticism, but even here I think you would find the concept of God has its place.
One other point about your explanation of the origins of Buddhism which I think may be mistaken is that Prince Siddhartha Gautama, who became the Buddha, did not set out seeking to find out about God. He set forth in the hope of discovering why humans suffer and reached the conclusion that humans suffer due to desire. His thoughts do not necessarily include God, but neither do they banish the concept of God from its philosophy.

This is mainly addressed to Tsuwano, who lives in Japan. I’m an Australian, and I have a peculiar personal theory that God intends to hand Australia over to the Japanese in due course. I won’t go into the details now, but I believe (and my old Protestant pastor believed) that we Europeans have been put here in what might be called a temporary “caretaker” role, in a transition from tribal aboriginal to a final eurasian or asian culture.

That’s why we’ve never been allowed to develop what might be called a dominant culture in the same sense the Japanese, Chinese, Americans, British, French etc. have what could be described as a significant national culture. The other issue is that we’ve only got 22 million people at the South East end of nations like Indonesia (230 million), Japan (127 million), China (1.3 billion), India (1.1 billion), Phillippines (72 million), Thailand (65 million), Vietnam (86 million), and others. That’s why we always ally ourselves with another major power (USA now, Britain earlier - we haven’t got much choice).

That’s my theory. However I’m curious as to the difference between Buddhism and Shintoism. I believe Shintoism is the dominant religion in Japan, and I’m aware that Japanese are difficult to evangelise in the Christian sense.

So what is the difference between Buddhism and Shintoism?

 

[Contarini]

Buddhism isnt a religion. Gautam Buddha was a prince who lived in India around 400 BC. On fine day he set out to find out about god, the reason for people suffering, reason for death etc. It is said that he attained Nirvana under a fig tree and thats when he realised that there is no god.He was said to be what scientists would today claim: A rational man.

Buddhism spread quite rapidly in India and south asia after his death.The major religion those days in south asia was hindusim.It is quite impossible to really find out the original buddhism that gautam buddha preached because over the course of the next few centuries
a lot of elements of hinduism got added to buddhism and thats why today you have buddhism in in present avataar which is quite similar to hinduism in many way, worshipping idols being one of them.

This is not a convincing interpretation. You admit that you can’t find out the original Buddhism, but you begin by telling us confidently what the original Buddhism is. Why should we believe you when you say yourself that this is impossible? Clearly what you are doing is picking the aspects of Buddhism you find “rational” and assuming (by your own admission without evidence) that these are the “original” aspects.

The earliest strands of Buddhism for which we have evidence do not fit your reconstruction.

Edwin

 

[franki_rulz]

Whether or not Buddhism is a religion depends on how you define the word religion. One other point about your explanation of the origins of Buddhism which I think may be mistaken is that Prince Siddhartha Gautama, who became the Buddha, did not set out seeking to find out about God. He set forth in the hope of discovering why humans suffer and reached the conclusion that humans suffer due to desire. His thoughts do not necessarily include God, but neither do they banish the concept of God from its philosophy.

Generally Buddhism does not believe in a personal God or a divine being, it does not have worship, praying to, or praising of a divine being.

Siddhartha Gautama was born in approximately 560 B.C. in northern India. His father Suddhodana was the ruler over a district near the Himalayas which is today the country of Nepal. Suddhodana sheltered his son from the outside world and confined him to the palace where he surrounded Gautama with pleasures and wealth. Despite his father’s efforts, Gautama one day saw the darker side of life on a trip he took outside the palace walls.

He saw four things that forever changed his life: an old man, a sick man, a dead man, and a beggar. Deeply distressed by the suffering he saw, he decided to leave the luxury of palace life and begin a quest to find the answer to the problem of pain and human suffering.

Gautama left his family and traveled the country seeking wisdom. He studied the Hindu scriptures under Brahmin priests, but became disillusioned with the teachings of Hinduism. He then devoted himself to a life of extreme asceticism in the jungle. Legend has it that he eventually learned to exist on one grain of rice a day which reduced his body to a skeleton. He soon concluded, however, that asceticism did not lead to peace and self realization but merely weakened the mind and body.

Gautama eventually turned to a life of meditation. While deep in meditation under a fig tree known as the Bohdi tree (meaning, “tree of wisdom”), Gautama experienced the highest degree of God-consciousness called Nirvana. Gautama then became known as Buddha, the “enlightened one.” He believed he had found the answers to the questions of pain and suffering. His message now needed to be proclaimed to the whole world.

As he began his teaching ministry, he gained a quick audience with the people of India since many had become disillusioned with Hinduism. By the time of his death at age 80, Buddhism had become a major force in India. Three centuries later it had spread to all of Asia. Buddha never claimed to be deity but rather a “way- shower.” However, seven hundred years later, followers of Buddha began to worship him as deity.Since it originated in India, elements of hinduism got added into in.Today generally in India Buddha is considered god and the 7th incarnation of the hindu god vishnu(or krishna)

 

[Contarini]

Generally Buddhism does not believe in a personal God or a divine being, it does not have worship, praying to, or praising of a divine being.

Depends on how you define “worship.” It certainly includes much praise of Buddha (and in Mahayana Buddhism of the various Buddhas and Boddhisattvas). Arguably what Buddhists engage in would be described in Catholic terms as “dulia” rather than “latria,” and thus is not worship in the strict sense (which is also why I think Christians should not judge this veneration to be necessarily idolatry and should not treat statues of the Buddha as idols). Certainly in Mahayana at least people pray to the Buddhas and Boddhisattvas.

I continue to contest your reconstruction. I do not believe that we have any access to a strand of Buddhist tradition in which Buddha is not venerated and is not regarded as having had miraculous powers. I agree that he was not worshiped as a deity–but that’s a little misleading since in Buddhism a Buddha is higher than a deity.

Edwin

 

[Tsuwano]

This is mainly addressed to Tsuwano, who lives in Japan. I’m an Australian, and I have a peculiar personal theory that God intends to hand Australia over to the Japanese in due course. I won’t go into the details now, but I believe (and my old Protestant pastor believed) that we Europeans have been put here in what might be called a temporary “caretaker” role, in a transition from tribal aboriginal to a final eurasian or asian culture.

That’s why we’ve never been allowed to develop what might be called a dominant culture in the same sense the Japanese, Chinese, Americans, British, French etc. have what could be described as a significant national culture. The other issue is that we’ve only got 22 million people at the South East end of nations like Indonesia (230 million), Japan (127 million), China (1.3 billion), India (1.1 billion), Phillippines (72 million), Thailand (65 million), Vietnam (86 million), and others. That’s why we always ally ourselves with another major power (USA now, Britain earlier - we haven’t got much choice).

That’s my theory. However I’m curious as to the difference between Buddhism and Shintoism. I believe Shintoism is the dominant religion in Japan, and I’m aware that Japanese are difficult to evangelise in the Christian sense.

So what is the difference between Buddhism and Shintoism?

I’m not sure why your theory reserves Australia for the Japanese in due time, but I would like to say Australians should be justly proud of their nation and the great accomplishments of Australia in its relatively short history. I think the Australian culture is distinctive in many ways and, at least among the Japanese, Australians are admired and well liked.
As to your question regarding Buddhism and Shinto, with the proviso that I am not a scholar of religion and much of what I know is based on observation and personal reading, I would say there are several differences between the two religions, and though elements of Buddhism and Shinto are often interwoven in the Japanese imagination and worship, it would be a mistake to think they are the same. For one thing, Buddhism, like Christianity, is seen as a foreign religion in Japan; an import which can never really adapt itself fully to Japan. It sits upon Japan in the same way an ice sheet or a glacier sits upon the earth. It may seem an integral part of the landscape and even carve its own contours within the earth, but it is not the earth itself and never will be.
Shinto, on the other hand, is the indigenous folk religion originating in the mist of Japanese prehistory. It consists of a general belief that the world is filled with spirits (or Kami) which inhabit various places in the earth, an ancient rock or tree, for example, and which are able to protect or injure humans if they are not respected and placated. These beliefs probably orignated in the rhythms of spring planting and harvest rituals of the ancient peoples who first populated Japan. There is also an emphasis on ritual purity in Shinto, though what actually constitutes purity is a bit unclear to me. To be pure means to be, well, Japanese, but what it means to be Japanese is ambiguous and hard to define. If you have to ask, I suppose, well, that means you’re not it.
When Buddhism first arrived in the 6th Century from China, it was first accepted among the intelligentsia and rulers of Japan as a mark of civilization and used to give legitimacy and power to these elite, but it was not seen as a rival of the Shinto practices of the populace and did not attempt to alter or eradicate these folk beliefs. Buddhism was accepted as a means of spreading learning through Japan and uniting the various populations behind the clans who ruled Japan and, as another poster mentioned, was laid over the more ancient folk practices of the nation.
I’m sorry, but I’ll have to continue this at another time. I have to run to class right now.

 

[AJTheMan]

Hey, guys, thanks for all of the answers. I really have considered becoming a Lay Buddhist recently.

BTW, I’m not terribly new to Buddhism. I’ve been studying it for a while. Although I’m still studying and analyzing all the lists that Shakyamuni (Buddhism is big about lists) set out, I’ve got a pretty good grasp.

Ever since I started learning about Buddhism, BTW, I have, and am currently, strongly attracted to the Theravada branch and it’s ideas. More-so than Mahayana, which is more ethnic ritual, and Zen, which puts far too much emphasis on Meditation. Pure land is certainly interesting but I can’t help but see it as a sort of perversion of the Buddha’s original message of self-reliance.

In short, I’ve been studying off and on the different branches and how they suit me. And also if Buddhism suits me.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’m not sure why your theory reserves Australia for the Japanese in due time, but I would like to say Australians should be justly proud of their nation and the great accomplishments of Australia in its relatively short history. I think the Australian culture is distinctive in many ways and, at least among the Japanese, Australians are admired and well liked.
As to your question regarding Buddhism and Shinto, with the proviso that I am not a scholar of religion and much of what I know is based on observation and personal reading, I would say there are several differences between the two religions, and though elements of Buddhism and Shinto are often interwoven in the Japanese imagination and worship, it would be a mistake to think they are the same. For one thing, Buddhism, like Christianity, is seen as a foreign religion in Japan; an import which can never really adapt itself fully to Japan. It sits upon Japan in the same way an ice sheet or a glacier sits upon the earth. It may seem an integral part of the landscape and even carve its own contours within the earth, but it is not the earth itself and never will be.
Shinto, on the other hand, is the indigenous folk religion originating in the mist of Japanese prehistory. It consists of a general belief that the world is filled with spirits (or Kami) which inhabit various places in the earth, an ancient rock or tree, for example, and which are able to protect or injure humans if they are not respected and placated. These beliefs probably orignated in the rhythms of spring planting and harvest rituals of the ancient peoples who first populated Japan. There is also an emphasis on ritual purity in Shinto, though what actually constitutes purity is a bit unclear to me. To be pure means to be, well, Japanese, but what it means to be Japanese is ambiguous and hard to define. If you have to ask, I suppose, well, that means you’re not it.
When Buddhism first arrived in the 6th Century from China, it was first accepted among the intelligentsia and rulers of Japan as a mark of civilization and used to give legitimacy and power to these elite, but it was not seen as a rival of the Shinto practices of the populace and did not attempt to alter or eradicate these folk beliefs. Buddhism was accepted as a means of spreading learning through Japan and uniting the various populations behind the clans who ruled Japan and, as another poster mentioned, was laid over the more ancient folk practices of the nation.
I’m sorry, but I’ll have to continue this at another time. I have to run to class right now.

I look forward to hearing from you on the topic. On the business of Australia being “handed over” to the Japanese, I think there’s going to be a war (I had the peculiar experience of my father turning up the night he died in 1979. He predicted then the Moslems would fly “a couple of planes into a couple of buildings”, plus the said war down the track. No clues about dates) and you’ll bail us out in the long run. That’s my theory.

Weird? Maybe. But then no more weird than another of his predictions, “You’ll meet a pastor. You’ll think he’s great, but all he’ll do is discourage you even more.” About eleven or twelve years later (c 1990/91) I sat in the pastor’s office to have him say (and I didn’t meet the pastor till late 1982), “I owe you an apology. You needed encouragement, but all I’ve done is to discourage you even more.”

So he was right on those two. We’ll have to wait to see what happens in regards to the Japanese-Australian bit.

Meantime I look forward to your Shinto-Buddhism explanation.

 

[Tsuwano]

I’m not sure why your theory reserves Australia for the Japanese in due time, but I would like to say Australians should be justly proud of their nation and the great accomplishments of Australia in its relatively short history. I think the Australian culture is distinctive in many ways and, at least among the Japanese, Australians are admired and well liked.
As to your question regarding Buddhism and Shinto, with the proviso that I am not a scholar of religion and much of what I know is based on observation and personal reading, I would say there are several differences between the two religions, and though elements of Buddhism and Shinto are often interwoven in the Japanese imagination and worship, it would be a mistake to think they are the same. For one thing, Buddhism, like Christianity, is seen as a foreign religion in Japan; an import which can never really adapt itself fully to Japan. It sits upon Japan in the same way an ice sheet or a glacier sits upon the earth. It may seem an integral part of the landscape and even carve its own contours within the earth, but it is not the earth itself and never will be.
Shinto, on the other hand, is the indigenous folk religion originating in the mist of Japanese prehistory. It consists of a general belief that the world is filled with spirits (or Kami) which inhabit various places in the earth, an ancient rock or tree, for example, and which are able to protect or injure humans if they are not respected and placated. These beliefs probably orignated in the rhythms of spring planting and harvest rituals of the ancient peoples who first populated Japan. There is also an emphasis on ritual purity in Shinto, though what actually constitutes purity is a bit unclear to me. To be pure means to be, well, Japanese, but what it means to be Japanese is ambiguous and hard to define. If you have to ask, I suppose, well, that means you’re not it.
When Buddhism first arrived in the 6th Century from China, it was first accepted among the intelligentsia and rulers of Japan as a mark of civilization and used to give legitimacy and power to these elite, but it was not seen as a rival of the Shinto practices of the populace and did not attempt to alter or eradicate these folk beliefs. Buddhism was accepted as a means of spreading learning through Japan and uniting the various populations behind the clans who ruled Japan and, as another poster mentioned, was laid over the more ancient folk practices of the nation.
I’m sorry, but I’ll have to continue this at another time. I have to run to class right now.

Continuing from my previous post above . . . .

Over the years Buddhist and Shinto practice began to overlap in some ways and most folks in Japan participated in both forms of religion and failed to see a contradiction in this. The Emperor was recognized as a major figure in Shinto worship and it was he, on behalf of the nation, who participated in various rituals throughout the year to insure harmony within Japan. But it is also true that the Imperial family supported Buddhism and recognized its value in developing culture and civilization within the nation.
A major turning point for Shinto occured with the Meiji Restoration in the mid 1860’s. Those who supported centralizing power in the name of the Meiji Emperor in the hopes of building a Japanese national identity along the lines of Western concepts of nationhood, felt that a focus on Shinto, as the embodiment of what it meant to be Japanese, would be benificial to their goals. As a result, there was an attempt to underscore the differences between Buddhism and Shinto in order to bring more focus on the role of the Emperor as the main source of power in the nation and the foreign identity of Buddhism was brought into sharper relief. Buddhist temples were forced to host Shinto shrines within their precincts and to emphasize the nation state and the Emperor in their worship. This development of “State Shinto,” strengthened a sense of racial uniqueness among the Japanese, which still exists today, and eventually helped develop the nationalistic ideas which led to such disaster during the Second World War.
Buddhism and Shinto still maintain close relations in Japan today, but both have suffered from the Japanese disillusionment with religion following the Second World War. Still, I find it funny, and perhaps telling, that many Japanese today, though they recognize Buddhism as a religion, often think of the practices of Shinto as mere custom and not religious at all. Again, this emphasizes the foreign nature of Buddhism and reaffirms the idea deeply entrenched in the Japanese imagination that they are not a religious people and that religion is something best to avoid. The Japanese are highly religious, but few will admit to this.
I hope this helps explain some of the differences between Buddhism and Shinto, but please, if you find that what I have written is refuted somewhere or doesn’t make sense, I suggest you seek the wisdom of those who have studied this topic in depth. They can offer you a more thorough review of religion in Japan than I can.

 

[franki_rulz]

Depends on how you define “worship.” It certainly includes much praise of Buddha (and in Mahayana Buddhism of the various Buddhas and Boddhisattvas). Arguably what Buddhists engage in would be described in Catholic terms as “dulia” rather than “latria,” and thus is not worship in the strict sense (which is also why I think Christians should not judge this veneration to be necessarily idolatry and should not treat statues of the Buddha as idols). Certainly in Mahayana at least people pray to the Buddhas and Boddhisattvas.

I continue to contest your reconstruction. I do not believe that we have any access to a strand of Buddhist tradition in which Buddha is not venerated and is not regarded as having had miraculous powers. I agree that he was not worshiped as a deity–but that’s a little misleading since in Buddhism a Buddha is higher than a deity.

Edwin

Edwin, I am looking at Buddhism from an Indian point of view. Buddhism was born in India and the mass majority converted to buddhism but since then people have reconverted back to hinduis because unlike the hindu culture was too strong in India.

We dont not have access to the original buddhism, I am merely stating what some buddhist scholars in India say; Buddha wasnt a god, he was made a god by the hindus who worshipped him.
If you asks scholars on buddhism in India,all they will say is that:Buddha was God, he never claimed to be one.Now is that right or wrong, depends on whether ur political affiliation in India is towards communism or a u lean towards the left or right

P.S: I am no expert on Buddhism, I am merely stating the learings that I had from buddhist and neo-buddist scholars that I interacted with during my college days

 

[AJTheMan]

Edwin, I am looking at Buddhism from an Indian point of view. Buddhism was born in India and the mass majority converted to buddhism but since then people have reconverted back to hinduis because unlike the hindu culture was too strong in India.

We dont not have access to the original buddhism, I am merely stating what some buddhist scholars in India say; Buddha wasnt a god, he was made a god by the hindus who worshipped him.
If you asks scholars on buddhism in India,all they will say is that:Buddha was God, he never claimed to be one.Now is that right or wrong, depends on whether ur political affiliation in India is towards communism or a u lean towards the left or right

P.S: I am no expert on Buddhism, I am merely stating the learings that I had from buddhist and neo-buddist scholars that I interacted with during my college days

You’re right. The Buddha actually taught against worshipping gods as a form of self-help because it comes from an external source. He definitely was not in favor of theism. However, Buddhism, like every major religion has experienced some odd splits. Most SE Asians are Mahayana, which combines ancient Buddhist wisdom with the local gods and goddesses that have been popular. Mahyana is very much a devotional religion for the laypeople. Theravada, the oldest of the still surviving traditions, rejects pretty much all forms of theism and goes back to what Buddha actually said. Most Buddhists in India and Sri Lanka are Theravada. Then you have the other forms of Mahayana, like Zen, which places a lot of emphasis on meditation and riddles, and Pure Land, which is worshipping certain sages in hopes to get to a heaven like place.

To make the whole school things simplified, look at it as Catholic Vs. Protestant. Theravada, while not a school directly founded by Buddha or his apostles, is the oldest of them all and comes pretty close to Buddha’s time. Theravada is a lot like the Catholic Church. Both believe that their relation to time with Jesus/Buddha gives them a unique power to determine Buddhist/Christian Practice. Then you have Mahayana. Mahayana is very similar to Protestantism. Mahayana started when sages, thousands of years after Buddha, decided that Theravada was not the best tradition to go by. These sages all started founding ideologies that we often quite different from Theravada. Many schools belong to the Mahayana tradition, just like many denominations belong to Protestantism. So, Just as Protestants wanted a way out of Catholic Christianity in favor of what they would consider better practice and worship, so too Mahayana sages wanted to found their own ways and ideologies as to how to be a good Buddhist.

The only real difference between the comparison is that Christian denom’s. are rather hostile to each other whereas most Buddhist communities respect each other.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Continuing from my previous post above . . . .

Over the years Buddhist and Shinto practice began to overlap in some ways and most folks in Japan participated in both forms of religion and failed to see a contradiction in this. The Emperor was recognized as a major figure in Shinto worship and it was he, on behalf of the nation, who participated in various rituals throughout the year to insure harmony within Japan. But it is also true that the Imperial family supported Buddhism and recognized its value in developing culture and civilization within the nation.
A major turning point for Shinto occured with the Meiji Restoration in the mid 1860’s. Those who supported centralizing power in the name of the Meiji Emperor in the hopes of building a Japanese national identity along the lines of Western concepts of nationhood, felt that a focus on Shinto, as the embodiment of what it meant to be Japanese, would be benificial to their goals. As a result, there was an attempt to underscore the differences between Buddhism and Shinto in order to bring more focus on the role of the Emperor as the main source of power in the nation and the foreign identity of Buddhism was brought into sharper relief. Buddhist temples were forced to host Shinto shrines within their precincts and to emphasize the nation state and the Emperor in their worship. This development of “State Shinto,” strengthened a sense of racial uniqueness among the Japanese, which still exists today, and eventually helped develop the nationalistic ideas which led to such disaster during the Second World War.
Buddhism and Shinto still maintain close relations in Japan today, but both have suffered from the Japanese disillusionment with religion following the Second World War. Still, I find it funny, and perhaps telling, that many Japanese today, though they recognize Buddhism as a religion, often think of the practices of Shinto as mere custom and not religious at all. Again, this emphasizes the foreign nature of Buddhism and reaffirms the idea deeply entrenched in the Japanese imagination that they are not a religious people and that religion is something best to avoid. The Japanese are highly religious, but few will admit to this.
I hope this helps explain some of the differences between Buddhism and Shinto, but please, if you find that what I have written is refuted somewhere or doesn’t make sense, I suggest you seek the wisdom of those who have studied this topic in depth. They can offer you a more thorough review of religion in Japan than I can.

Thanks for your reply. One of the problems with trying to get the “feel” of a religion is that one needs to be part of it to do so. It’s almost impossible for outsiders to get that sense of a religion from a purely intellectual external view.

 

[bosnian_muslim]

Catholics, Christians, Muslims, whatever you are – How Do You View Buddhism?

i as a muslim can say that i view buddhism as a nice,peacefull religion…if u have to choose between catholicism and budhism choose budhism

but of course,both are false,and the only savior is in islam

 

[Hadi]

i as a muslim can say that i view buddhism as a nice,peacefull religion…if u have to choose between catholicism and budhism choose budhism

but of course,both are false,and the only savior is in islam

wrong… Catholics are Christians , people of the book and worship the Same God as we Muslims worship…Budhists are not even monotheists, let alone worshiping the same God.

be respectful.

 

[bosnian_muslim]

hadi,well the ulama is at least divided,some of them say there are no people of the book anymore…specially not among catholics

i dont know how a catholic can be monotheist with all the saints,virgin Mary etc etc…i dont see the difference between buddhists and catholics on that one

if you ask about protestants i would agree with you,they are still close enough to the early christianity…but catholics…no

 

[Bob_Crowley]

hadi,well the ulama is at least divided,some of them say there are no people of the book anymore…specially not among catholics

i dont know how a catholic can be monotheist with all the saints,virgin Mary etc etc…i dont see the difference between buddhists and catholics on that one

if you ask about protestants i would agree with you,they are still close enough to the early christianity…but catholics…no

You’ve got a bit of learning to do. We don’t worship Mary, Saints etc. We venerate them, or hold them in high esteem, just like you Moslems do with some of these Mullahs of yours.

When you’ve got a decent grasp of other religions, then you’ll be in a position to criticise. Until then your ignorance is showing.

 

[Tsuwano]

Thanks for your reply. One of the problems with trying to get the “feel” of a religion is that one needs to be part of it to do so. It’s almost impossible for outsiders to get that sense of a religion from a purely intellectual external view.

I think your last sentence is somewhat true, which is probably why most religions talk about conversion when speaking to those who wish to follow the same religious practices. Of course, Religion can be studied as a science, and sociologists approach religions in this way, but that is the study of systems of faith rather than the faith of an individual itself. Even those who are “inside” a religion often cannot understand their own religious experiences or express them in a way that makes sense to others. This is why I believe the act of faith itself, however imperfect it may be, is a holy act, prompted by God’s grace, and should be respected on that level. Of course, faith is perverted when ideology enters in and a sense of certainty beyond all challenge takes over. This is not faith, but pretend knowledge, and leads the individual away from faith, which in the end is always undefinable and inexpressable because it finds it’s center in God himself.

 

[franki_rulz]

but of course,both are false,and the only savior is in islam

M sure the self proclaimed prophet mohammed crept into ur bed one night and whispered that into ur ears

 

[Tokyo_Pat]

I live in Japan and, during a period in which I was drifting away from Catholicism, fell in love with and married a Japanese girl. She was raised in a group of Nichiren Buddhists called the Sokka Gakkai. Outside Japan it is called SGI. At the time, I thought it was ok because we were both “spiritual”. Now I realize it was the most enormous mistake I ever made in my life. (But, we all know what Paul says about all things working for the good for those who love God!) They are the group that chant the namyohorengekkyo thing over and over. I used to be very open-minded about it, but the more I have seen of this group over the years, the more I believe it is a cult. SGI also has a lot of money and political power. Their leader is a very charismatic type he publishes a lot of books and the group publishes several magazines and a daily newspaper. My wife came to the same conclusion that it is a cult when she was around 30. Thank God for that! Unfortunately, her next foray into religion was nearly being recruited into the moonies. Since then it has been astrology and other new age beliefs. I’ve come back to the Catholic Church over the past few years (It is sooooo good and right to be home :- ) ) and it has been very painful that, of all the searching she did, she would never ask me about my faith. She said, “Why should I have? You didn’t start practicing it until after we got married.” Touche. I honestly believe that my wife has suffered types of demonic oppression and the first entry point was through the sect she was raised in.