Living in Japan as a Christian, it does seem that Buddhism has been put to the way side in mainstream living (Technology seems to be the god of most). How does Buddhism address the decline of their state in Japan when it comes to the daily sins that occur? Is it just me or do the majority of Japanese people only regard religion when it comes to weddings and funerals? Just a question from my observations, not meant to stir up any trouble.
Take Care and May God Bless!
Ed
Oh boy, let me try to tackle this one.
Your actually asking two separate questions.
1.) The Status of Religion in Japan (which is different from your Buddhist question)
Well, more often than not people tend to point to it as in a state of decline. Though it also depends on what region of Japan your talking about. Furthermore, even those who espouse no particular belief in things beyond a material life still go through the Shinto rituals of birth and Buddhist rituals for death because its a part of their culture. Its meaningful in that sense, not necessarily in the sense that those who originated such practices took those rituals to be.
2.) Buddhism and Sin
Well, it depends. How do you define Sin? If you define it as an offense against the pre-established laws of a Creator deity, then no. There is not concept of sin.
Of course, you can’t take that to mean that there is no gradient of judgment for actions.
In place of a Deity with a Scorecard, you have what would be deemed a universal law = Karma. Karma should not be understood as mere luck, rather there is a causal relationship between the actions you do and the events of your life.
3.) Buddhism, Deities, and whatnot.
And here’s were to gets really messy.
Because Westerners are so focused on the concept of God, they have an unfortunate tendency to judge all other religious configurations based on that concept.
When Buddhism first came West, it was done via the Pali Canon of the Theravada tradition. And the work was primarily completed during the Victorian era by the sanskrit scholar Eugene Burnouf. At the time, Buddhism was interpreted by the Victorian scholars and interested scientists of the time as a tradition that saw the universe governed by natural laws sans divine intervention. There was nothing Supernatural about Buddhism, or so the claim went.
However, the Buddhism which so fascinated the Victorian mind (and later on portions of the modern Western mind) is deemed by both modern scholars of Buddhism in the West and by those lineage holders of the various Buddhist traditions in its indigenous Asian milieu as simply a Construct. It was a “Buddhism of the Texts” without any recourse to how it was actually practiced “on the ground” in its environment.
The narrative progresses something to the effect of “We Westerners saved Buddhism from its native environment since it developed cultural baggage that flooded the religion with superstition.” etc. etc.
So does Buddhism believe in deities? Sort of.
Theravada Buddhism holds no belief in an independent Creator who rules the world. However, it has countless references to various deities ~ who are ALL subject to the universal law of karma. They live, they love, and they die - and get reincarnated.
So they exist, but they are not exactly relevant to bringing one out of dukkha/suffering. Primarily because the bad things that happen to you in your life aren’t the judgments of the divine hurling thunderbolts down on your head (although these gods can help/hurt you since they too are sentient beings who have their own agendas).
Rather the ground state of consciousness from which all mental activities arise (bhavanga) is the source of karma and hence of the phenomenal world experienced by a person. Defiled and unclear, you are bound to make mistakes and push yourself into the endless cycle of death and rebirth.
Now this is where the Victorian strain of thought would dismiss those deities as “cultural add-ons” that infected “pure Buddhism.” And this is where the Sri Lankan and Thai buddhist monks would put their foot down and say that’s complete hogwash.
The game completely changes when we start considering Mahayana Buddhism.
Long story short, the Mahayana considering the Theravada Buddhists to be absorbing the “idiot’s Guide to Buddhism.” This is not to say what they learned is “false,” rather its more for people who are not ready to absorb the more advanced teachings of the Buddha.
The Mahayana in its various forms (which is probably what your dealing with in Japan, unless your hanging around Nara these days), teaches the “trikaya” doctrine ~ three bodies.
So Buddha was an Enlightened being, but the Buddha we saw “Siddartha Gautama” is only an Emanation of a higher being. This was its Physical Body, the Nirmanakaya.
Skipping to the 3rd body, the Dharmakaya is “beginningless, unborn, undying, permanent, etc. Nondually pervading the minds of all unenlightened and enlightened beings alike.”
So while there are numerous Buddhas preaching the Dharma to various worlds, all of these are simply Nirmanakaya bodies of the One Dharmakaya which transcendent of all conceptual elaborations and existent throughout all Space and Time.
Now is that a God? Depends on how you look at it i suppose. IMHO, it seems resonant with the “God of the Philosophers” that the Greek philosophers posited existing above and beyond the petty squabbling gods that inhabit their worldview.
The thing that must be, in order for other things to Exist (or, exist Impermanently at least).
