H

I'm told this was something Steve Jobs heard at one point. When Steve Jobs was told he knocked up his girlfriend, he went to a zen Buddhist monk he knew and asked he should do. He was told if he had a son, he would grow up and be a great spiritual teacher. If he had a daughter, he would have no responsibility and he should just ignore her. We can't prove that this is true, but this is something someone in the zen community heard. Is there any precedent to this? Why would Koben say this?

Source:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/zu8re0/a_shintoists_opinion_on_shinbutsu_sh%C5%ABg%C5%8D_those_who/

There's an unfortunate number of misunderstandings here, probably as a result of an agenda to conflate the two religions together. Let me go through some user's comments, since I won't attack anyone and want to instead offer a professional reply. A few people had good takes and I want to simply add to that without participating on /r/Buddhism (since I'm an ex-Buddhist)

All traditional schools of Japanese Buddhism except Ōbaku Zen predate the formation of Shintō as an independent religious concept. It's a bit funny to say that there are contradictions between Buddhism and Shintō when those things are basically how Japanese nativists created a native religion parallel to Confucianism and opposed to Buddhism.

Ok, so this is a pretty common take and one I do mostly disagree with. The claim that Shinto /isn't/ a native, independent religion is mostly in response to nationalistic claims by the Japanese. But here's the thing:

Yes, Shinto as a name is not existing prior to Chinese contact, but the beliefs practiced by Shinto didn't come from Buddhism. We have no reincarnation. We have kami that have no counterparts with Chinese Shen from China. We have beliefs that are also apart from Daoist and Confucianist views as well.

Confucianism is not a "theistic" belief in the same vein as Shinto. There are no native Confucian gods that don't already exist in traditional Chinese culture. Confucianism is more of a straddle between a philosophy similar to Stoicism, and a way of life that is expounded upon by Kong Fu Zi and Meng Zi. IT's

So, my reply to Teonod's comments are that even accepting this problematic premise, why do you feel the need to draw a distinction between the traditional Japanese beliefs and post-contact Shinto? Yes, the religion changed, but so did Judaism over its history. From its earliest days as a probable henotheist cult of El, to a Rabbinic Judaism, it's valid and correct to draw the line through all these and call it Judaism, so why are you unwilling to do so for Shinto?

Buddhism played a large role in Japan remaining feudal, autocratic, and conservative for as long as it did. Shinto was an important part of the spiritual justification for the Meiji Restoration

Ah yes, the Meiji Restoration that famously spelled the end of autocracy on Japanese soil. And because Shinto doesn’t justify any hierarchy, it coming into prominence prevented the Japanese people from adopting hierarchical power structures with a wide gap between those at the top and those on the bottom, and especially any such system with an explicitly religious justification. That would be just silly.

Lethemyr is a bit on the money here, and this is something I mostly disagree with in the OP shared here. The Edo era was one controlled by a shogunate, and in the Meiji Restoration it gave way to a MONARCHIST movement, aka out of the fry pan into the fire.

Basically, the elite of the Edo Period were Buddhist. They lost power, and in its place we got Kokka Shinto, which is not an upgrade to Shinto, I 100% denounce Kokka Shinto on a few grounds:

1. Kokka Shinto poliiticized the belief and emphasized the Imperial traditions at the expense of others that I respect.

2. Kokka Shinto gave Shinto a bad name and a similar disposition now afforded to Islam as a violent/repressive belief, something that is unfiar to us.

3. Kokka Shinto offered nothing to the common person, either then, or now.

But on the other hand, the destruction of Shinbutsu traditions and abolishment of traditions like Ryobu/Yoshida was all but guaranteed because of the anti-Shinto oppression which manifested in the Danka system. The idea that the Danka system and the attitude that the Buddhist elite had towards Shinto for centuries was enough to stir a deep cultural anger.

All of this said, I don't support how things turned out. I just don't, for all my charity, see a way this could have been solved with the chaotic extremism of the Meiji Era. There was no way to make it a peaceable result. As a former Chinese Buddhist, I do have a lot of mixed feelings of Buddhism, but I'm not anti-Buddhist. Hating Buddhism is passe, and unfair to them.

next one

How much of the feudalism was due to Buddhism and how much of it is due to confucian influence is debatable. Karma doctrine literally states that you can try and change your future based on current actions. It also states that your initial circumstances are a result of causality but I don't know why people ignore the 2nd part.

That's the thing though, Confucian traditions influence Chinese Buddhism heavily, and I'm presuming that held in feudal Buddhism traditions. What we do know is that Buddhism introduced caste systems and other artifacts of its Indo-Nepali heritage wherever it went.

Lol. Essentially all of contemporary Shinto studies does not agree with this person at all. I'm just going to quote Kuroda Toshio's landmark paper on the topic:

Before I get into this, Kuroda Toshio was not a Shinto scholar, but a Buddhist one, and a Marxist, anti-religious person. His biases are shown in his papers, and he considered Shinto a nationalist construction. I'm not going to refute his falsehoods on Shinto, because they're self-evident.

Or if you don't like Kuroda, here's Helen Hardacre:

He goes on to use Hardacre's quote to try and reinforce his view.

Until the end of the nineteenth century, Shintō knew no comprehensive organizational structure. ... Shintō had no comparable organization for its cult centers, called shrines by convention, to distinguish them from Buddhist temples. Shintō had no central figure analogous to a pope, nor were its priests trained in any unified doctrine or practice. Instead, we may think of Shintō during the Tokugawa period, which immediately preceded the creation of State Shintō, as existing in three layers, all of which were crosscut by Shintō’s relation to Buddhism.

Here's the issue with this. She's referencing how Shinto doesn't conform to WESTERN standards of religion. This is a flawed argument, and it's undercut by her claims that Shinto lacked an organizational structure and a pope.

We don't have a pope, neither do Buddhists. Buddhists don't always have a "Dalai Lama" type figure, in fact the Dalai Lama holds authority over only one school of Tibetan Buddhism, which in and of itself has a strong Bon (Tibetan traditional beliefs) undercurrent. Hindus don't have a pope. Taoists don't either.

So I'd argue that Shinto's historical lack of a structure doesn't matter, and also ignores the impact of the Danka system and oppression of Shinto traditions during this period. Shinto existed in Japan for nearly a thousand years prior to the advent of Chinese colonizers as a result of a syncretic tradition of Yayoi and Jomon traditions. Jomon sites date back as far as the Egyptian Old Kingdom and even further back. It's an ancient belief with ancient roots. 2,500 years at its youngest!

The last academic is another white American whose work is good, but it also tries to minimize the oppression aspect.

One common thing with all of these is that they're written by outsiders of the belief. You get no side of "our story" and I'm emphatically not an academic. In fact, I argue most Shinto academics are hacks as they're writing about a religion they aren't living in.

The ironic thing about claiming that there's a "core" of Shinto, or that there are "ethics" in Shinto, is that these had to be imported from Buddhism, Confucianism, and Chinese religious practices such as the Yijing. Even the more exclusionary proponents of Shinto, such as the Kokugakusha under Motoori and Hirata, were found to have appropriated a number of Buddhist and Confucian ideas into them.

Shinto has no moral epistemology of its own, yes. The majority of modern Shinto ethics are of Taoist and Confucianist origins, as our moral system, independent of Buddhism has developed a very different understanding. We're not a karmic belief. But that doesn't make us not our own faith.

A secondlevel comment I found worth exploring.

The author mentions "technicality" and proceeds to make an argument out of technicality. Nobody has ever argued that native religious practices did not exist in Japan long before Buddhism. The argument is that Shintō, as conceived today especially in general Japanese imagination and in sectarian Shintō circles, as a coherent and unified religion, did not exist.

Shinto has never been a unified belief. It's a collection of closely related traditions. I'd argue that the Izumo traditions, for instance, nearly constitute their own subsection of the faith because they not only contradict the prevailing narratives but writers of the Izumo traditions were critical of the Emperor and others.

So yes, Mr. Bodhiquest, you're right. The author did have a lot of weaknesses in her (assuming because her name is Marie) post. But I'll get to that and offer my own reply.

True, but one would have to actually demonstrate that they are incompatible and contradict a thousand years of Japanese agreement on this compatibility.

Well, they are "Compatible" insofar as you cut out all parts of Shinto that disagree with Buddhism, aka surgically cut away much of its cosmology. Shinbutsu Shugo and related traditions were basically Shinto-flavored Buddhism IMHO, e.g. they're not substantially Shinto-based.

This is essentially reactionary whitewashing. Nobody said that the revolution itself was oppressive or whatever, the argument is that the supposedly good nature of a supposedly existing Shintō did not counteract a turn towards militarism and oppression, and that the creation of a unified and coherent Shintō even accelerated this. The """idyllic""" phase of the Meiji Restoration lasted a couple decades at best, then the state had already started an attack on political thought that it didn't like, and that essentially meant any kind of left-wing thought.

I kind of agree with you here. The revolution was a monarchist, imperialist one. Kokka Shinto, as I've stated above, isn't representative.

Also, the Japanese government was not a fan of anyone who opposed/criticized monarchism. They didn't care about your alignment, just that you were insulting the Emperor.

I'll get on my thoughts of Shinto ethics at the end.

Obviously this is false and there are no facts to support it, but also, it's another attempt at making you think that a coherent Shintō with its own native and pure practices actually existed and was suppressed by the bad shōguns.

So basically, I disagree with this. It's a bit more nuanced than anyone wants to let on:

Shinto prior to the advent of the Chinese was mostly a regional localized polytheism that had no need for codification or commentary, as there wasn't even writing.

But the issue is that the defeat of clans like the Mononobe meant that Buddhism spread throughout Japan, and Shinto was seen as a weak minded distraction. This was doubled down on when Christian Jesuits came with the Portuguese to modern Nagasaki. There was in the eyes of the elite no way that Shinto could compete with Christianity. You can't sit there and say though, that Shinto wasn't oppressed when the Danka system required and forced Buddhist rituals on the peasantry.

It should be noted that those 13 sects were never the totality of native religion and, today, have tiny adherence.

Well, the modern Jinja tradition sprung out of Jingukyo, but yes, the Kyoha traditions were small.

No, it's not. There's no such thing as independent Shintō, everything in all kinds of Shintō comes from a mixture of old native beliefs, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and original thought.

Most modern Shinto beliefs aren't of Buddhist origin, though. Our cosmology is different. Other than some Buddhist gods sometimes worshiped in Shinto beliefs and some other superficial elements, we're not reincarnation-based, we love alcohol (which is forbidden in much of Buddhist traditions), we don't have the same ethics, etc.

I'm gonna skip over your points on Kuroda. I'm not gonna be moved by them, and it's just a somewhat weak attempt at trying to argue that an ANTI-RELIGION scholar is somehow relevant to a faith. No, Marxism is anti-religion. End of story.

Now, onto the OP's original post, and her reply:

Skipping the first two, I think that her point on feudalism was a bit off. Basically, I wouldn't BLAME Buddhism for the conception of medieval feudal Japan's structure. Like anything else, the elite of Japan didn't really care or believe in Buddhism out of the goodness in their hearts, but because they felt superior to the peasantry. I'd argue that Buddhism was equally a victim of circumstance here, and that's not me throwing the Buddhists a bone, I genuinely have seen when a governing body can corrupt Buddhism for its own uses (see for instance, Fo Guang Shan being a Guomindang mouthpiece in Taiwan). There's precedent here. They're not directly to blame, it's just a case of elites abusing institutions to maintain power structures.

Buddhism didn't maintain a conservative nature in Japan. As far as religions go, I think the fact Buddhism is embraced by both left and right sources is a general point of being that Buddhism is mostly an apolitical faith with little commentary on modern politics other than by contemporary monastics.

Now, her reply:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/zu8re0/a_shintoists_opinion_on_shinbutsu_sh%C5%ABg%C5%8D_those_who/j1khqp9/

Even for women their rights improved, such as women no longer being barred from sacred places. Relative to what came before Japan until the Showa (sic, I think she meant Meiji?) Restoration was liberalizing, and part of this reason was Shinto.

This is true. The Blood Bowl Sutra is a mahayana sutra that influenced medieval Japan's ban on women from shrines and temples.

State Shinto was discussed and the validity of it. State Shinto is an incredibly complicated topic as there is a lot to debate in how much of State Shinto existed the way it did due to government ideology, and how much of it existed because those are the logical conclusions of Shinto. For example the Emperor having his portrait displayed within a Japanese household above the Kamidana can clearly be seen as government ideology, as nothing should be above the Kamidana and the Emperor could not theologically be more important than Amaterasu-Omikami. However the erosion of syncretism and Buddhist influence is more than the logical conclusion of Shinto practice, as syncretism especially to the degree to which had occurred under the Tokugawa government lead to a situation in which the practices of Shinto could not be authentically carried out.

I think Kokka Shinto is pretty open/shut. It's not tenable to defend it if you actually look at it with a critical eye. It was, in a way, created by Buddhist oppression, but it's not our religion to defend. It's a construction of Imperial Japan and should die with the past.

I agree with you that separation was right, but it was really important for it to have been done more peacefully if we could have. Sadly, that didn't happen. Overally, Buddhism stunted Shinto's growth, but it was again also a tool of the nobility, not the fault of Buddhism itself.

State Shinto itself also did not have a unified perspective on everything. Shinto's 13 Sects for example were all once part of State Shinto, and held their various interpretations of ethics, philosophy, the material and spiritual world, government, and syncretism. Ise Sect was the favoured Sect, but was not the only sect in State Shinto.

This is wrong. They were separate from Kokka Shinto. Modern Jinja Shinto is based on Jingukyo.

To what degree is Shinto philosophy and ethics separate from Buddhism, Confucianism, and other philosophy in Japan? That's going to depend on the Sect, and the time and place. Shinto is incredibly diverse, the 13 sects do not agree on everything. Ise Shinto is undoubtable the most independent from these practices, and was for this reason a major aid in the Meiji restoration liberalizing Japan. While a sect like Konkokyo has an intimate relationship with Buddhism and couldn't be argued to exist with its ethics and philosophy entirely independent from Buddhism.

There's also sectarians apart from those. Fushimi Inari Taisha maintains independence, as do many other shrine complexes not part of the Kyoha Rengokai.

Konkokyo's relationship to Buddhism is unclear to me, maybe /r/konkokyo people could clarify? I don't know enough about it to make that kind of value judgment.

Something that would help Marie a bit here is that modern Shinto practices are based on Ise, Shirakawa and Kokugaku movement related doctrines.

Conclusions

As far as my views on Shinto's morals go, our morals are not clearly defined but I'd say we at minimum have:

• People are born good, pure and free of hatred or kegare. It's only through our environment that we pick this up. This does not however morally mean that Japan or any other nation is "basically good" a country is only as good as its rulers.

• Harmony, both in community and nation are important.

• Maintenance of traditions, including respect of one's elders and of traditions of the belief.

A lot of the nuances are buried in Confucian and Taoist traditions adopted by Japanese culture. For instance, not wasting food, being humble and gracious etc. Shinto is different from most religions in that it cannot be truly divorced from Japanese culture, much like historical Western Roman beliefs.

All in all, I'm mostly just not understanding where some of them are coming from with this idea that Shinto can't exist on its own. Is it pearl clutching, a firmly held belief that you need to keep Shinto as part of your sphere, a view that you must put down Shinto to promote Buddhism?

I respect though, their criticisms of our history. It is good practice, and I hope none of you took this personally. For MarieTsuki, my recommendations are to perhaps consider the value in what is and isn't worth defending. Sometimes, defending things like monarchist Japan or Kokka Shinto can hurt your other points by coloring the waters.

Do you think it's people doing it intentionally or do you think it's because they genuinely subconsciously feel that they can't be part of a foreign culture?

Hi, first post here. I am looking for a subreddit that deals with taking down insane posts by users that handle misinfo.

I'm John Yamada (or so you think!), a 33 year old layperson of Taoism and Shinto. I speak Japanese and Chinese enough to get through a newspaper or read a book about religion or technical matters, but I am not a perfect person.

I used to practice Chinese Buddhism, I was a documentarian for Chan temples from Heilongjiang to Yunnan. I was a producer and member of a multi-person film crew, we did two documentaries in China promoting Buddhism (You can probably find it on Billibilli, it would have been between 2013-2017 for all tree) and one that was a criticism of it (after some of the crew, myself included, left Buddhism).

I never have, prior to 2022 publicly talked about religion. A younger friend of mine used to ardently post on Reddit and such with a passion (but sometimes an attitude) that I wish I could replicate, but I'm older and have less time on my hands. I only exist to try and act as a balance to a worrying trend of young, white LGBT-identified youth who commit cultural appropriation and disrespect of traditions on Reddit, a website viewed by millions. I do not wish to harm anyone, just help and teach.

I see a lot of hilariously ridiculous takes on religion from /r/religion, but this one concerns my own faith, and I had to do a deep dive after the user confronted me, refused to respond to my points, then doubled down in DMs (which because I'm a decent person I won't leak, but I'll summarize it)

Subject, The_Artist_01. A young Western follower of uh... Shinto? My skepticism is off the charts here.

Initial interaction here:

https://old.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/zp6zm6/worst_sin_or_misdeed_in_your_religion/j0raz87/

My initial post was carefully worded and unsure because as a laity my self-study requires a lot of reading of often poorly translated material. In particular, Shinto isn't a faith that has a strong moral epistemology. It does exist, but that's because Shinto is tied into Japanese culture.

They responded with asking about hybris (hubris), a Latin term usually associated with Catholicism. This troubled me because I know our faith isn't an analog of Catholicism. That's kinda bonkers.

I responded with clarifications and gently advised regarding a form of Omikuji, which I later understood to be Yuudate. This is a divination thing. Unfortunately, Kokugakuin's site redesign and new search make finding specific references impossible, so I can't directly cite it. If my statements ring a bell to someone here, please help me out but it's essentially immaterial. There's multiple cases of people in both premodern and modern history harassing and harming the Shinto understanding by putting themselves above the kami (which for those not familiar, basically means gods. I'm not gonna get into it, but some prefer "Spirit". One issue is most Japanese sources can't tell God from god/gods, they don't seem to understand the two terms are not the same in English.)

I get a mostly-nonsense reply whitewashing Shinto history. Yes, there were points between the Heian and Meiji where Shinto had some special treatment, it was not the norm. Ryobu was among peers like Yoshida and such, but these fell out of favor long ago in favor of Shirakawa-based practices. Shinbutsu-Shugo being a peaceful, coexisting era is a very sanitized view with the Danka system and everything.

By this point I was exchanging DMs with this person, I won't leak them but the gist was they haven't had any real priest interaction that I can tell, had little in the way of understanding of the faith but yet they started to aggressively double down. This is bad sign, so I started doing some digging

https://old.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/zor6v2/sexuality_and_religion/j0p8i3e/

Oh... no. I responded here, and will advise more on the basis of my position and response shortly, but there's more meaningful posts to bring up:

https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/zi1cgh/many_gods_are_more_probable_than_only_one/j01kb6d/

This whole "Chosen by faith" thing is mostly a western thing, especially considering Japanese people would find this... odd at best.

https://old.reddit.com/r/ShintoReligion/comments/ziplcn/hello_rshintoreligion_would_someone_like_to/izwadei/

Okay, so about 3 years +/- 6 months likely, and now aggressively enforcing an orthodoxy on others and calling people fakes. That's a bad sign.

https://old.reddit.com/r/ShintoReligion/comments/y681n4/rshintoreligion_weekly_ask_us_anything_thread/izq1t0h/

As a general rule, Shinto is not pantheistic. It has distinct kami who possess agency. Even if you go for a very conservative view of musubi it doesn't quite equal that. See Kokugakuin's definition:

The spirit of birth and becoming. Birth, accomplishment, combination. The creating and harmonizing powers. The working of musubi has fundamental significance in Shinto, because creative development forms the basis of the Shinto world view. There are numerous deities connected with musubi, such as Takamimusubi no kami (Exalted Musubi Deity), Kamimusubi no kami (Sacred Musubi Deity), Homusubi no kami (Fire Musubi Deity), Wakamusubi (Young Musubi), Ikumusubi (Life Musubi), and Tarumusubi (Plentiful Musubi). Takamimusubi no kami is related to the gods of heaven, while Kamimusubi no kami is related to the gods of earth. These two gods, together with Amenominakanushi no kami, are the three gods (zôka no sanshin) mentioned in the Japanese myth of creation. The Kojiki relates that they appeared at the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth and were the basis for the birth and growth of all things. Amenominakanushi no kami means "God Ruling the Center of Heaven." Many Shinto scholars have held that all the gods of Shinto are merely manifestations of this one deity. In the movement to organize Shinto at the beginning of the Meiji period, these three deities, together with Amaterasu Ômikami, were considered to be the highest gods; many Shinto sects maintain this view.

https://www2.kokugakuin.ac.jp/ijcc/wp/bts/bts_m.html

So I think I've gone through and analyzed this person. Now, I don't want them to get harassed or feel attacked, so I'll say this: I'm doing this with the aim of educating and helping others. I'm a centrist, I don't hate LGBT or liberals or anyone. I criticize partisanism and try to engage with both sides, until they start harassing me.

Lying to LGBT members about the realities of Shinto will hurt them in the long run. If anyone here has watched Uncle Roger or Filthy Frank, you'll know a common issue with white people is that they get an orientalist picture of Shinto or Japanese culture in their head, and it is damaging and racist to East Asians to hold such false views.

So, to disassemble my response to:

https://old.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/zor6v2/sexuality_and_religion/j0p8i3e/

I understand your intentions but the issue is Japanese people are very guarded on these topics. Japan is neither a very PC nor open country. You don't start conversations off by mentioning your pronouns or that you're trans or homosexual there. By spreading the myth, you're putting people at risk of disappointment. We're not a universal belief like Christianity.

This is true. East Asia in general is more meritocratic and they care less about gender or sexuality. Only people raised in the west even know much about LGBT, and there's a general view that obsession with this is a "holy mother" position (Chinese: 聖母) that encompasses left-wing idealogy in the West. Politics driven by emotion, not practicality or pragmatism.

So yeah, don't try this in China, Taiwan, Japan etc. It's not gonna end well.

Agender is a modern Western concept. Yes, the kami strictly speaking are not even in human form except in books like the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki, but they have concepts of sex in the Kojiki for example: Book 1, Page 3, Line 9 [After each had finished speaking, [Izanaginömikötö] said to his spouse(IzanaminoMikoto): “It is not proper that the woman speak first.”] They VERY clearly establish male and female roles and such.

Again, true. That's the Donald Philippi translation, i'll link it in the comments. It's by far the most popular and respected translation of Shinto's foundational creation story and historical record.

Between this and Furries who co-opt him this is ridiculous. Nowhere in his scripture is Inari-Ōkami (your titling of him is incorrect) ever referred to as "they" or "she", he is not a megami (female kami) unlike Amaterasu-Omikami, Ukemochi-no-kami etc. I don't know who you're getting this information from but there is no citations in your post and very clearly Shinto priests are not going to stand for this ridiculousness. Transgender people are not even really a concept in Japanese culture, closest you have are Newhalf (male to female transgender women... sort of), otokonoko are just effeminate boys.

Megami is a Japanese term referring to goddesses, dating to Middle Japanese in the Heian era. It's a native Japanese construction, not a Sino-Japanese import.

Unfortunately, Inari-Ōkami is a target of colonialist views, made worse by some English speaking orgs that appeal mostly to western furries. Nowhere in Shinto is transgender beliefs mentioned.

To expound upon my final statements:

Affirming beliefs in religion are great, if that's what a person wants. There's hundreds of witchcraft groups or LGBT Christians etc. These have a bit more "basis" to them even if I think they're not a good idea (for reasons I will explain below) and I can respect their function thus. People do need spaces to retreat to and recharge/reaffirm themselves.

Tolerant beliefs are more pragmatic, because I feel that LGBT folks don't need special treatment or justification, and sometimes a bit of conflict and criticism is necessary to help toughen one up. It should be respectful and charitable, though, something I admit is rare on the internet. But real life is hard, and you can't get by through only safe spaces.

We should not lie to LGBT. Shinto has few positions on social issues in general. I would argue that outright attacking people for being trans or homosexual is not only morally wrong, but against our creed.

There's many articles, some nuanced, some not, on Shinto's general positions of this issue. Here:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/29/what-does-japan-shinto-think-of-gay-marriage/

https://medium.com/@livingwithkami/throughout-the-years-and-even-now-i-have-often-been-asked-the-view-shinto-holds-in-regard-to-6d9eb0057997

https://www.mimusubi.com/2022/07/08/shinto-and-lgbt-scandal/

https://www.sdlgbtn.com/is-gay-marriage-accepted-in-shinto/

Of the above articles, the first three are good. Olivia Bernkastel, while I've only seen her secondhand, appears to be a woman with Kamisama in her heart. She's a good soul, I think. Mimisubi is by David Chart, a Shinto academic. While I have some nitpicks, his final statement rings true.

The last article is not good, but it's an example of how badly white people on the outside understand us.

We tolerate things, and I think in general that the politeness of Japanese culture would contraindicate discrimination "just because". The only time I can see LGBT or others turned away from jinja is for disrespectful behavior.

Thanks for reading. If The_Artist_01 is reading this, I'm here to help. There's others out there who can help you too. We're cool, I just want to ensure you understand that lying, even if it's to "help" is bad for us overall. Our faith is so readily misrepresented we don't need to contribute to that.

the dude that is against zen being a subsection of Buddhism?

Edit:Ewk*

I don't care if it's full of westerners I just want to make sure that what I'm reading isn't completely malformed and inaccurate

Hi, I know little about Buddhism so I can't tell legit from new age stuff and was wondering how accurate this post was:

"“Life is suffering” is a misquote. It was more like “life has suffering”"

Someone responded that with Samsara it makes into life is suffering being correct. Then they responded with this, "In Buddhism you're under no obligation to end rebirths. It's not "morally good" to do it and "morally bad" to not do it. If you're fine with it you do you. And the whole rebirth thing isn't even present in all forms of Buddhism." It sounds like things that go against what I do know about Buddhism, you do you sounding very western to me, so was wondering... thanks in advance for the help.

If so, would you be willing to contribute to scientific knowledge about these types of experiences and their effects?

Researchers at Clark University have created a 25-minute survey that asks questions about these types of experiences, their effects, and people who have them. Participants who complete the survey will be entered into a raffle to receive a $25 Amazon gift certificate. Given how rare these experiences are, your response would be greatly appreciated!

Please click the following link for the survey below: https://clarku.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9GrsV5XoMHZV8Ca

Responses will be completely anonymous and cannot be traced back to participants. Participation in this survey is completely voluntary. Any question on the survey may be left unanswered and you may decide to drop out of the survey at any time.

So basically title, but I am unable to find English resources that are accurate. I know the basics of Buddhism but the different branches confuse me a bit. From what I have read, Theravada focuses more on attaining nirvana and becoming an arhat (i’m not sure that’s the correct term, but it’s something like that) and the idea of wisdom, while Mahayana focuses more on becoming a bodhisattva and the idea of compassion. I also know the scriptural differences, but things like theistic beliefs, cosmological beliefs, and practices/worship/praying are subjects I can’t find concrete answers on.

For example, from what I’ve read Theravada doesn’t believe in bodhisattvas and less buddhas, while Mahayana believes in almost an infinite amount of bodhisattvas and buddhas. I have also read that Theravada is more secular, while Mahayana is more polytheistic.

Any information or resources not in the sidebar would be greatly appreciated as I am thinking of taking the Buddhist path and want to have a set of rigid, “denominational” practices to get myself into a good habit of practicing. I also want to worship(?) the devas, bodhisattvas, buddhas, etc. respectfully.

As the title says - just looking for good information on the two subjects. I find myself in community and conversation who appear superficially well-versed in these subjects but can't help shaking the feeling that is just wrapping hedonism in esoteric spirituality.

(mods can remove if against rules, sorry if it is)

Hi, I started a philosophy book club recently on discord that reads philosophy from all around the world. We will be starting with a couple readings each from ancient china and india soonish. The readings are basically very short introductions to the region we can build on when we come back later. I was hoping since there seems to be some knowledgeable people here if anyone was willing to help me these two ways:

1. I have almost no experience with South Asian philosophy and need help figuring out a couple good starting readings for beginners. So far (from reading the wiki) I was thinking of reading A Primer of Hinduism by DS Sarma. Also picking 4 or so Upanishads. I was thinking short Upanishads like Kena and Aitareya. Would you suggest differently to this, add anything, or have specific suggestions you think would be helpful?
2. Is there anyone willing to join discussions? Most people so far are beginners (in general) and westerners. It'd be helpful to have at least one person there with a little knowledge! We have a set time when we discuss but if you can't make it the text chat is always there. Let me know if you're willing and I can send you an invite. We're still finishing Ancient Greece intro so it may be a while. edit: Invite link for those interested

Thank you!

So, my understanding is that fulu refers to Taoist supernatural practices--incantations, talismans and rituals. I would like to know the specific term for a Taoist who practices fulu. One source told me fulu was the term for the practioner, but I feel it prudent to go to a broader source on this.

I'm familiar with the term wu, but as far as I can tell, that refers to a type of Shaman that have nothing to do with Tao practice and belief. I'm also seeing the terms wushi, fashi, moshushi and mofashi used to refer to practioniers of magic, but as far as I can tell, those terms also do not have much to do with Taoism or fulu.

How then, would one refer to a taoist who practices fulu?

I have been some time r/Buddhism and left, because its filled with Western atheist and left liberal ideology...I see hardly anything authentic from Buddhism itself

any way, compared to other religious subs, r/Islam r/Christianity r/hinduism r/Judaism etc....all have native born belong to these religion... r/Buddhism only one aren't like this...this is too bad, because I need real Buddhist which mostly found among Asian Buddhists, I belong to place have almost no Buddhist whatsoever

I noticed also same issue in every Buddhist website, like Dharmaweel.net ...all are white liberal left atheist lol...its annoying finding these everywhere...whats wrong with Asian Buddhists...where do they hang out...I found this issue only in Buddhism compared to other religion who have native in online forums or reddit

any way, do you know good online forum or reddit with real Buddhists?

sorry if irrelevant to this sub, I am not sure where to post this

thanks for reading

Hello everyone. Thank you for the warm welcome in my previous post.

I saw a post on r/ Buddhism relating to Buddhist iconography, asking if beads in the shape of a Buddha head are disrespectful. There was a side conversation about images of the Buddha in general, saying that images are a block to enlightenment. I know r / Buddhism can be a bit, uh, unreliable, so I was hoping some of you could post academic sources regarding this topic. I know I can just Google it, and I will, but I would still appreciate links to articles etc. that users here found especially insightful. I imagine that since Buddhists practice in so many different cultures, opinions will vary.

Howdy. I'm white and looking into Buddhism, and I have weird feelings about it. Feel free to delete this post if it doesn't fit the subreddit.

My background is Catholic. I'm not going to go into my entire autobiography, but I basically finally cut myself off from the church after accepting I am lgbt. I spent a couple (maybe a few?) years sans religion, but it felt like something deeper was missing from my life. Through therapy I became introduced to the idea of mindfulness and, from there, I found out about the link between Western therapy and Buddhist practice. I figured I might as well go to the source.

Now, I've found my time learning about Buddhism so far to be very rewarding. I am not going to claim to know what I'm doing, though, because I just started and frankly, I'm worried about being the kind of person who ends up being mocked on this sub. I wish I could clear my mind of these things and just focus on exploring a bit more.

But then, the first few times I came on this sub I also got a vibe like it would overlap with r altbuddhism, which is manly a fascist subreddit that condemns gay people, women, etc. They claim any form of Buddhism that embraces LGBT people, accepts Buddhist nuns, and focuses on nonviolence are watered down and Westernized. I hope that's not what this community is.

I'm not 100% sure what I'm trying to say, just trying to get some worries out of my head I guess. Maybe I want a little reassurance that I'm doing alright. I've mainly been reading Thich Nhat Hahn if that helps provide any context, but I will be reading a book about Pure Land Buddhism soon.

Do you just make fun of people who you think are misinterpreting Taoism?

..for now lets look at this from a while ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sikh/comments/dwjyt2/what_do_sikhs_think_of_the_buddha_siddartha/f7mg8kg/

Sikhi shares many concepts with Bodh. Concept of ek onkaar, to escape Maya, concept of karm, to be like a lotus which grows in dirty water but doesn't let the water wet or dirty it etc.

However, in practice sikhi is quite different also. Idol worshipping is looked down upon(according to Sikh philosophy you get fixated to appearence that way and are led astray), grast jiwan(living as a worldly person, while spiritually detached like monk) is not looked down upon but encouraged, self defence and no prohibition on meat eating as long as process is humane(but not to crave for it or any food) can be regarded as some differences.

I am more in agreement of Sikh principles, because to me those are more practical. Buddhists were killed and driven out of India by Hindu cultists (shakracharya cult) because they did not have any method of self defence and also because they were isolated from people. I would still respect any person truly following bodh path and meditating on ek onkaar.

Literally the prime difference between the Vedantins and the Buddhists, the reason why Buddhism even exists, is the rejection of Omkara i.e the rejection of the Parabrahman, the supreme all pervading reality who is beyond time and space. Furthermore buddhists weren't killed by anyone. They were already on the decline in India due to being won over in philosophical discussions commandeered by the Purvamimamsakas long before Shankara was even born. Setting aside the labeling of the early Advaitins without which sikhism as a religion would not even exist as "cultists", it's ludicrous to think that Shankara or his followers would kill anyone due to their extolling of extremely strict vairagya and sannyasa.

If this is completely off-topic or utterly against the rules/purpose of this sub I understand. I'm honestly fairly new to Reddit, but I figured there was no harm in reaching out. Plus I couldn't seem to locate the rules post or the wiki mentioned in the top post?

I know It's still the internet, and to take everything with a grain of salt, but as far as I can tell the people of this sub have a broader perspective on things even if personal values/beliefs/practices come into play. So with that in mind, I wanted to ask for some advice.

I have been into eastern philosophy since middle school. It started with a love of Japan, and anime as well as my limited view of the culture. This gradually evolved into a study of philosophy. Started with the Book of Five Rings. Eventually, it led to exploring Japanese history, and up through college more specific philosophy. I've read bits of The Analects, Lao Tzu, Dogen, as well as a bunch of mixed pieces from other Daoist, Confucian, and Buddhist/Zen masters. I've also read a bit of Shinto texts, and discourses, but so far as I understand that's basically only for the Japanese, so I should just leave it be. I studied in Japan in college for four months, and definitely learned a lot about the cultural differences from the west, but not enough.

My point in mentioning all of this is in the hopes of showing I've done a lot of digging, but I'm no scholar. I have enjoyed all the digging and found a lot that resonated especially from Dogen, and Lao Tzu. This is true at least as far as I understood both of them (Definitely not as well as I think.)

​

Recently I've started reading Ram Dass after watching Midnight Gospel, and doing yet more digging, and now the desire to learn more has been reignited. Thus I find myself here. I've been digging through the internet and Reddit for anything I can find. I guess my ultimate question is where the hell should I start? How does one even begin to consider which path to take? An more specifically learn about the process to take that path? I feel like I've read a lot, but I know nothing. It's like knowing about the countries on a map without knowing the map. There is no sense of direction or purpose beyond a vague, “I like the sound of that.”

I hope this makes sense. I want to explore more and see if any of these paths are right for me in my life, but I'm not entirely sure how to discern that beyond just jumping in, and trying to interpret what I can independently. The thing is I'm pretty sure that's a mistake and a direct result of westernized thinking.

TL'DR: I have studied eastern philosophy throughout a lot of my life, but I've never been able to settle on what felt right. Instead, I have cherry-picked through texts for pieces that resonated. Where do I begin with a study of eastern philosophy, and trying to escape or at least more thoroughly recognize my westernized view of things? An following that how do I decide what is appropriate to pursue a practice of, and what is culturally linked and thus basically impossible to practice.

https://www.removeddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/g3y4ho/is_there_a_point_at_which_philosophy_becomes_to/fnuy72x/

I want to contest the idea that Confucianism was criticized by Li Zhi, and also that Confucianism seeks to reinforce social hierarchy and patriarchy.

First for Li Zhi, he was actually a Confucian (source), however he was a critic of Zhu Xi, but what major Confucian after the Song Dynasty wasn't? The same can be said of Wang Yangming and Dai Zhen. It seems much more accurate to cast doubt on the "Confucianism" of the imperial courts than to cast Confucianism as promoting some form of censorship - which in fact it does lend itself to a form of explicit ideological synthesis. This is also to only focus on people within the Confucian tradition, there are others outside of Confucianism that were much more vocal on their attack of Confucian philosophy, and you would do well to keep in mind that Confucianism was just one of the three recognized teachings in Imperial China.

Second, in terms of Confucian hierarchy, there is a lot of literature on why it isn't inherently patriarchal. Citing Jiang Qing in dealing with Confucianism is like citing Stalin in dealing with Communism, sure you can say they are Confucian/Communist, but that's not really the whole picture. We are already aware of Li Zhi, however Im Yunjidang's writings are very important in this regard, as well as other New Confucians (From the 1900s onwards) who are much more vocal in their support of (I wouldn't really call it) feminism, from Kang Youwei (citation needed, can't find what I'm looking for) to Chenyang Li. Jiang Qing is very much radical in his approach, and his philosophy does raise some eyebrow.

While I'm on the topic, I would give say that Confucians do give some defense to their version of free speech, but I wanted to point out the inaccuracies in your statement, which I have done. I would note that even in Jiang, who does favor "Divine" speech more than free speech, he does allow that people should have their say.

I have a Chinese acquaintance who is from Kongzi's birthplace. He told me that there, Confucian tradition is still very strong. Because of that, birthdays of children are not usually celebrated and in fact, they are often used to remind children that they are a burden.

I don't think he was lying, but I was wondering if this is documented? Is "anti-birthdays" sentiment related to Confucianism?