U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-20-2019, 12:21 AM
 
39,014 posts, read 10,812,637 times
Reputation: 5080

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itzpapalotl View Post
Nooo, not the no true Scotsman argument, Trans

On a serious note, the kind of state-protecting Buddhism you describe has already been an intrinsic part of Buddhism by the time it was introduced to Japan from the Korean peninsula. Its obeisance first to a singular authority and later to the state emerged during the Ashoka rule, c. 268 to 232 BCE. Having embraced Buddhism, Ashoka helped spread it throughout the ancient Asia and became the protector of the Sangha (Buddhist monastic communes), which in turn prospered and grew under Ashoka's royal patronage. But in return for this protection the Sangha compromised their independence eventually leading them to recognise the Raja Dharma (Law of the Sovereign), which gradually evolved into the Chakravartin (Wheel-Turning King) a worldly counterpart of the Buddha whose role was to protect the Buddha Dharma. It is through this recognition, and with the use of the Mahāvairocana's Sun Buddha, that Buddhism later formed such a successful association with the Japanese imperial house via its Shinto Sun goddess progenitor.

In time, and with the introduction of Buddhism to China and its incorporation of Taoist and Confucian tenets into its practice, Buddhism formalised hierarchical distribution of power, placing an emperor at the top of a pyramid. By then, the sharing of the titles between the emperor and the Buddha grew into the belief that an emperor is the living representation of the Buddha, therefore being subservient to an emperor meant being subservient to the Buddha, and protecting an emperor meant protecting the Buddha Dharma. This in turn led Buddhism to link its teachings to the goals of the state, including militarisation. And even though these practices were not necessarily part of the Gautama Buddha's teachings they were all, one way or another, justified using scripture.

For example, even though Gautama Buddha taught against violence, through latter accretion, Buddhism came to legitimise "just" killing and war. Aside from protecting the Buddha Dharma, there were many ways in which this was done. One of these was by reducing the enemy to an empty vessel (if they were perceived as empty, there was no harm in killing them). Another, using the teachings of compassion - on the one hand, by killing the enemy you exercise compassion toward your own people by saving those who would've otherwise fallen at a hand of an enemy; on the other, you kill the enemy to protect them as their death means they would be saved from greater guilt of killing more people. As a bonus, by exercising the 'no-mind' practice one could separate their self from the task at hand, whether it is ploughing a field or killing or torturing, or conducting medical experiments as part of the Unit 731.

With regard to Bushido code, you may be interested to know that Buddhism actually played a very big role in its development. First, by allowing the Kamakura Shogunate to distance itself from the nobility, including the emperor, and their supporting religious sects by adopting an essentially foreign practice; second, by bringing together all the warring clans under one unified ideology that promoted hierarchy and loyalty to a single authority figure; third, it offered military training, instruction, and fundraising amongst other things. All this and more led to Buddhism becoming a de facto state religion during the reign of the Tokugawa Shogunate. It is during this period that Buddhism became formally institutionalised with the priests functioning in government roles and acting as state enforcers, particularly when it came to a prohibition of Christianity.

Even though the position that Buddhism held in Japan was reversed when Emperor Meiji came into power, first with the Charter Oath of 1868 and then with the 'Separation Edicts', following which there began a short but effective persecution of Buddhism, it did regain a lot of its power, not so much through the association with State Shinto, but by demonstrating the lengths it could go to in its devotion and support of the state as part of its already ingrained principles.

This is perfectly illustrated by the Shaku Sōen's justification of Japanese militarism to Leo Tolsoy's pacifist entreaty:



P.S. If you are interested in the subject, I highly recommend Brian Daizen Victoria's Zen at War, which I used as reference for the above.

P.P.S. Apologies for any grammatical mistakes, it's late and my mind is fried after 12 hours of work.
That's very good, and you know your stuff. My knowledge of Buddhism once it moved away from the Teachings of the elders' towards Mahayana - which was the version that got exported North (while Therevada got exported east) is a bit sketchy. But I am sure that Buddhism had never found excuses for the taking of life as distinct from people who found they had to fight or be eliminated who found ways around the problem.

And whatever deal Buddhism made with Asoka (not too hard, as Buddhism never failed to trade on Prince Gotama's royal authority) this didn't get exported, as Kingship was essentially Hindu and was at times a cause of conflict (e.g between Ayutthaya and Sukhotai) and in China was regarded with Royal disapproveal, until of course, the Royals were converted and then Buddhism would go along with whatever was needed to keep the support of Royalty - as religions generally find it expedient to do.

Another thought - though I'm no expert on Japan (or anything else) I'm not sure that Bushido was an Imperial thing but more a role of the nobles (Samurai class) and wasn't the emperor essentially a Shinto entity and (like some samurai) acquired Buddhism as an extra while retaining Shinto for authority and by the samurai for the code of Bushido?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-20-2019, 05:25 AM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itzpapalotl View Post
Nooo, not the no true Scotsman argument, Trans

On a serious note, the kind of state-protecting Buddhism you describe has already been an intrinsic part of Buddhism by the time it was introduced to Japan from the Korean peninsula. Its obeisance first to a singular authority and later to the state emerged during the Ashoka rule, c. 268 to 232 BCE. Having embraced Buddhism, Ashoka helped spread it throughout the ancient Asia and became the protector of the Sangha (Buddhist monastic communes), which in turn prospered and grew under Ashoka's royal patronage. But in return for this protection the Sangha compromised their independence eventually leading them to recognise the Raja Dharma (Law of the Sovereign), which gradually evolved into the Chakravartin (Wheel-Turning King) a worldly counterpart of the Buddha whose role was to protect the Buddha Dharma. It is through this recognition, and with the use of the Mahāvairocana's Sun Buddha, that Buddhism later formed such a successful association with the Japanese imperial house via its Shinto Sun goddess progenitor.

In time, and with the introduction of Buddhism to China and its incorporation of Taoist and Confucian tenets into its practice, Buddhism formalised hierarchical distribution of power, placing an emperor at the top of a pyramid. By then, the sharing of the titles between the emperor and the Buddha grew into the belief that an emperor is the living representation of the Buddha, therefore being subservient to an emperor meant being subservient to the Buddha, and protecting an emperor meant protecting the Buddha Dharma. This in turn led Buddhism to link its teachings to the goals of the state, including militarisation. And even though these practices were not necessarily part of the Gautama Buddha's teachings they were all, one way or another, justified using scripture.

For example, even though Gautama Buddha taught against violence, through latter accretion, Buddhism came to legitimise "just" killing and war. Aside from protecting the Buddha Dharma, there were many ways in which this was done. One of these was by reducing the enemy to an empty vessel (if they were perceived as empty, there was no harm in killing them). Another, using the teachings of compassion - on the one hand, by killing the enemy you exercise compassion toward your own people by saving those who would've otherwise fallen at a hand of an enemy; on the other, you kill the enemy to protect them as their death means they would be saved from greater guilt of killing more people. As a bonus, by exercising the 'no-mind' practice one could separate their self from the task at hand, whether it is ploughing a field or killing or torturing, or conducting medical experiments as part of the Unit 731.

With regard to Bushido code, you may be interested to know that Buddhism actually played a very big role in its development. First, by allowing the Kamakura Shogunate to distance itself from the nobility, including the emperor, and their supporting religious sects by adopting an essentially foreign practice; second, by bringing together all the warring clans under one unified ideology that promoted hierarchy and loyalty to a single authority figure; third, it offered military training, instruction, and fundraising amongst other things. All this and more led to Buddhism becoming a de facto state religion during the reign of the Tokugawa Shogunate. It is during this period that Buddhism became formally institutionalised with the priests functioning in government roles and acting as state enforcers, particularly when it came to a prohibition of Christianity.

Even though the position that Buddhism held in Japan was reversed when Emperor Meiji came into power, first with the Charter Oath of 1868 and then with the 'Separation Edicts', following which there began a short but effective persecution of Buddhism, it did regain a lot of its power, not so much through the association with State Shinto, but by demonstrating the lengths it could go to in its devotion and support of the state as part of its already ingrained principles.

This is perfectly illustrated by the Shaku Sōen's justification of Japanese militarism to Leo Tolsoy's pacifist entreaty:



P.S. If you are interested in the subject, I highly recommend Brian Daizen Victoria's Zen at War, which I used as reference for the above.

P.P.S. Apologies for any grammatical mistakes, it's late and my mind is fried after 12 hours of work.
so you mean bubha understood that some people are dangerous and its ok to limit that danger? Other people took a sensible approach to living and turned in into something else, like a weapon of control?

He also understood the nature of being human. That being, most of us need a reason to take a life past "we are better than you."

well, I don't believe ya. and the one thing CD has taught me, "I don't believe ya" is a totally acceptable way of making facts unimportant in forming a belief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 05:30 AM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose Red View Post
Never thought of belief in that way before. I love the sentence "Only when all belief is given up are you free to know yourself. In self discovery what you find is the Truth - that Truth which is total, self-evident and which needs no outside support or justification"
I like this. its why young people make some great discoveries. They don't know whats impossible yet.

I disagree with the lat part. " ... needs no outside support or justification."

That line is why we are in this atheist vs theist mess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 12:00 PM
 
6,791 posts, read 4,069,025 times
Reputation: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
i agree with that - so long as you don't fall into the 'believe or not' trap and you recognise the weight of evidence that verification brings and the sliding scale of credibility. It's a worse mistake to dismiss unwelcome evidence using the 'subjectivity' argument than to fall into the trap of believing that Science has given us the Final Revelation.
I agree. Some things have a much greater probability of being valid and meritorious than others...based upon observation and info available.
Some things can even be considered as close to a certainty as possible based upon observations and available info: Such as, "God Exists", that's as certain as anything gets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 12:07 PM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
i agree with that - so long as you don't fall into the 'believe or not' trap and you recognise the weight of evidence that verification brings and the sliding scale of credibility. It's a worse mistake to dismiss unwelcome evidence using the 'subjectivity' argument than to fall into the trap of believing that Science has given us the Final Revelation.
you are absolutely unbelievable. you whip out "yes or no" in some post(s) and jump to "not yes or no".

you are now talking about the weight of evidence that clearly points to the claim that we are surrounded by life vs your claim that we need to obscure that fact.

no wonder you ran away from me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 12:09 PM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
I agree. Some things have a much greater probability of being valid and meritorious than others...based upon observation and info available.
Some things can even be considered as close to a certainty as possible based upon observations and available info: Such as, "God Exists", that's as certain as anything gets.
lmao ... trans is unbelievable. he holds theism to a different set of standards than his own belief. His sect of atheism is an embarrassment to the rest of us.

he does what all fundy think does. science is used when it suits him and science is ignored when it doesn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 12:42 PM
 
4,410 posts, read 1,637,523 times
Reputation: 1528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj View Post
This is an excerpt from "A course in consciousness" thought it would make an interesting thread. I think it is right on.

Belief, any belief, is based on the sense of insecurity. Only when all belief is given up are you free to know yourself. In self discovery what you find is the Truth - that Truth which is total, self-evident and which needs no outside support or justification.” The result is that any belief system, in order to be sustained, requires constant effort at defending it, reinforcing it, and shoring it up. This effort invariably strengthens the sense of separation that the belief system is supposed to dissolve.

"When a person finds that his own efforts are fruitless, then he turns to a power, he creates a power, conceives a power which will give him what he himself cannot get. He creates a concept, worships it, prays to it and begs it to give him what he wants. When even that entity fails to give him what he is seeking, further frustration and misery arise."
In religion, mankind creates its gods in its own images, and each religion then justifies its actions by claiming it speaks for its god. The more vengeful and punitive is the god, the more vengeful and punitive are the people who created it and who believe in it. Furthermore, if we think of God as being separate from us, we will not be able to avoid asking such questions as, "Why did God create suffering?", or, "Why is God doing this to me?" Thus, many adherents to Christianity are described as being God-fearing, not God-loving. Any belief in a separate god induces guilt, expiation of which often takes the form of trying to induce guilt in others. It is no accident that the most peaceful religions are the ones, like Buddhism, that have no concept of god.
Non-dualistically, God is not an entity that is separate from us, that can do something, and to which we might ascribe emotions and intentions. God is not an object or entity at all, let alone one that has emotions or intentions. God does not and cannot "do" anything, because there is nothing but God, so there is nothing separate for God to act on, to feel about, or to think about. Because there is nothing but God, I am God and you are God.
Perhaps "the belief" or "non-belief" has little to do with "insecurity"?

Perhaps "The belief, starts with natural human curiosity when he looks at the skies and stars and planets, and ponders whether the entire universe and everything in it came together, all by itself, at a mere chance?
Or there is a high probability that there is designer and a creator behind all this mind boggling formations and processes in nature that are in action with a certain precision for billions of years?

Or perhaps it starts with natural human curiosity to think and want to know, "Whats after death?" Do you know the answer? If yes, you are a liar and actually the insecure one. Nobody knows the answer.
And If no, then you can either live in a greater uncertainty or do the research and see if forming a belief decreases that greater uncertainty? Yes, it's not for everyone. It works for some, and it doesn't for others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 02:36 PM
 
2,453 posts, read 859,545 times
Reputation: 1714
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
A religious belief is completely "faith" based. It has no basis in reality, reality being any sort of concrete evidence to justify believing in it. So this person's faith in Buddha is just as good as that person's faith in Jesus, since neither can be supported with concrete evidence. Why are thing like this? Depends on which holy man you talk to. A Buddhist will tell you Buddha did this and that. A pastor will tell you Jesus did this and that. A Hindu will tell you Brahma did this and that. So who do you believe? No clue. It's a roll of the dice. It's whoever speaks to your subjective emotions the strongest. And that's how faith works.
Agree. If someone asks me, "do you believe in evolution?", I say no - evolution is a scientific theory. It's not something I believe IN, like one might say I believe in love, or I believe in democracy. I happen to think that the theory of evolution is probably the best explanation for life on Earth, but if suddenly some evidence came out to disprove evolution I would then abandon the theory and look for a better one.

But when I say "I believe in love" or "I believe in democracy", it means I see those things as having inherent value, independent of any data or analysis. Belief in God is similar to this. I struggle with faith in a specific God, but I am willing to say that I believe in a higher power, and also that I have no rational basis for that belief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 06:06 PM
 
6,791 posts, read 4,069,025 times
Reputation: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
lmao ... trans is unbelievable. he holds theism to a different set of standards than his own belief. His sect of atheism is an embarrassment to the rest of us.

he does what all fundy think does. science is used when it suits him and science is ignored when it doesn't.
You got it.
As you know...I am certain that with what we can objectively observe of and about our Reality, and using the current info we have to work with...we see what is indicative and demonstrative of a God. And I revere it as such.
Others may not share that view and outlook (and I am okay with that)...but that does not diminish what I feel has been empirically proven with the utmost of validity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 06:16 PM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
You got it.
As you know...I am certain that with what we can objectively observe of and about our Reality, and using the current info we have to work with...we see what is indicative and demonstrative of a God. And I revere it as such.
Others may not share that view and outlook (and I am okay with that)...but that does not diminish what I feel has been empirically proven with the utmost of validity.
same. It just bugs when they won't compare their claims side by side to determine a relative validity scale.

They are uttlerly controlled by how they feel about religion.

I can see the same things you do and not use the word GOD. It aint that big a deal.

they see the letters D-G-O, in the wrong order, and it triggers them. and its us with the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top