Re: Shinto and Buddhism

Eddie--

My understanding of the history is that Shinto is an animistic religion
indigenous to Japan, and that there was a certain degree of tension between
Buddhism and Shinto when Buddhism was first introduced (as you said) from
China, but that the two religions became, if not precisely syncretic, then at
least interwoven -- that it was to a large extent held that the kami of
Shinto were genuine entities who, like all others, could benefit from the
Buddha's enlightenment. (Hence the fact that Shinto shrines are such a common
fixture in so many Buddhist temples).

I got the impression that this changed substantially during the Meiji
restoration and into WWII, when the government pressed the notion of the
Imperial lineage (the descent from Amaterasu-o-Mikami) as evidence that Japan was
under the unique protection of the gods / kami, as a result of which a very
strict separation of church and state was written into the post-war
constitution...

Am I missing anything substantial here? My personal experience of Japan
was that the temples and shrines were largely appreciated for their historic
nature; I seldom saw religious ceremonies going on (apart from New Year's
Day, when people arrived, made their offerings, and departed) the way I did
in Korea, for example. (BTW -- I don't mean this as any sort of judgment,
merely an observation...)

--RMB


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cearb,

You seems to have been in Japan for some time before . Did you enjoy during you stayed in Japan ?

I appreciate you a lot if you could let me know the names of Temples or Shrines who became interwoven each other in Japan ?

Shrines have no monks at all whatsoever as Temples have . Temples in Japan ,or in China, Korea, Thailand ---- have monks always.

Please remember that Shinto has nothing to do with Buddhism , since the begging and untill now.

Please remember the God of Shinto and Buddhism is totally different.

So, the different Gods of the two cannot stay in the same building. Can you understand ?

The religion of Yuda and the one of Christ is different. Same thing.
Who is the God of Yuda, Mose？　　Who is the God of Christ ?

My final answer about religion is that you can believe your own God in your heart as you like , and you don't deny any religion whatsoever.
Any way, humanbeing is so weak finally and , which being resulted in that you cannot do anything but rely on some God or, the more stronger sprit , or thing than you to get relief and happiness to keep living.

Japanese Emperors were nothing to do with Buddhism and they were from the God of Shinto.

As I mentioned before, Japanese people , unfortunately, believed The Emperor is God and the desendants of Japanese Gods. So Japanese Imperials used this concept leading to Banzai, going to death for Emperor , Kamikaze. That was tragedy for Japanese. Meiji Ishin, restoration was wrong
for that point. Meiji Emperor was used by low class Bushi like Sathuma, Choshu, Tosa, etc to get upset Japan with some kind of help to succeed the revolution , so called, the fake revolution though I say. It was not like the real revolution triggered by civilians in France.
Which means, even now Japanese government have limitted power to govern Japanese people and lead to the best performance politically , which resulting in maybe changing the government again in the near future untill Japanese people realize what is the real democracy which almost all European ,
and Americans enjoy now, whic I predict.

However, I still believe that Japanese people are forwarding to the same destination as the European and Americans , so do all Asians , Africans, South Americans, and in the future, all human being s will get together to live and exist to enjoy mutual understanding , co- prospering,
and pease like Mr. Obama aims now.

Eddie

Thanks

Eddie

Cearb@... wrote:
Eddie--

My understanding of the history is that Shinto is an animistic religion
indigenous to Japan, and that there was a certain degree of tension between
Buddhism and Shinto when Buddhism was first introduced (as you said) from
China, but that the two religions became, if not precisely syncretic, then at
least interwoven -- that it was to a large extent held that the kami of
Shinto were genuine entities who, like all others, could benefit from the
Buddha's enlightenment. (Hence the fact that Shinto shrines are such a common
fixture in so many Buddhist temples).

I got the impression that this changed substantially during the Meiji
restoration and into WWII, when the government pressed the notion of the
Imperial lineage (the descent from Amaterasu-o-Mikami) as evidence that Japan was
under the unique protection of the gods / kami, as a result of which a very
strict separation of church and state was written into the post-war
constitution...

Am I missing anything substantial here? My personal experience of Japan
was that the temples and shrines were largely appreciated for their historic
nature; I seldom saw religious ceremonies going on (apart from New Year's
Day, when people arrived, made their offerings, and departed) the way I did
in Korea, for example. (BTW -- I don't mean this as any sort of judgment,
merely an observation...)

--RMB

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








---------------------------------
VANCOUVER 2010 Olympic News [Yahoo! Sports/sportsnavi]


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This email comes directly from my PERSONAL experience and belief as a life-time actively practicing Buddhist (not someone who converted in their mid-30s, or just read books on it, etc.etc.)
 
  Shinto Deities are Earthly Gods... they can provide some relative benefit, but cannot bring you to your liberation or enlightenment. As such, they cannot be taken as objects of refuge. However, because of their relative existence as relative gods, they can be paid respect to, and thus, shrines within the Temple grounds are common for such things.
 Even in other countries, like Bhutan or Thailand, you will see this respect paid in such a way.  
 
 Within Buddhism --- which actually is a western word.. the real name of the religion is simply "The Teachings of Actual Truth as expressed by the Buddhas" .. a.k.a. The Dharma or Buddha Dharma.... 
 In Buddha Dharma,  you can show respect to any class of sentient being, including gods, as long as you don't worship them or take them as your refuge.
 
������� So.. paying respect and homage and even making an offering is fine.
 
 In this way, "Buddhism" does not conflict with most religions, especially religions like shinto.  The only religions in conflicts with are the religions were a god demands you take him/her as your sole refuge (most Monotheistic religions).
 
 Sometimes, earthly gods vow to protect dharma and assist the Sangha...and they become Worldly Protectors.  It is important to note that Worldly Protectors are earth gods associated with Dharma... and that "Dharma Protectors" are actually projections/emanations of Buddhas/Bodhisattvas.  Thus, sometimes you see sangha members treating a protector with refuge, it might look weird. However, if you know they are not a Worldly Protector, but a Dharma Protector, then you understand they are paying refuge to a Buddha.  So you need to know if that being is a worldly protector or a dharma protector.
 
����� In the earlier letter, it sounded like he (Eddie?) was saying that Buddha's God was Amida ? Maybe I read that wrong-- but let me just correct this just in case.
 
  Buddha has no god. This is because Dharma teaches two realities 1.) relative and 2.) Absolute.
 
 The  relative reality is "run" by Interdependet Origination, which manifest as different types of karma (Yes.. there are actually different types of karma, not just "karma"). This system is, in a nutshell, a system of cause-and-result.
 
 The absolute truth is the buddhanature a.k.a. nature of mind etc.etc...
 
  At no point in this equation is there a "god".  
 
 Amida, better known as Amitabha or Amitayus (Infinite Light) (Infinite Life)... is the Buddha who radiates the "western paradise"..   which, in all seriousness, is like a world that was purified due to Amitabha's enligthenment. 
  How did this happen ?
   Because of Interdependent Origination.
 
 Amitabha made a series of vows and those vows were interdependent with his awakening. As he awoke, these vows ripened.  Most Buddhas have some kind of "related power".. that upon awakening, their vow ripens into that power ...so to speak.  Amitabha vowed that his awakening would be interconnected with the pufication of the world he was practicing on, and that once he attained enlightenment, his radiance would produce this pure field.
   Another vow that was ripened was that if you focus on Amitabha PROPERLY, you can connect with his radiance from your concentration meeting with his ripened vow.
 
  O.k... many people have seemingly misunderstood how this works. Most Amitabha practice was become really just Buddha-Christ  god-worshiping and "save me Oh Amida!" kinda of methodology.
 
��� The real idea is that you take Amitabha, the Pure Land, His vows..etc.etc.. AS YOUR OBJECT OF CONCENTRATION... and through the process of meditating and concentrating on these, you will create the connection with it.
 
  It is actually suppose to be a form of meditation... not salvation worship.  However, as most of the common folk, such as farmers and merchents, don't have time, leisure, or training on how to properly concentrate on an object or to meditate, the system of "Amida's salvation if you call out to him" came into effect...
 
 because, if their faith in Amitabha can be sustain in their mind, they will KEEP Amitabha in their thoughts constantly...
 
 .. then this MIGHT produce the same result as if you were properly meditating on Amitabha.
 
 ����� However, this must be understood to be an alteration to the actual program/system of accomplishing the Pure Land.
 
 
   ������� Amitabha was never taught, by the Buddhas, to be a "god" or a "savior" --- He is a meditation technique, actually.  All four variations of the Pure Land sutra teach this, and in the esoteric Amitabha rituals teach this as well. 
   In this case :   "Faith" = "Mental Concentration"
 
  It should be noted that one can make contact, in theory, with ANY Buddha or Bodhisattva via this method of mental concentration, not just Amitabha.  The "key difference" of Amitabha is the being born into the Pure Field part.
 
������������I hope this puts this into proper perspective.

--- On Tue, 2/16/10, Cearb@... <Cearb@...> wrote:


From: Cearb@... <Cearb@...>
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Shinto and Buddhism
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 11:08 PM


 



Eddie--

My understanding of the history is that Shinto is an animistic religion
indigenous to Japan, and that there was a certain degree of tension between
Buddhism and Shinto when Buddhism was first introduced (as you said) from
China, but that the two religions became, if not precisely syncretic, then at
least interwoven -- that it was to a large extent held that the kami of
Shinto were genuine entities who, like all others, could benefit from the
Buddha's enlightenment. (Hence the fact that Shinto shrines are such a common
fixture in so many Buddhist temples).

I got the impression that this changed substantially during the Meiji
restoration and into WWII, when the government pressed the notion of the
Imperial lineage (the descent from Amaterasu-o- Mikami) as evidence that Japan was
under the unique protection of the gods / kami, as a result of which a very
strict separation of church and state was written into the post-war
constitution. ..

Am I missing anything substantial here? My personal experience of Japan
was that the temples and shrines were largely appreciated for their historic
nature; I seldom saw religious ceremonies going on (apart from New Year's
Day, when people arrived, made their offerings, and departed) the way I did
in Korea, for example. (BTW -- I don't mean this as any sort of judgment,
merely an observation. ..)

--RMB

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steven--

Excellent information -- thanks! That is much more congruent with my
understanding of Buddhism and its relationship with Shinto (and other
religions).

I do have a question about one thing you said -- that there is no "god" in
Buddhism. Aren't there numerous gods and goddesses (largely adopted /
adapted from Hinduism, Shakyamuni having been Hindu, much as Christ was
Jewish)? My understanding is that these gods are not "ultimate" beings, but
rather beings of a different sort of existence than humans, but still in need
of the Buddha's enlightenment...

To bring this back around to the central topic of the forum -- how did this
all play into the ideologies of the Christian daimyo? Did they hold onto
any Buddhist / Shinto beliefs, or were they completely converted? Any
insights?

--RMB


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Eddie--

I lived in Japan for four and a half years, three in Fukaya, Saitama, and a
year and a half in Moriya, Ibaraki. I loved my time there and hope to be
able to go back sometime soon -- it was an excellent experience.

I recall, for example, that on the grounds of the Asakusa Kannon temple
there is a small shrine, as I believe is true on the grounds of Kiyomizu-dera
in Kyoto, among others. Certainly the various texts I've read (Japanese
Religion by H. Byron Earhart, Shinto: The Kami Way by Sokyo Ono, The Japanese
Experience by W.G. Beasley, just to name ones that are readily at hand)
all suggest the overlap of religions I mentioned in my previous e-mail.
That's why I'm surprised that you say that Buddhism and Shinto are completely
separate -- your statement contradicts quite literally EVERYTHING I have
read about Japanese religion.

As to your final point, I certainly hope you're right -- that the various
nations and religions of the world can come together in ever-increasing
peace and mutual understanding.

Kiotsukete!

--RMB


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Whoa, folks, settle down. Poor grammar and/or random emphasis through
capitalization will hardly win anyone anything in this argument.

Buddhism has about as many faces as Judeo-Christian-Islamic teachings.
While it is true that there are no specific "gods", per se, a lot of
the Hindu gods got mixed up in early Buddhism. The Mahayana
teachings, especially some of the more esoteric ones, make reference
to gods and deities, but put them on a separate plane--the historical
Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) didn't dispute their existence, and they
are, in fact, implied to exist through the very concept of life,
death, and rebirth--you could be reborn as a deity if you were very
good, but this never actually got you out of the cycle.

In India you can see evidence of this in Buddhist board games (the
precursor to our "Snakes and Ladders") where there is a path, in the
cycle of life and rebirth, where you may attain godhood--however, this
is quite an unfortunate position because you cannot go any further and
have no reason to want to escape the cycle, so you become trapped by
your own desires.

The kami of Shinto are clearly separate, but were often equated with
various buddhas or converted into boddhisatvas, such that there were
often multiple incarnations of the same kami, whether Buddhist or
Shinto.

Definitely the early ritualists of Japan resisted Buddhism, as
theocratic power was one of the primary routes for advancement, and
the "new" religion did not fall under the hereditary control of the
traditional ritualists. Despite their efforts, however, Buddhism
gained a foothold, and the syncreticism began. In the Nara Period,
for example, Kofukuji and Kasuga Taisha were both part of the same
organization dedicated to the spiritual well-being of the Fujiwara
clan. It wasn't until later (Edo or Meiji period) that the two were
forced to split apart into fully separate organizations. I'm not
saying that the priests were monks and vice versa, but they were both
under the same administration.

Another example is the Usa Hachiman shrine, which attempted to curry
favor with the Buddhists in the court when they reported that Hachiman
endorsed Dokyo's bid to be named emperor. They then retracted their
blessing, likely at the insistence of Dokyo's opponents in the court.

Strict religionists on either side made the distinction, and it comes
up not infrequently in discussions between them, but the average
person had no problem reconciling the two beliefs, and it is
definitely the case that there are Shinto shrines on the grounds of
Buddhist temples (oddly, I cannot think of the reverse). In the Meiji
period, however, in an attempt to return the power of the Emperor,
Shinto was held up as an example of native Japanese belief while
Buddhism's foreign origins were emphasized. The state forced the
institutions apart leaving us with the situation we have today.

BTW, as I live in Thailand these days, I can tell you that Buddhist,
Hindu, and local Thai spirit houses coexist without issue.
Furthermore, I have participated in a Buddhist ceremony with monks and
a local shaman or Brahman (I'm not sure which). Like the onmyoji of
Japan, there are those who have no problem syncreticizing the
religions (though I believe this is still against the strictest
interpretations of Buddhism).

Oh, and on the issue of "Buddhism" being a Western concept: Is that
not the basic meaning of "Bukkyo"? Yes, the word is a Western one,
but not, I think, the concept.

-Josh

On Feb 17, 2010, at 4:29 AM, <yoshiyuki_hlake@...> <yoshiyuki_hlake@...

> wrote:

> Cearb,
>
> You seems to have been in Japan for some time before . Did you enjoy
> during you stayed in Japan ?
>
> I appreciate you a lot if you could let me know the names of Temples
> or Shrines who became interwoven each other in Japan ?
>
> Shrines have no monks at all whatsoever as Temples have . Temples in
> Japan ,or in China, Korea, Thailand ---- have monks always.
>
> Please remember that Shinto has nothing to do with Buddhism , since
> the begging and untill now.
>
> Please remember the God of Shinto and Buddhism is totally different.
>
> So, the different Gods of the two cannot stay in the same building.
> Can you understand ?
>
> The religion of Yuda and the one of Christ is different. Same thing.
> Who is the God of Yuda, Mose？　　Who is the God of Christ ?
>
> My final answer about religion is that you can believe your own God
> in your heart as you like , and you don't deny any religion
> whatsoever.
> Any way, humanbeing is so weak finally and , which being resulted in
> that you cannot do anything but rely on some God or, the more
> stronger sprit , or thing than you to get relief and happiness to
> keep living.
>
> Japanese Emperors were nothing to do with Buddhism and they were
> from the God of Shinto.
>
> As I mentioned before, Japanese people , unfortunately, believed The
> Emperor is God and the desendants of Japanese Gods. So Japanese
> Imperials used this concept leading to Banzai, going to death for
> Emperor , Kamikaze. That was tragedy for Japanese. Meiji Ishin,
> restoration was wrong
> for that point. Meiji Emperor was used by low class Bushi like
> Sathuma, Choshu, Tosa, etc to get upset Japan with some kind of help
> to succeed the revolution , so called, the fake revolution though I
> say. It was not like the real revolution triggered by civilians in
> France.
> Which means, even now Japanese government have limitted power to
> govern Japanese people and lead to the best performance
> politically , which resulting in maybe changing the government again
> in the near future untill Japanese people realize what is the real
> democracy which almost all European ,
> and Americans enjoy now, whic I predict.
>
> However, I still believe that Japanese people are forwarding to the
> same destination as the European and Americans , so do all Asians ,
> Africans, South Americans, and in the future, all human being s will
> get together to live and exist to enjoy mutual understanding , co-
> prospering,
> and pease like Mr. Obama aims now.
>
> Eddie
>
> Thanks
>
> Eddie
>
>
>

HEISEI ISSHIN!!

Tom Helm
toryu@...
"Moriamur, et in media arma ruamus"
- Vergil



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

1.) Yes, there are gods, but that being the highest system of realms (The God Realms as opposed to the Aura Realms,etc.ec) only means it is a great life-- In samsara.
 When I said "no god"... I mean no "creator" who is the ideological equivalent to "God" as seen in most religions.  In the end,  interdependent origination runs samsara (cause-and-effect) and Buddhanature runs everything (the absolute level).  What is buddhanature? Well, there you have the  beginning of the path... hahaha
 
 2.) The idea to blend the shinto deities and the Buddhas was a cultural event which has a document beginning, middle, and end.  From an ethnohistorical perspective, they are two sets of beings... one is a worldly god and the other is an awakened sage. This division was never fully sealed over in the "collective".. which is why it was so easy to split them apart in the Meiji period.  Truly, they have worked "hand-in-hand" more than "becoming one" over the history of Japan.
 
 3.) Buddhism and Bukkyo... I see your point, but I feel that you missed my point. From the perspective of Dharma, it is not an "-ism"... it is simply the way things actually are. For example, when my teacher is giving a public talk, he says "Buddhism".. but when he is giving us (the sangha) a teaching, he says "The Dharma".
  So... really.. the word "Buddhism" is really meant for describing it from the outside.
   It is about the viewpoint.
 
 For example.. the term "Mappo" means "End of the Law"  or "End of the Dharma"
 not  "End of the Buddhism"
 
��� See ?

--- On Thu, 2/18/10, JL Badgley <tatsushu@...> wrote:


From: JL Badgley <tatsushu@...>
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Shinto and Buddhism
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 18, 2010, 7:23 AM


 



Whoa, folks, settle down. Poor grammar and/or random emphasis through
capitalization will hardly win anyone anything in this argument.

Buddhism has about as many faces as Judeo-Christian- Islamic teachings.
While it is true that there are no specific "gods", per se, a lot of
the Hindu gods got mixed up in early Buddhism. The Mahayana
teachings, especially some of the more esoteric ones, make reference
to gods and deities, but put them on a separate plane--the historical
Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) didn't dispute their existence, and they
are, in fact, implied to exist through the very concept of life,
death, and rebirth--you could be reborn as a deity if you were very
good, but this never actually got you out of the cycle.

In India you can see evidence of this in Buddhist board games (the
precursor to our "Snakes and Ladders") where there is a path, in the
cycle of life and rebirth, where you may attain godhood--however, this
is quite an unfortunate position because you cannot go any further and
have no reason to want to escape the cycle, so you become trapped by
your own desires.

The kami of Shinto are clearly separate, but were often equated with
various buddhas or converted into boddhisatvas, such that there were
often multiple incarnations of the same kami, whether Buddhist or
Shinto.

Definitely the early ritualists of Japan resisted Buddhism, as
theocratic power was one of the primary routes for advancement, and
the "new" religion did not fall under the hereditary control of the
traditional ritualists. Despite their efforts, however, Buddhism
gained a foothold, and the syncreticism began. In the Nara Period,
for example, Kofukuji and Kasuga Taisha were both part of the same
organization dedicated to the spiritual well-being of the Fujiwara
clan. It wasn't until later (Edo or Meiji period) that the two were
forced to split apart into fully separate organizations. I'm not
saying that the priests were monks and vice versa, but they were both
under the same administration.

Another example is the Usa Hachiman shrine, which attempted to curry
favor with the Buddhists in the court when they reported that Hachiman
endorsed Dokyo's bid to be named emperor. They then retracted their
blessing, likely at the insistence of Dokyo's opponents in the court.

Strict religionists on either side made the distinction, and it comes
up not infrequently in discussions between them, but the average
person had no problem reconciling the two beliefs, and it is
definitely the case that there are Shinto shrines on the grounds of
Buddhist temples (oddly, I cannot think of the reverse). In the Meiji
period, however, in an attempt to return the power of the Emperor,
Shinto was held up as an example of native Japanese belief while
Buddhism's foreign origins were emphasized. The state forced the
institutions apart leaving us with the situation we have today.

BTW, as I live in Thailand these days, I can tell you that Buddhist,
Hindu, and local Thai spirit houses coexist without issue.
Furthermore, I have participated in a Buddhist ceremony with monks and
a local shaman or Brahman (I'm not sure which). Like the onmyoji of
Japan, there are those who have no problem syncreticizing the
religions (though I believe this is still against the strictest
interpretations of Buddhism).

Oh, and on the issue of "Buddhism" being a Western concept: Is that
not the basic meaning of "Bukkyo"? Yes, the word is a Western one,
but not, I think, the concept.

-Josh










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Josh--

Well said. Your point about there being Shinto shrines within Buddhist
temples but not the reverse particularly struck me. I can't even count the
number of shrines I visited during my years in Japan, but the closest thing
I saw to any sort of Buddhist imagery included within them was the
beautiful lotus blossums at Heian-jingu in Kyoto.

Thanks for the input!

--RMB


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

and I would think that this fact serves as good evidence that the two religions were not truly blended into one... but rather Buddhism made respected allowance for Shinto ... but not exactly the other way around.  This pattern is found ALL over the world... even in modern day in America... Buddhism is seen making respected allowance for religions such as christianity, but it is not returned.  Because Jehovah and Jesus would be considered "relative samsaric gods".. they could have their own shrines inthe courtyards of temples, etc.etc... because as long as they are not anti-dharma (that is the REAL question).. then peace and harmony should be the order of the day.  Right?
 However... you would never see a Buddhist altar at a Baptist Church.
 See ? It is the same pattern all over the world and through time.
 
������� This is based entirely on the tennets of the faith. Since Buddhism is concerned "outside samsara" as the goal, it can encompass anything within samsara. If something is considered "within samsara", then it cant really encompass "outside samsara" or much more within samsara.
 
       ������� But... ideology aside.. it is more proof that the idea that Shinto and Buddhism merged into a single way is not really accurate.

--- On Fri, 2/19/10, Cearb@... <Cearb@...> wrote:


From: Cearb@... <Cearb@...>
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Shinto and Buddhism
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 12:04 AM


 



Josh--

Well said. Your point about there being Shinto shrines within Buddhist
temples but not the reverse particularly struck me. I can't even count the
number of shrines I visited during my years in Japan, but the closest thing
I saw to any sort of Buddhist imagery included within them was the
beautiful lotus blossums at Heian-jingu in Kyoto.

Thanks for the input!

--RMB

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, Steven, I appreciate the feedback. I feel that understanding
these issues is fairly significant to understanding the Japanese culture and all
those people who shaped it.

--RMB


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cearb,

It is the small world !!
I am now living in Abiko, Chiba where is just 15 minutes away from Moriya, Ibaraki you used to live for a while during you stayed in Japan.
Whenever I go to Mt. Tukuba to see the colored trees in late Autum , or floweres of Tutuji and others in Spring, I pass through Moriya .
Did you go to Mt. Tukuba which is one of the precious mountains not too high located in Kanto area such a flattered ground.
The Tuchiura , Ibaraki Ken is the city I used to live untill hight school days after I was born. So , you are a my neighbor . It will be realy wonderful if you could come back to Moriya , or other area near to me in the near future.

By the way, I used to live in USA over 15 years with my family to work as the representative of a Japanese company . Los Angeles for 6 years , Detroit for 6 years and Chicago, New Jersey for 3 years . I can say USA is another my home country , considering the days of my job involved
in the USA market for 25 years totally in cluding staying there as mentioned earlier.
My youngest son , actually my third son , was born in Hackensack , New Jersey , 28 years ago. ( Other sons were born in Hong Kong and Japan.)

Regarding to Sinto, you could understand real sotry about it if you read KOJIKI , or NIHON Shoki. You are highly recommended to read them.

By the way, did you go to Mt. Tukuba ? Because you can find the Jinja of Tukuba, at which Amaterasu Omi Kami , one of the big God of Sinto is defied .
The Jinja of Tukuba is one of the oldest shrines , more than 2,300 years ago ? they believed, in Japan and the very famous prince ,YAMATO TAKERU no MIKOTO, described in KOJIKI visited that Jinja to pray for the victory to destroy Ezo who were the barbarians at that time, of which story
still many current Japanese people believe now. The statue of YAMATO TAKERU no MIKOTO is stood there as the celebration for him.

Please let me know your memory of days you lived in Ibaraki , the places you visited , what points you impressed in Ibaraki, etc, etc.

Eddie



Cearb@... wrote:
Eddie--

I lived in Japan for four and a half years, three in Fukaya, Saitama, and a
year and a half in Moriya, Ibaraki. I loved my time there and hope to be
able to go back sometime soon -- it was an excellent experience.

I recall, for example, that on the grounds of the Asakusa Kannon temple
there is a small shrine, as I believe is true on the grounds of Kiyomizu-dera
in Kyoto, among others. Certainly the various texts I've read (Japanese
Religion by H. Byron Earhart, Shinto: The Kami Way by Sokyo Ono, The Japanese
Experience by W.G. Beasley, just to name ones that are readily at hand)
all suggest the overlap of religions I mentioned in my previous e-mail.
That's why I'm surprised that you say that Buddhism and Shinto are completely
separate -- your statement contradicts quite literally EVERYTHING I have
read about Japanese religion.

As to your final point, I certainly hope you're right -- that the various
nations and religions of the world can come together in ever-increasing
peace and mutual understanding.

Kiotsukete!

--RMB

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








---------------------------------
VANCOUVER 2010 Olympic News [Yahoo! Sports/sportsnavi]


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:59 PM, <Cearb@...> wrote:

> I feel that understanding these issues is fairly significant to
> understanding the Japanese culture and all those people who shaped it.
>

I can't comment on that part but I'll be forever contemplating the
ramifications of - "You'll never find a Buddhist alter in a Baptist church."

-d

>
> --RMB
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I read that Empress (Koken)Shotoku dedicated a shrine at Ise in order to bring Shinto gods into the Buddhist... er, pantheon.

any thoughts?
matt

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Steven Matsheshu wrote:
>
> This email comes directly from my PERSONAL experience and belief as a life-time actively practicing Buddhist (not someone who converted in their mid-30s, or just read books on it, etc.etc.)
>  
>   Shinto Deities are Earthly Gods... they can provide some relative benefit, but cannot bring you to your liberation or enlightenment. As such, they cannot be taken as objects of refuge. However, because of their relative existence as relative gods, they can be paid respect to, and thus, shrines within the Temple grounds are common for such things.
>  Even in other countries, like Bhutan or Thailand, you will see this respect paid in such a way.ﾂ�ﾂ�
>  
>  Within Buddhism --- which actually is a western word.. the real name of the religion is simply "The Teachings of Actual Truth as expressed by the Buddhas" .. a.k.a. The Dharma or Buddha Dharma.... 
>  In Buddha Dharma,  you can show respect to any class of sentient being, including gods, as long as you don't worship them or take them as your refuge.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�  So.. paying respect and homage and even making an offering is fine.
>  
>  In this way, "Buddhism" does not conflict with most religions, especially religions like shinto.  The only religions in conflicts with are the religions were a god demands you take him/her as your sole refuge (most Monotheistic religions).
>  
>  Sometimes, earthly gods vow to protect dharma and assist the Sangha...and they become Worldly Protectors.  It is important to note that Worldly Protectors are earth gods associated with Dharma... and that "Dharma Protectors" are actually projections/emanations of Buddhas/Bodhisattvas.  Thus, sometimes you see sangha members treating a protector with refuge, it might look weird. However, if you know they are not a Worldly Protector, but a Dharma Protector, then you understand they are paying refuge to a Buddha.  So you need to know if that being is a worldly protector or a dharma protector.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�  In the earlier letter, it sounded like he (Eddie?) was saying that Buddha's God was Amida ? Maybe I read that wrong-- but let me just correct this just in case.
>  
>   Buddha has no god. This is because Dharma teaches two realities 1.) relative and 2.) Absolute.
>  
>  The  relative reality is "run" by Interdependet Origination, which manifest as different types of karma (Yes.. there are actually different types of karma, not just "karma"). This system is, in a nutshell, a system of cause-and-result.
>  
>  The absolute truth is the buddhanature a.k.a. nature of mind etc.etc...
>  
>   At no point in this equation is there a "god".ﾂ�ﾂ�
>  
>  Amida, better known as Amitabha or Amitayus (Infinite Light) (Infinite Life)... is the Buddha who radiates the "western paradise"..ﾂ�ﾂ� which, in all seriousness, is like a world that was purified due to Amitabha's enligthenment. 
>   How did this happen ?
> ﾂ�ﾂ� Because of Interdependent Origination.
>  
>  Amitabha made a series of vows and those vows were interdependent with his awakening. As he awoke, these vows ripened.  Most Buddhas have some kind of "related power".. that upon awakening, their vow ripens into that power ...so to speak.  Amitabha vowed that his awakening would be interconnected with the pufication of the world he was practicing on, and that once he attained enlightenment, his radiance would produce this pure field.
> ﾂ�ﾂ� Another vow that was ripened was that if you focus on Amitabha PROPERLY, you can connect with his radiance from your concentration meeting with his ripened vow.
>  
>   O.k... many people have seemingly misunderstood how this works. Most Amitabha practice was become really just Buddha-Christ  god-worshiping and "save me Oh Amida!" kinda of methodology.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�  The real idea is that you take Amitabha, the Pure Land, His vows..etc.etc.. AS YOUR OBJECT OF CONCENTRATION... and through the process of meditating and concentrating on these, you will create the connection with it.
>  
>   It is actually suppose to be a form of meditation... not salvation worship.  However, as most of the common folk, such as farmers and merchents, don't have time, leisure, or training on how to properly concentrate on an object or to meditate, the system of "Amida's salvation if you call out to him" came into effect...
>  
>  because, if their faith in Amitabha can be sustain in their mind, they will KEEP Amitabha in their thoughts constantly...
>  
>  .. then this MIGHT produce the same result as if you were properly meditating on Amitabha.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ� However, this must be understood to be an alteration to the actual program/system of accomplishing the Pure Land.
>  
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ� Amitabha was never taught, by the Buddhas, to be a "god" or a "savior" --- He is a meditation technique, actually.  All four variations of the Pure Land sutra teach this, and in the esoteric Amitabha rituals teach this as well. 
> ﾂ�ﾂ� In this case :ﾂ�ﾂ� "Faith" = "Mental Concentration"
>  
>   It should be noted that one can make contact, in theory, with ANY Buddha or Bodhisattva via this method of mental concentration, not just Amitabha.  The "key difference" of Amitabha is the being born into the Pure Field part.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�I hope this puts this into proper perspective.
>
> --- On Tue, 2/16/10, Cearb@... wrote:
>
>
> From: Cearb@...
> Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Shinto and Buddhism
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 11:08 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Eddie--
>
> My understanding of the history is that Shinto is an animistic religion
> indigenous to Japan, and that there was a certain degree of tension between
> Buddhism and Shinto when Buddhism was first introduced (as you said) from
> China, but that the two religions became, if not precisely syncretic, then at
> least interwoven -- that it was to a large extent held that the kami of
> Shinto were genuine entities who, like all others, could benefit from the
> Buddha's enlightenment. (Hence the fact that Shinto shrines are such a common
> fixture in so many Buddhist temples).
>
> I got the impression that this changed substantially during the Meiji
> restoration and into WWII, when the government pressed the notion of the
> Imperial lineage (the descent from Amaterasu-o- Mikami) as evidence that Japan was
> under the unique protection of the gods / kami, as a result of which a very
> strict separation of church and state was written into the post-war
> constitution. ..
>
> Am I missing anything substantial here? My personal experience of Japan
> was that the temples and shrines were largely appreciated for their historic
> nature; I seldom saw religious ceremonies going on (apart from New Year's
> Day, when people arrived, made their offerings, and departed) the way I did
> in Korea, for example. (BTW -- I don't mean this as any sort of judgment,
> merely an observation. ..)
>
> --RMB
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

An excelent explantion! .
Bravo!
Gerard




________________________________
From: mcrozza <mcrozza@...>
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 2:38:02 PM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Re: Shinto and Buddhism

 
I read that Empress (Koken)Shotoku dedicated a shrine at Ise in order to bring Shinto gods into the Buddhist... er, pantheon.

any thoughts?
matt

--- In samuraihistory@ yahoogroups. com, Steven Matsheshu wrote:
>
> This email comes directly from my PERSONAL experience and belief as a life-time actively practicing Buddhist (not someone who converted in their mid-30s, or just read books on it, etc.etc.)
>  
>   Shinto Deities are Earthly Gods... they can provide some relative benefit, but cannot bring you to your liberation or enlightenment. As such, they cannot be taken as objects of refuge. However, because of their relative existence as relative gods, they can be paid respect to, and thus, shrines within the Temple grounds are common for such things.
>  Even in other countries, like Bhutan or Thailand, you will see this respect paid in such a way.ﾂ�ﾂ�
>  
>  Within Buddhism --- which actually is a western word.. the real name of the religion is simply "The Teachings of Actual Truth as expressed by the Buddhas" .. a.k.a. The Dharma or Buddha Dharma.... 
>  In Buddha Dharma,  you can show respect to any class of sentient being, including gods, as long as you don't worship them or take them as your refuge.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�  So.. paying respect and homage and even making an offering is fine.
>  
>  In this way, "Buddhism" does not conflict with most religions, especially religions like shinto.  The only religions in conflicts with are the religions were a god demands you take him/her as your sole refuge (most Monotheistic religions).
>  
>  Sometimes, earthly gods vow to protect dharma and assist the Sangha...and they become Worldly Protectors.  It is important to note that Worldly Protectors are earth gods associated with Dharma... and that "Dharma Protectors" are actually projections/ emanations of Buddhas/Bodhisattva s.  Thus, sometimes you see sangha members treating a protector with refuge, it might look weird. However, if you know they are not a Worldly Protector, but a Dharma Protector, then you understand they are paying refuge to a Buddha.  So you need to know if that being is a worldly protector or a dharma protector.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�  In the earlier letter, it sounded like he (Eddie?) was saying that Buddha's God was Amida ? Maybe I read that wrong-- but let me just correct this just in case.
>  
>   Buddha has no god. This is because Dharma teaches two realities 1.) relative and 2.) Absolute.
>  
>  The  relative reality is "run" by Interdependet Origination, which manifest as different types of karma (Yes.. there are actually different types of karma, not just "karma"). This system is, in a nutshell, a system of cause-and-result.
>  
>  The absolute truth is the buddhanature a.k.a. nature of mind etc.etc...
>  
>   At no point in this equation is there a "god".ﾂ�ﾂ�
>  
>  Amida, better known as Amitabha or Amitayus (Infinite Light) (Infinite Life)... is the Buddha who radiates the "western paradise"..ﾂ�ﾂ� which, in all seriousness, is like a world that was purified due to Amitabha's enligthenment. 
>   How did this happen ?
> ﾂ�ﾂ� Because of Interdependent Origination.
>  
>  Amitabha made a series of vows and those vows were interdependent with his awakening. As he awoke, these vows ripened.  Most Buddhas have some kind of "related power".. that upon awakening, their vow ripens into that power ...so to speak.  Amitabha vowed that his awakening would be interconnected with the pufication of the world he was practicing on, and that once he attained enlightenment, his radiance would produce this pure field.
> ﾂ�ﾂ� Another vow that was ripened was that if you focus on Amitabha PROPERLY, you can connect with his radiance from your concentration meeting with his ripened vow.
>  
>   O.k... many people have seemingly misunderstood how this works. Most Amitabha practice was become really just Buddha-Christ  god-worshiping and "save me Oh Amida!" kinda of methodology.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�  The real idea is that you take Amitabha, the Pure Land, His vows..etc.etc. . AS YOUR OBJECT OF CONCENTRATION. .. and through the process of meditating and concentrating on these, you will create the connection with it.
>  
>   It is actually suppose to be a form of meditation.. . not salvation worship.  However, as most of the common folk, such as farmers and merchents, don't have time, leisure, or training on how to properly concentrate on an object or to meditate, the system of "Amida's salvation if you call out to him" came into effect...
>  
>  because, if their faith in Amitabha can be sustain in their mind, they will KEEP Amitabha in their thoughts constantly.. .
>  
>  .. then this MIGHT produce the same result as if you were properly meditating on Amitabha.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ� However, this must be understood to be an alteration to the actual program/system of accomplishing the Pure Land.
>  
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ� Amitabha was never taught, by the Buddhas, to be a "god" or a "savior" --- He is a meditation technique, actually.  All four variations of the Pure Land sutra teach this, and in the esoteric Amitabha rituals teach this as well. 
> ﾂ�ﾂ� In this case :ﾂ�ﾂ� "Faith" = "Mental Concentration"
>  
>   It should be noted that one can make contact, in theory, with ANY Buddha or Bodhisattva via this method of mental concentration, not just Amitabha.  The "key difference" of Amitabha is the being born into the Pure Field part.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�I hope this puts this into proper perspective.
>
> --- On Tue, 2/16/10, Cearb@... wrote:
>
>
> From: Cearb@...
> Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Shinto and Buddhism
> To: samuraihistory@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 11:08 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Eddie--
>
> My understanding of the history is that Shinto is an animistic religion
> indigenous to Japan, and that there was a certain degree of tension between
> Buddhism and Shinto when Buddhism was first introduced (as you said) from
> China, but that the two religions became, if not precisely syncretic, then at
> least interwoven -- that it was to a large extent held that the kami of
> Shinto were genuine entities who, like all others, could benefit from the
> Buddha's enlightenment. (Hence the fact that Shinto shrines are such a common
> fixture in so many Buddhist temples).
>
> I got the impression that this changed substantially during the Meiji
> restoration and into WWII, when the government pressed the notion of the
> Imperial lineage (the descent from Amaterasu-o- Mikami) as evidence that Japan was
> under the unique protection of the gods / kami, as a result of which a very
> strict separation of church and state was written into the post-war
> constitution. ..
>
> Am I missing anything substantial here? My personal experience of Japan
> was that the temples and shrines were largely appreciated for their historic
> nature; I seldom saw religious ceremonies going on (apart from New Year's
> Day, when people arrived, made their offerings, and departed) the way I did
> in Korea, for example. (BTW -- I don't mean this as any sort of judgment,
> merely an observation. ..)
>
> --RMB
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Buddhist Pantheon is a bit of a misnomer, although you do often hear it...
 
 Again, to put it simply :
 
������������ Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are not gods--- they are Buddhas. There is a sutra where Buddha denies being a god... and denies being a human. Why ? Because again--- Buddhas are a not part of the six realms ... it is completely different category.
 
   The different "gods" of Buddhism are, in reality,  gods and spirits that have been associated as SERVANTS of the Buddhas... that is, they themselves have become Buddhist in that they take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, and have agreed to serve the Buddha,  watch over the Dharma, and protect the Sangha..etc.etc.
 
����� This is called "Worldy Protectors" .  Many gods from around the world have become such "protectors". 
 
   ����� Now.. the question is.. what role do the Shino gods play ?
 
������������ ����� Well.. it depends on who you talk to.
 ����� Some Shinto followers believe they are distinct from the Buddhas... some believe they are emanations of the Buddhas.
 
   ����� What is this deal with "emanation of the Buddha" ? ... Since Buddhas have no actual form, they radiate illusory forms for the sake of sentient beings.  Thus, a single buddha might take a hundred different forms (such as four arms, thousand arms.. one head version, three head version, etc.etc.)
�����������
 Some Shinto followers believe that the Shinto Gods were actually the emanations of Buddhas.
 
��� O.k.. here is where there is a critical line :
 
������������   ����� There is no dharma text or tradition supporting this claim--- outside of certian Japanese religious/political leaders and scholars trying to support this idea.
 
����������������� So... while many WANT to believe this...
 
������������     ����� It can actually be very easily dismissed as heretical ideology, since much of the behavior of many of the Shinto gods cannot be viewed as enlightened activity.
 
������������   When a Buddha emanates as a "Protector Deity".. it is called "Dharma Protector" ( as opposed to "Worldy Protector")... and these beings have all the attributes and qualities as the Buddha/Great Bodhisattvas... 
 
������������ The Shinto deities don't match up--- and thus we can, from a Buddhist view point, say that there doesn't appear to be any reason to believe they are Buddha's emanation ... this idea is more of an attempt to merge POLITICAL factions.
 
����������� So... if the Shinto deities are not Buddha's emanations... what is the relationship ?
 
 Again--- they can be considered servants of the Buddha/Great Bodhisattvas. Helpers...etc.etc..  a retinue of gods so to speak.
 
������������  Again.. -WHICH- deities serve -WHICH- Buddhas is a very difficult topic..
 
    ����� Because.. just because you WANT your Shinto god to become a servant of Buddha does not mean that the god in fact did....
 
    ����� So.. you must understand.. alot of this merging was POLITICAL  and not really based on any evidence, such as the deity appearing to its followers and stating that it now serves Buddha...etc.etc.
 
����������� This is when religion and politics SHOULD NOT run together...
 
  But.. in the end... Buddhist will still take refuge in the triple gem.. and they can, within the Dharma, pay respect to the worldy gods... 
 
 so this doesn't really change much.
 
 A shinto followers will continue to follow worldy gods. which didn't really change much either.
 
������������   So.. in the end.. it really boils down to whether you want to worship Japan (Shinto) or whether you will pay respect to Japan, but follow the Buddha (Buddhism).
 
  This is why, for  Meiji and WW2, you see his decline of Buddhism and rise in Shinto... simple as that.

--- On Sun, 2/21/10, mcrozza <mcrozza@...> wrote:


From: mcrozza <mcrozza@...>
Subject: [samuraihistory] Re: Shinto and Buddhism
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 5:38 PM


 



I read that Empress (Koken)Shotoku dedicated a shrine at Ise in order to bring Shinto gods into the Buddhist... er, pantheon.

any thoughts?
matt

--- In samuraihistory@ yahoogroups. com, Steven Matsheshu wrote:
>
> This email comes directly from my PERSONAL experience and belief as a life-time actively practicing Buddhist (not someone who converted in their mid-30s, or just read books on it, etc.etc.)
>  
>   Shinto Deities are Earthly Gods... they can provide some relative benefit, but cannot bring you to your liberation or enlightenment. As such, they cannot be taken as objects of refuge. However, because of their relative existence as relative gods, they can be paid respect to, and thus, shrines within the Temple grounds are common for such things.
>  Even in other countries, like Bhutan or Thailand, you will see this respect paid in such a way.ﾂ�ﾂ�
>  
>  Within Buddhism --- which actually is a western word.. the real name of the religion is simply "The Teachings of Actual Truth as expressed by the Buddhas" .. a.k.a. The Dharma or Buddha Dharma.... 
>  In Buddha Dharma,  you can show respect to any class of sentient being, including gods, as long as you don't worship them or take them as your refuge.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�  So.. paying respect and homage and even making an offering is fine.
>  
>  In this way, "Buddhism" does not conflict with most religions, especially religions like shinto.  The only religions in conflicts with are the religions were a god demands you take him/her as your sole refuge (most Monotheistic religions).
>  
>  Sometimes, earthly gods vow to protect dharma and assist the Sangha...and they become Worldly Protectors.  It is important to note that Worldly Protectors are earth gods associated with Dharma... and that "Dharma Protectors" are actually projections/ emanations of Buddhas/Bodhisattva s.  Thus, sometimes you see sangha members treating a protector with refuge, it might look weird. However, if you know they are not a Worldly Protector, but a Dharma Protector, then you understand they are paying refuge to a Buddha.  So you need to know if that being is a worldly protector or a dharma protector.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�  In the earlier letter, it sounded like he (Eddie?) was saying that Buddha's God was Amida ? Maybe I read that wrong-- but let me just correct this just in case.
>  
>   Buddha has no god. This is because Dharma teaches two realities 1.) relative and 2.) Absolute.
>  
>  The  relative reality is "run" by Interdependet Origination, which manifest as different types of karma (Yes.. there are actually different types of karma, not just "karma"). This system is, in a nutshell, a system of cause-and-result.
>  
>  The absolute truth is the buddhanature a.k.a. nature of mind etc.etc...
>  
>   At no point in this equation is there a "god".ﾂ�ﾂ�
>  
>  Amida, better known as Amitabha or Amitayus (Infinite Light) (Infinite Life)... is the Buddha who radiates the "western paradise"..ﾂ�ﾂ� which, in all seriousness, is like a world that was purified due to Amitabha's enligthenment. 
>   How did this happen ?
> ﾂ�ﾂ� Because of Interdependent Origination.
>  
>  Amitabha made a series of vows and those vows were interdependent with his awakening. As he awoke, these vows ripened.  Most Buddhas have some kind of "related power".. that upon awakening, their vow ripens into that power ...so to speak.  Amitabha vowed that his awakening would be interconnected with the pufication of the world he was practicing on, and that once he attained enlightenment, his radiance would produce this pure field.
> ﾂ�ﾂ� Another vow that was ripened was that if you focus on Amitabha PROPERLY, you can connect with his radiance from your concentration meeting with his ripened vow.
>  
>   O.k... many people have seemingly misunderstood how this works. Most Amitabha practice was become really just Buddha-Christ  god-worshiping and "save me Oh Amida!" kinda of methodology.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�  The real idea is that you take Amitabha, the Pure Land, His vows..etc.etc. . AS YOUR OBJECT OF CONCENTRATION. .. and through the process of meditating and concentrating on these, you will create the connection with it.
>  
>   It is actually suppose to be a form of meditation.. . not salvation worship.  However, as most of the common folk, such as farmers and merchents, don't have time, leisure, or training on how to properly concentrate on an object or to meditate, the system of "Amida's salvation if you call out to him" came into effect...
>  
>  because, if their faith in Amitabha can be sustain in their mind, they will KEEP Amitabha in their thoughts constantly.. .
>  
>  .. then this MIGHT produce the same result as if you were properly meditating on Amitabha.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ� However, this must be understood to be an alteration to the actual program/system of accomplishing the Pure Land.
>  
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ� Amitabha was never taught, by the Buddhas, to be a "god" or a "savior" --- He is a meditation technique, actually.  All four variations of the Pure Land sutra teach this, and in the esoteric Amitabha rituals teach this as well. 
> ﾂ�ﾂ� In this case :ﾂ�ﾂ� "Faith" = "Mental Concentration"
>  
>   It should be noted that one can make contact, in theory, with ANY Buddha or Bodhisattva via this method of mental concentration, not just Amitabha.  The "key difference" of Amitabha is the being born into the Pure Field part.
>  
> ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�ﾂ�I hope this puts this into proper perspective.
>
> --- On Tue, 2/16/10, Cearb@... wrote:
>
>
> From: Cearb@...
> Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Shinto and Buddhism
> To: samuraihistory@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 11:08 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Eddie--
>
> My understanding of the history is that Shinto is an animistic religion
> indigenous to Japan, and that there was a certain degree of tension between
> Buddhism and Shinto when Buddhism was first introduced (as you said) from
> China, but that the two religions became, if not precisely syncretic, then at
> least interwoven -- that it was to a large extent held that the kami of
> Shinto were genuine entities who, like all others, could benefit from the
> Buddha's enlightenment. (Hence the fact that Shinto shrines are such a common
> fixture in so many Buddhist temples).
>
> I got the impression that this changed substantially during the Meiji
> restoration and into WWII, when the government pressed the notion of the
> Imperial lineage (the descent from Amaterasu-o- Mikami) as evidence that Japan was
> under the unique protection of the gods / kami, as a result of which a very
> strict separation of church and state was written into the post-war
> constitution. ..
>
> Am I missing anything substantial here? My personal experience of Japan
> was that the temples and shrines were largely appreciated for their historic
> nature; I seldom saw religious ceremonies going on (apart from New Year's
> Day, when people arrived, made their offerings, and departed) the way I did
> in Korea, for example. (BTW -- I don't mean this as any sort of judgment,
> merely an observation. ..)
>
> --RMB
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]