Questions for monks who deny the existence of spirits

Hello.

I don't deny how spirits can be seen. Also, I neither affirm nor deny the existence of spirits.

Enlightenment is not spiritual. It's a state of mind. It will be true.
The presence or absence of a psychic is irrelevant to enlightenment.

The postscript is longer, but it's a postscript

Regarding reincarnation, I'm wondering if the Buddha really preached reincarnation with the idea that “medically dead” people will be reborn. In other words, I think that living things were used to mean “born and changed” with a new heart.

I have an Angli Mara story.
Anglimara was a murderer and wore the finger of the person who killed her as a necklace. After that, she converted and became a disciple of the Buddha, but at one point there was a woman suffering from a difficult delivery when Angrimala was almenting. When Angri Mara, who couldn't do anything, came back and asked Shakyamuni how to do it, Shakyamuni answered, “I've never killed a person (← this isn't true, right), and mother and child can give birth safely due to that virtue.” When Angrimala conveyed the question that this isn't true, there might be no merit, she answered, “Well, say 'I've never killed anyone (since I became a monk and was born as a Buddhist disciple). '” When Anglimara said it to her mother, the child was born safely. That's the story.
The key point here is “after becoming a monk and being born as a disciple of the Buddha.” I can imagine that Buddha thought that Angrimala was reborn (reincarnated) by becoming a monk.

Of course, the dead never came back, so I don't know what really happened after death. Therefore, there is also a possibility that after being medically “dead,” they have been reincarnated into something else. There is no denying your idea of reincarnation or spirituality.

It's quite dangerous, but I dare to put it in words.

A “soul” is defined as being the main body that makes that person sufficient, and that remains even if the body perishes after that person's death,

“Amitabha Buddha's salvation” is defined as “reincarnating” that “soul” into a wonder world where the ideal world called the “Pure Land of Paradise” materializes with the magical power of Amida Buddha after a person passes away,

“Enlightenment” is defined as a state of completely understanding and believing the above contents, gaining great peace of mind after death, and not feeling a fart no matter what kind of suffering you have in your life until death

The presence of a “soul” is a necessary condition for “Amitabha Buddha's salvation” and “enlightenment.”

but

“Amitabha Buddha's salvation” and “enlightenment” are not like that. (I think so.)

Also, I remember that I have “denied the existence of spirits” in several responses, but that came from my own quest to the religious belief that “one cannot help but think that there is no such thing as a spirit,” and I think it was determined and used as an effective expression to resolve the questioner's misunderstanding (and what I think) by answering that question that way.
So, in line with the fact that I am not omniscient and omnipotent, your opinion that “it is most appropriate to not know” about the existence of spirits is absolutely true.

However, the responses on this site are based on the “personal opinions of monks,” and in view of the environment where multiple monks complement each other, my opinions are not absolute, and at the same time, I wanted them to be allowed to continue to express their own religious beliefs in the future, and at the same time, they told me once again that we should pay close attention to how we use words.

Finally, if I were to express “the salvation of Amitabha Buddha” in my own way, it would be for me to nod honestly when I hear “Amida Buddha's wish” of “I will save you.”

I understood “enlightenment” there! I understand “Amida's Salvation”! “My joke,” where you hold onto something you know, is not permitted.
Instead of being saved by “understanding,” we may be saved by “not understanding” (understanding).

Yes, as Rousseau said

“We don't lose our way because of ignorance. I get lost by believing what I know.”

So what does “I don't know” prefer? In my case, it was not a “soul,” but “Amida.”

Mr. Ito

This is Kawaguchi Hidetoshi. This is my humble answer to the question.

Until now, we have dealt with psychics in the following questions.

http://blog.livedoor.jp/hasunoha_kawaguchi/tag/霊魂

The problem is that even a soul is wrong if you imagine something tangible, independent, eternal and immutable. In other words, spirits are also “empty.”

I think that's not the case when it comes to something called “sky,” well, when it comes to nothing.

I believe that mental inheritance (continuum of mind) and fine mind, which continues from previous lives to the present life and into the next life after death, is possible in terms of “good fortune,” without the rough level of consciousness we usually have.

I know that state of mental inheritance is something that is as good as possible, and I want to purify my heart by carefully weaving relationships with Buddha and relationships with Buddhism every day so that I can go towards enlightenment, and strive for good deeds without doing bad deeds.

Let's work hard together.

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho

I was drawn to the question.
is that ridiculous...
A ghost story...
In my denomination, it feels like this... somehow got through.
My denomination is the Ji sect.

As Yoshimushi said, they probably respected each other's “personal opinions.”

When I was a kid, I learned sutras by bleeding my nose while being kicked, hit, and cursed by my father.
“Oh, don't you remember the sutras properly? I wonder if we can have an easy funeral like this.”
“Eh, the eagle is hitting on Amida's place.”
If Amida doesn't do the sutras, will they hit him... Buddha is surprisingly terrible.
I had a slight grudge against Amida.

So what sparked your faith?
It's from a ghost story.

Something white passed through frosted glass in the hallway leading to the main hall.
When I was talking about something, the phone rang from a parishioner, and since a relative died, he wanted them to come to the Pillow Book.
My grandmother seems to have experienced this several times.
Grandma said, “I guess I first came to pray to Amida after she passed away.”

Including the story of Grandpa's Muunrelated Buddha, the story of the parishioner, and well, my own experiences, I've come to the conclusion that in the end, I was saved by Amida.

I'm sorry for writing this as a question.
I may be indebted unnecessarily, but Ito's sentences were interesting.

That's it.

appending
I read thank you. The starting point of Buddhism is that Buddha became a monk to eliminate his own suffering. There is absolutely no need for someone else's salvation. So, there are no obligations. As the questioner said, Buddhism is “something that people who want to do it do it.” The basic style is not about “saving everyone,” but about saving people in need. They weren't proselytizing in a way that would attract even people with a healthy heart. India's sense of ethics etc. was collapsing during the Buddha's time. Debates about the presence or absence of spirits were actively held, and extreme ideas were rampant. Among them, hedonism and the like prevailed when this body was just a collection of objects. Therefore, Buddha dared to avoid mentioning spirits. This is because no matter how you discuss it, you won't understand it, and even if you get caught up in it, there won't be much difference from the old way of thinking. Reincarnation is the same. However, when it comes to reincarnation, it was considered common sense in India at the time, so as the Buddha who created a social dependent cult, he affirmed it without denying it, but I think he actually wanted to deny it as the Buddha's way of thinking. (By creating a system for living by receiving alms, the Buddha created a thorough way of thinking and rules so as not to be opposed by society. (This is what rules are.) The Buddha's idea was that he explained how to live better as a person in this world (called the Dharma) rather than merits such as the afterlife. Isn't it necessary for such people to preach teachings based on the world after death? If you don't study and understand this part carefully, you will misunderstand Buddhism.
appending
All of the Buddha's suffering was for people before they became aware of the truth. The happiness of those who have realized the truth is explained in various primitive Buddhist scriptures. When the Buddha passed away, he said, “This world is beautiful, and human life is sweet.” It was left behind. At first glance, it seems contradictory, but if you look at the flow from the birth of the Buddha, it is a phrase that often conveys that the Buddha's will was saved and enlightened.

Mr. Ito
Hello. I took a look.

Since modern times, all denominations have developed doctrinal studies. Also, when philosophical scholarship came in from the West, there were people who thought that Japanese intellectuals must break away from superstitious things that talk about spirits or the other world and become sophisticated ideas in order to counter the West. I'm guessing that superstitious things broke away from pre-modern times, and there was a complex. It was refined and had good aspects, but as a result, doctrines also became philosophical, abolished mystical, and secular things became lofty things moral, and since we are taught by the monks who underlay them, the idea that something we don't understand as a psychic is not part of the lofty teachings of Buddhism has become mainstream. It's as if the Buddha couldn't have taken such secular teachings. The same goes for reincarnation. In that case, the Pure Land also became suspicious, and there were people who said that the Pure Land was about this world.

Personally, I think at least the Jodo religion is a teaching preached to save reincarnation and sentient beings suffering in the soul. Those of us who have the dirt of our souls have no way of escaping the suffering of reincarnation forever, and I think that's why we live a life where we work to pay tribute to the fact that we encounter the guidance of Lord Amida, who works to make us born into the Pure Land.

It's not a fixed soul, and I think the number of monks who don't deny it will increase if they think it's “like a soul that continues to change depending on business relationships,” and the monk who denies is not a distorted person like me, and maybe they are serious monks who try to properly convey what they have been taught. What is important is to accept the person's unsublimated feelings behind the word psychic, especially in a place of consultation like this.

Hmmm... was it still seen that I was denying spirits? I'm just in the “don't know” group. Click here for details.
http://hasunoha.jp/questions/12983
If you use technical jargon, “both judgment and common opinion are extreme.” Buddhism is just a centrist religion. Now, let's learn while organizing it properly here.

First of all, the idea of reincarnation has existed since before the Buddha, and it was the basis for Varna (caste system) (the Pure Land Thought and Amida Faith are separate axes since they were established in later generations). “You people of lower status are in a lower caste because of bad behavior in past lives. But those of us who have a high status are precious because of our good behavior in past lives. So it's no use giving us shields in this world. It's a story called “Do your best while being reborn over and over again at most.”
In response to this, one of the people who said, “No, if you say bad things, it would be a big mistake if you thought the world would get better,” is Buddha.

In other words, it was not a story about Buddha creating reincarnation as a convenience; it was a method of changing the contents while being close to common sense at the time as convenience so as not to cause allergies by saying the opposite of the prevailing common sense at the time.
That's why the Buddha said to disciples who don't have to worry about getting allergies and leaving, “Don't think about the next life, do ascetic practices!” and scolded the general public in the one-shot game, “Live honestly. That's why I said, “Then you'll have an easier time in the next life.”

What's interesting is that in the old sutra called Choa Kon-kyō, the very first chapter of the Buddha begins with “How to raise a strong nation that the Buddha taught the king.” The condition for that strong country is “Let's protect the superior and subordinate relationships of monarchs and retainers and the order of elders and children. However, which one is not superior, and “we should live like this,” saying, “Let's respect each other, upper and lower, elders, and children.” Rather, “we should create such a society.” It's “ascetic practice = living honestly = the state of a good society.” Isn't that interesting?
“Teaching the mind” isn't just about individuals; it goes so far. The “reincarnation that presupposes selflessness,” which I talked about before, will eventually lead to this.

Therefore, I preach enlightenment like this.
http://hasunoha.jp/questions/12225

I'm sorry that this is quite a word count, including links. But, on to the next question (laughs)
http://hasunoha.jp/questions/13938