Are religion or denomination that important?

I don't find importance in denomination labeling; rather, I often feel adverse effects.
(800 characters long.)

I was taught by a pastor before. “Christianity is closely related to the Jodo sect. There are even researchers who doubt the possibility that they dared to spread it by converting it into Buddhism in order to localize it for Japan (laughs)”

Truth or falsehood aside, I personally agree. Nembutsu, etc., which is the core part, are very similar, and I feel (to the amateur eye) that the content is almost the same just because the words are different. So what are the essential differences between Christianity and the Jodo sect? There are also doubts about the structure that assumes that only ※※religion can monopolize Shinto and Buddhism beyond human intellect.

This is where the main subject begins. Is that difference (labeling) an important difference that should be maintained even after being prepared for various conflicts?

If factions and denominations split due to minor differences of opinion, and eventually religious wars occur, is there any difference from simple sectionalism? They couldn't cooperate because of the 5% difference, and it looks like they have discarded the remaining 95% common points. What's more, even if they belong to the same denomination or temple, each individual has different opinions. sectarian deposit system? Even if you ask things like that, isn't the sect just a so-called “goodwill” in business? A realistic question also comes to mind.

The subject of the question is not only about the Jodo sect, but also about the boundary between religion and morality. That's off topic, but it's a subject that cannot be avoided even when understanding the Middle East issue, etc. I would be happy if you could give us your opinion without any strange stories.

Organize your questions.
“The more I learn, the less I find importance in labeling religion or denomination. Rather, I don't understand why they care about it. Please let me know what point of view I'm lacking.”

The following is a supplement.

I admire Reverend King and Gandhi. Although they had different faiths, they worked not for the sake of ※※ believers, but to abolish discrimination in society as a whole. Still, it clearly states that everything is based on faith. On the other hand, while respecting this style, having a sense of incongruity with the labeling of religious denominations, is something I overlooked?

Isn't it bad not to be particular about religion or denomination and not even notice it until someone says it?

5 Zen Responses

As a member of society

In Buddhism, even if you try arranging a huge number of sutras in a row, to put it bluntly, it probably doesn't make sense at all. This is because Buddhism is based on [confrontation theory]. The content of the explanation changes depending on the opponent's ability. Also, even if the person you're talking to is the same person, the content still changes depending on the time and situation. It can also be said that the differences in denominations are differences in which sutras have been used as the main text. Among them, there are certainly things similar to Christianity, and it's no wonder that there are things similar to Islam.

However, I also think that Buddhism has an advantage in that it does not unify the whole. I also respect Reverend King and Mahatma Gandhi, but when I think about religious and sectarian issues, I always think of Mother Teresa. Detailed explanations will be omitted here, but not only did she not select people to reach out to due to differences in faith, but she also flexibly adapted her place of activity and style to the time, place, and partner. I think this is a huge feat. However, as a Catholic nun, she probably thought that she was simply faithfully carrying out God's mission. Due to her way of life, when I get involved in social issues, etc., rather than being a monk of the Shinshu Otani school, I decide to raise my voice and take action freely but with proper responsibility without being bound by religious denominations as a “member of society raised by Buddhism.”

hasunoha.tenrakuin@gmail.com

Is labeling harmful or

Thank you for your support.

” “The more I learn, the less importance I see in labeling religion or denomination. Rather, I don't understand why they care about it. Please let me know what point of view I'm lacking.”

I don't know about religion, but when it comes to denominations, I'm not labeling them because they have any value in dividing them. Each has its own origins, so I think studying them will also be food for learning Buddhism.

The point that the consultant is wondering is correct, but I feel that it is the same as a boiled egg turning into a raw egg.

If they say they're not particular about it, isn't it OK to have labeling? If you're particular about “not being particular about it,” that's a different story.

I don't think that the adverse effects of labeling will go away even if they are forced to use one label.

》Is it bad not to be particular about religion or denomination and not even notice until someone says it?

I don't think it's bad. I don't think there is anything wrong with the consultant. There are also advantages of being able to learn from that kind of stance, and I think there are things that can be gained by stepping in the opposite direction.

Buddhism teaches how to peel off labeling

Hello.

If the teaching you believe in is the teaching of labeling, then I think Buddhism teaches the work of peeling off what you call “labeling.”
There are various sects of Buddhism in Japan, and it's like a school of peeling off the “labeling.” Since they are teachings that peel off labels, there are no disputes between sects in Buddhism, and Japanese Buddhists are tolerant of religions other than Buddhism and also celebrate Christmas and Halloween. This is because the labeling is peeling off.

It's different if you look closely

Certainly, even in different religions, there are things that are similar or have things in common.
However, that doesn't mean “they are all the same.”
It is common for both bicycles and taxis to run with rotating tires, but they are different vehicles.
If you look closely at each religious denomination, it's quite different.
Blindly believing without doing thorough research and, conversely, criticizing without doing thorough research are both our worries.
Either way, you'll be lucky if you can find a teaching that suits you and an ascetic method that suits you.

Why don't you look up Shakyamuni's Buddhism?

I think almost all of the religions are as you said.
As both Christianity and Buddhism spread to various places, they changed steadily by incorporating the myths, beliefs, and culture of each region. Since impurities are mixed, the essence will be difficult to see.
So why don't you explore the major books of each religion? Let's go back to the big book of pure, this is all.
What is the fundamental “teaching” of Christianity, what is it explained, and is its content worthy of acceptance...
In the case of Buddhism, the Pali scriptures, which are said to be the same as Shakyamuni's words before the division into sects, have been translated into various Japanese.
However, it may still be difficult to understand just by reading the sutras, so I recommend that you touch Elder Sumanasara's books and sermons. You can easily watch it for free on “Sumanasara” on YouTube.
“Even the Pali Scriptures can't be said to be a direct explanation of Shakyamuni. There are people who say, “I don't know the exact words of Shakyamuni,” but after all, it's just like saying that the truth isn't anywhere now, or at least you can't find the truth yourself, so it's clear that even if you listen to such people, you don't understand the truth from there.
If you want to know the truth, I think it's a good idea to look up possible ones for now.

← all dialogues ← previous next →