Criticism of “funeral Buddhism”

Hello.
We had a relationship last time too.

This is one of the most frequently asked questions.
Criticism of “funeral Buddhism” was first described by a university professor. The argument is based on the fact that Shakyamuni told his disciples who had not yet reached enlightenment that if they had time to dispose of the remains, they should turn it to the direction of ascetic practice.

However, denying the funeral based on this is a leap forward in logic.
As you have pointed out, there are many places where Shakyamuni rather affirms it. I think the fact that they ignored those many descriptions, placed particular emphasis on only one place, and that Shakyamuni denied it is a logical structure.

This is because the words against previous practitioners are also meant to encourage them to work hard for the right purpose. It means that after seeing through that the practitioner has strayed from the path he should have walked into a side street, he should return to the main road. It's not about denying a funeral.

What is the standpoint of “criticizing” “Japanese Buddhism” in the first place?
It must be completely different from a non-religious standpoint and a Buddhist standpoint.

As the Buddha's teachings spread to India, China, and Japan, they were converted into the ideas, culture, and characters of each region, and Buddhism spread to Japan while mixing with the colors of each region. In the first place, the Buddha's sermon itself was transmitted by word of mouth, then hundreds of years later it was transcribed, and spread to China and Japan while mixing with the various colors of the land and ethnic group.

Rather, if the Buddha's “original Buddhism” didn't intersect at all, Buddhism would surely have disappeared into the middle of history. Something alien must have been eliminated somewhere. In the first place, it is possible to discuss “original Buddhism” because Buddhism was transmitted through various superficial fusion, changes, and developments while maintaining its essence.

“Japanese Buddhism” has the unique merit of being stably inherited in exchange with the culture and ideas of “Japan.” From the standpoint of a Buddhist, I think this is something to be appreciated, and you can meaningfully learn how it was inherited. If you were to criticize with denial from a non-religious standpoint, what exactly is the purpose of that? I think it is necessary to consider the possibility that the criticism itself is nothing more than Gada Hikimizu.

Tsukushashima

Japanese Buddhism has aspects of deriving from the main stream (India) (there are teachings that have changed, there are teachings that have not been transmitted), but I have been taught the teachings of Shakyamuni, which is based on Buddhist scriptures, and Buddhism is Buddhism.

However, since the Buddhist scriptures themselves are the direct and correct teachings of Shakyamuni in the first place, there are also Buddhist scriptures written by India and China quite a bit later, various theories have arisen about what Shakyamuni's teachings really are, and this also leads to differences in doctrine and purpose.

Of course, there are also things that are based on common truth and logic, and in particular, the Four Holy Declarations and the Four Dharma Signs are of course important common teachings in Buddhism.

Also, the main source of criticism that Japanese Buddhism is not Buddhism and that it is funerary Buddhism (where the teachings have become obsolete) is that there are no monks who have officially received the precepts, the biggest bottleneck. First of all, there is no formal Kaidan. (Japanese monks are granted monk registration to those who meet the regulations of each denomination. (Those regulations are also scattered) Also, it is also due to the hereditary system, and there are also few cases where people have serious aspirations and become monks.

Of course, the qualifications of a monk and the qualifications as a funeral mentor are undeniable, since it is undeniable that there are places that are far from the required original image, criticism has arisen, which in turn may lead to distrust of Buddhism, etc.

Well, however, in Buddhism in any country, whether it is the Terawada countries, Tibet, China, or South Korea, they all have similar problems, big or small. That's why it's not just Japan.

Japanese monks are just too busy with a lot of things, including common affairs. It's not an environment for quiet spiritual practice and training, is it?

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho

Thank you for your question.
If I were asked to choose between a monk who does a funeral and a monk who doesn't do a funeral, I would choose the former.
The death of a family member is very sad. I want to be a monk who is close to the bereaved family and sheds tears together at that time.
So funerary criticism of Buddhism is something I don't care enough about.
Namu Amida Buddha

What is Japanese Buddhism
It has undergone unique changes to suit Japan.
That's why it became Buddhism different from India
I think it was unavoidable in a sense.

In Japan, each religious denomination
It has been developed based on each sutra.
Since the establishment of the parishioners system
It's not about increasing the number of followers by proselytizing
Do a good job at the funeral
I've been focusing on keeping the parishioners connected.

Currently
Funeral as a matter of chance
Most people are probably familiar with Buddhism and temples.
Therefore, I'm planning to do a good job at the funeral.