I think this comment in the message boards needs to be highlighted:
I think it's important to know that functionally, stated atheism in Japan is quite different than stated atheism in the west. In Japan, "religion" (the word itself in Japanese: "shuukyo" was a Meiji era invention), is generally seen as a family affair, namely funerals. Actual religious practice such as shrine visiting or New Year's is seen as cultural despite the fact that people are going through religious motions such as prayer and charm buying. The act of buying charms in and of itself is interesting. A professor of mine called it "just in case religion". If you ask them point blank whether they believe that the kami will stop them from getting into an auto accident by means of a charm on the bumper, the majority will say "No", but when pressed will say that they got it "just in case." Belief in and even understanding of religion is unimportant and can be dispensed with in Japan, what's important is that one goes through the motions, which is why exclusive religions that prohibit things like celebration of the New Year's tend to get looked at askance.
I do not believe cultures alien and unintelligible, so I do not want to make too much of this difference. The Japanese attidue of ritual being prioritized before belief would not be alien to ancient Romans or Greeks. On the other hand, some Pure Land forms of Japanese Buddhism resemble the sectarian devotionalism common in modern the West. Nevertheless, it puts in perspective the "atheist-theist" chasm which seems so fundamental to many in the Christian & post-Christian West.
- Log in to post comments
I agree on the atheist-theist division - to me it seems highly artificial and binary.
For instance, I do not "believe" in no God. I see no reason to believe in one, and no one has presented me a reason to do so that works for me. It is not an "active" belief - so what is it? "Nontheism" in the words of Pema Chorodon? I'm not sure.
How, exactly, is this "going through the motions" any different than the apparently same thing among most non-pious religious adherents everywhere? In my native Sweden, most people who go to church at all tend to go for specific times of the year only, do not actually ever pray or do anything religious in their daily lives, and, when asked, feel "it's a nice tradition", or "but our family has always gone on christmas morning".
How, exactly, is this "going through the motions" any different than the apparently same thing among most non-pious religious adherents everywhere?
not much. the % of people who disavow god is about the same in sweden and japan. do the hot chix go to church too?
I am Japanese. The commentator may be right to an extent that atheism in Japan can be somewhat different from atheism in the west. The boundary between theism and atheism might be more ambiguous than in the west. Actually, it might tell as much about the nature of the dominant religion (Christianity) in the west as about the attitude of Japanese toward religions. In the west (at least in US), it seems you are Christian almost by default even if you don't go to church and calling yourself an atheist is making a strong statement. Whereas in Japan Buddhism and Shintoism coexisted for centuries. And nowadays the main functions of temples and shrines are serving social rituals or attracting tourists and few are serious about their religions. It is easier to have no strong preference for particular religion or gods, which is not necessarily the same as rejecting all gods. BUT I still feel that shrine visiting, etc. tend to be more cultural and much less religious than the commentator suggests. There may be some truth in "just in case religion", but it sounds like he or his professor is really pressing to find something religious in charm buying, etc. And as Janne questioned, I don't think there is much meaning in "going through the motions." I'm not a Christian (in fact I should be considered an atheist anywhere), but when I visited a Christian church, I did go through "the religious motions" (a) out of respect and (b) just for an experience.
The attitude of ritual being prioritized befor belief was not alien to the WASPy Canadian Anglicans I grew up with either.
Hey, I have one of those traffic safety charms, which i bought while visiting the Great Buddha of Nara. Mine doesn't go on the bumper, it's a little piece of embroidered fabric that I hang on (what previous generations would have referred to as) the cigarette lighter. And it works, too! Two years ago, when my car was broken into, they didn't steal the charm.
My sources tell me that Shinto handles the happy family/cultural occasions, such as births and weddings, and Buddhism handles the sad stuff, such as funerals. Plurality is always good for discouraging people from talking religious too seriously; although it is odd to extend the plurality to within each person rather than dividing up the population.
although it is odd to extend the plurality to within each person rather than dividing up the population.
japan isn't the only nations which exists like this. chinese can be simultaneously buddhis, confucian and taoism. in india various strands of hinduism can be practiced by the same person (though some of the devotional sects are rather exclusive).
Razib:
Heh, I feel special now.
In any case, most of the Pure Land Buddhist schools have that sort of faith in Amida alone based "theology", but for the most part, excepting New Religious offshoots, the Pure Land schools are simply just another type of established temple, only with just one Buddha inside, and sometimes no omamori sales (in the case of the True Pure Land sect).
The main Buddhist group that has a vital devotional and sectarian characteristic in modern Japan is the various offshoots of Nichiren Buddhism, with Soka Gakkai being the premiere example. Oddly, even Soka Gakkai couches itself not so much on the fairly complex "theology" of the Lotus Sutra as interpreted by Nichiren, but on the "this-worldly" effects of the practice of chanting the Daimoku.
HI:
I would not describe it as being "pressed" per se to ascribe cultural practice as religious, but that when we scholars in the west think of religion vs. just plain culture, we tend to lock the entities into two seperate boxes, when they can be very murky. Since that murkiness in practice is much more evident in Japan, it bears that the traditional conceptions of religious and "not religious" don't work too well.
The book my professor partially wrote on the subject is called "Practically Religious", in case you want to read more on their fairly complex thesis. I'm kind of boiling it down too much here.