"Religion and the secular in Japan"
 

ejcjs - Religion and the Secular in Japan: Problems in history, social anthropology and the study of religion

Interesting essay I was given to by a friend of mine who is a sociology major who is also on exchange here in Japan from Germany at the same university as I.

Its a long essay and is not particularly easy to read unless you study any of the social sciences and are familiar with at least a few of the terms.

To save you the time of reading the whole thing. Amongst the many things it argues, it argues that the "religious versus the secular" dichotomy that is used in the west cannot be applied to Japan.

An example Im given in one of my religious studies classes here in Japan is the idea that the word religion is not translated into Japanese correctly and therefore Japanese have a hard time understanding the concept. The closest translation is 宗教　shuukyou which if you seperate the word into the 2 kanji translates into group/sect (宗) teaching (教).

This translation puts what we understand to be "religion" in Japan today, alongside each other UNDER what may have been the authority and sanctity of the Emporers divinity in the past, to what is today something akin to what we understand "secularism" to be.

In contrast with what we understand religion to be in the West.. it is something that is COMPETING with Secularism.

In summary, basically its saying that the much debated question "Is Japan a religious country" is a flawed one because "religion" as we understand it is ONLY a Western concept and doesnt exist in Japan let alone many cultures around the world.

PS- Mods I feel that the main topic here is culture rather than religion so please leave it up.

First of all, I would say you are not breaking the rules with this post. However, if the discussion gets too far into one religion vs. another or why one is better, then editing may happen.

Also, from my understanding 宗教 means "religion". When you start breaking kanji pairs apart you are asking for trouble. Even if the individual characters mean something different, 宗教 means religion in pretty much the same context as it does in the West. 東京 means "East Capital" (Tokyo) but when people talk about Tokyo in Japan they are not reminded of the fact that it is the capital in the East.

I don't think Japanese people have a hard time understanding what "religion" means. I think what you are seeing is that in Japan, religion is not the underlying reason for most decision making. There is no battle between religion and secularism because religion doesn't play a competing role against secularism in Japan.

I would say on the contrary many of the traditions followed in Japan are very much based on religious traditions. However, that does not make the average Japanese "religious" as much as "traditional".

Many Japanese visit their local shrines at New Year's as a once-yearly tradition. They donate money and purchase charms...by Western standards this is hardly following a faith...you should go weekly to be involved...but that daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly dedication is arbitrary.

I see your point but this is what has been told to me by my (Japanese) religious studies teacher and I think it is valid at least in order to make his case. Its not the only example he gives but to present another example would be to talk about the histories and characteristics of Christianity and "Western" religions which I fear would start trouble and get this thread shut down (if you know what I mean).

Well I would say that they dont know what religion means and the reason for that is that WE dont know what it means. My professor defines religion academically by saying it is "philosophy + ritual". What we've done in the West is create a whole new paradigm called "religion" which exists APART from Philosophy AND ritual. The Japanese simply haven't made this seperation and that is why religion doesnt translate into "Shuukyou". An example.. generally in the West we dont compare the teachings of Christianity with the teachings of the political ideologies Liberalism or Communism (not without Christians complaining about how it is not the same at least). Theoretically a Japanese person generally speaking can without second thought.

...and this is the ritual aspect of religion.

Great post,

I find issue with the claim that any given religion is philosophy plus ritual. Your professor (if he or she is not a professor of Philosophy) is clearly misusing the term.

And I'm a published Philosopher of Religion! This is one area where I really, really know what I'm talking about. :D (Co-editor of a university Philosophy of Religion journal, plan to get a masters in Philosophy, but it's on the back burner).

I think you are getting more philosophical than I am prepared to.

I will say please consider the notion that instead "shyuukyou" not fitting into the definition of religion, it is possible that "religion" doesn't fit into the Japanese notion of shyuukyou.

I am not quite understanding your idea that a Japanese person can compare religious beliefs with political beliefs in a way that we wouldn't do in the West.

But bringing that idea of traditional being religious...just because a tradition is based in a religious practice doesn't make the practitioner necessarily "religious". I think what someone considers themselves and who they look to for guidance more accurately defines whether one is religious or not.

Religion comes from the latin 'Religare', meaning link together.
Two scientific located at two extremities of the planet but working with the same discipline and regularity can be considered religious people.

Well its my professors working definition (as far as Im aware, the word religion has no agreed upon definition). I can ask him any concerns you have with it as I have class with him every week so please tell me.

I dont see a problem with it though. After all Lao Tse, Buddha and Confuscious are all considered philosophers whos teachings spawned "religions". I regard Christ and Muhammed to be philosophers also in the same regard.

And it is the realm of philosophy where the nature of humans, right and wrong and the meaning(s) of life, and interpretations of nature life and death are discussed is it not? Perhaps you can give a more narrow definition of philosophy which I would be interested to hear as the above is my understanding of it.

EDIT- MMM I have to run but I will address your post later

Personally I think too many folks confuse Religion with Faith. They are not exactly the same thing.

"Religion" could almost be discribed as a sect or group who all ascribe to a certain set of princeables. Some knightly orders in europe were "Religions" to a point.

Religion could be a way of explaining or describeing how serious a person is in a particular faith...although it could be used in any format really. That person religiously cleans thier house, for instance.

I could agree with that point.

Have to be careful with some academics....for them philosophy is thier religion. ;)

Especially if they "really, really" know what they are talking about.

Luckily all questions can be answered when a masters or higher is obtained.

Is this part of the new modern conservative thinking where we should be skeptical of the well-read and well-educated?

Only in America are scientists and those that strive to increase the wealth of knowledge in the world looked at with suspicion, as if they have some ulterior motive.

The more you know the less you should be trusted?

Come'on; do you have to make everything political? But to answer, with this administration, might just have to.

Nah... but if you really want to know, I'm just tired of elitist and or eltist-progressives from Ivy League schools telling us how to do things they really have no real-life experience in. But I digress.

But more so to the point, ones who claim to be the go to guy because they are "really,really" interested in it and have studied a professor's opinion or literature on a opinion based subject, such as "the philosophy of religion", is one to be skeptical of as they claim being an expert in such matters.


No. Keep the scientists. Just be skeptical of where they get their funding for their research.

Hockey (stick) anyone?

____________________________

Philosophy and religion are essentially identical. They both aim to discover God.
- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Youre absolutely right. That is what I intended to mean. That the concept of shuukyou and religion dont meet. I hope you didnt think that I thought that the Japanese have a "wrong" definition or conception of the word and that we have the "right" one. (Actually, I think I swing the other way. In my opinion I think the understanding of Shuukyou is more useful and easier to work with over religion)

A clue to the answer youre looking for is in the part Ive bolded. A discussion on the assumptions made about human nature (which I would say is what fundamentally seperates political ideologies from each other) is just that. Japanese dont treat the discussion as two different realms.

Lets take the creation of the Earth in the bible and compare it with the creation of the Earth in Nihonshoki. In the bible the Earth was created roughly 6000 years ago by God in 7 days. This is completely at odds with modern science and people that strictly believe it are conveniently labelled fundamentalists. YET there is still a realm for this story to thrive in and have relevance as some sort of metaphor and that is the religious one. Many Christians can reconcile their belief in God creating the Earth as it is told in the bible with modern science because they have the concept of "faith"(religion) and "reason"(science) and they remain seperated.

Now for Nihonshoki. The Universe was born of an egg which created the heavens and the Earth. You'd be hard pressed to find a Japanese person to whom this story is even relevant in a working sense and the reason being that shuukyou was never institutionalised in the Japanese mind as it has been in the Western one. It is simply imagined as I described it above. "The teachings of a group or sect".

Not to say that faith doesnt exist in Japan. I have a friend who has a passive belief that every object has a type of "spirit" or "energy" inside them that must be respected (be it a beautiful tree or flower to the computer keyboard Im typing on).

I completely agree. Yet the "debate" as to whether Japan can be considered a religious country was (is still?) contested in the field of Japanology. The argument of the essay I gave in the OP gives says the answer is a definitive no... but rather than give his own definition of religion and justify his position based on that he simply argues that "religion" as it is understood by the people that say it is a religious country, does not exist and that it might even be a flaw in the Western mindset to imagine it apart from other fields of study which address similar things to those that "religion" does. (Assumptions of human nature, interpretation of life and death, the universe etc.)

You are correct that it may be our view of religion that presents the hurdle. Most members of non-western cultures don't view religion as a seperate topic unto itself. It is an unseperable part of life. It is intertwined with and just part of our actions and beliefs in a way that, while able to be articulated and understood by an individual, is usually an unconscious part of it all.

Most Japanese I know say they are not religious (i.e. claiming no religion or participating in regular devotions) but appear much more religious than other people I know. It is just part of the way of thinking.

If you visit Japan you might notice this as well as people appearing to be overtly superstitious.

the debate between those studying Japan, I beleive, is due to a shallow understanding of religion as well as the innability to accept/understand dichotomy. There is a great quote by a Japanese zen "master" the effect of: Only an immature mind is unable to understand reconcile dichotomy/contradiction.

I would not say that this definition is wrong, but that it is incomplete. Of course my opinion is influenced with a life spent in the midst of western thought and organized religions, but with faiths securely bound in eastern spirituality.

Philosophy and Religion are destined to overlap and influence each other. Philosophy exists totally separate from Religion in limited instances and Religion can exist apart from philosophy.

There is a endless supply of instances of the latter, which I consider one of the primary causes for failure of mainstream Religion. Its seems when ritual supercedes understanding and relies purely faith, and even defies accepted philosophies the result is commonly conflict and crisis on a personal and/or cultural level. As for ritual, I regard it primarily as simply the vehicle/tool for expression of that which cannot be completely verbalized. And thus, essential to expressions of faith and sprituality. Religion (as often defined in the west) has too often made ritual a tool merely for perverting faith to power for those who would enforce ritual observances.

In the same vein, it seems to me, that when philosophy is isolated from the spiritual realms, it becomes cold, nearly inhuman and of little use beyond a mental exercise.


OK, the mind is diverging in soooo many directions now that I will stop and wait to read more from everyone.

Hmmm... I think the way in which you describe ritual and faith superceding the commonly accepted philosophies as validating my teachers definition of religion being philosophy plus ritual.

Also I dont understand. Is the existence of a "spiritual realm" the line that seperates philosophy and religious teaching? How can you define and seperate the spiritual from the non-spiritual in order to define philosophy and religion? After all when dealing with matters of human consciousness then where do you put that? For me the line is blurry and I would argue that it is not NEEDED as a concept EXCEPT to legitimise the seperation of religious teaching and philosophy. (I would go as far to say that it doesnt exist... but we can save that for another thread as it isnt relevant yet)

I mean I dont understand what you mean by "cold" philosophy isolated from the "spiritual realm".

I would say that any such delineation would be artificial and likely to be quite aribtrary. Having slept, the example I had in mind has slipped away for the moment, being some obscure and esoteric instance. But generally I would expect those philosophers classically derided for expounding on life from the isolation of pure academia with little or no real life experience, and probably professing atheism as being those who would be most likely to make this artificial distinction. I know I only encountered it in limited studies where no practical application was ever explored or encouraged. Sort of thinking for the sake of thought, rather than pursuit of a result.

I dont completely understand your post (the part about philosophers being isolated in academia.. or the implied relationship with atheism)

But I can agree with you. My opinion is the spiritual realm simply doesnt exist as an objective concept. I can understand the language of "spirituality" as an expression of sentiment

For example it is much easier to say

"He/She has a good heart/a kind spirit etc.." :rheart:

as opposed to

"That persons environmental conditioning has caused him/her to be prone to certain nueral and chemical firings in the brain which predisposes him to empathy" :mtongue:

If I were to ask WHY the he/she had a good hear/kind spirit then the latter would be the better answer (or if youre not as geeky as me then simply environmental conditioning could be reasoned without having to make any extra assumptions about the universe)

but as soon as you start answering logical questions with "spiritual" answers (like the question of the existence of something for example) then that is flawed.