Posted by: anonym | March 18th, 2010 |
In Japanese, the word is Arahitogami. Written in Kanji as 現人神.
Personally, as a Pagan/Animist/Shaman I believe that everything has spirit, but that "Gods" exist. That a God is a spiritual clump so to speak. To me a God is to the Spirit World what a star is to gravity.
And I believe it is possible for a human to possess this quality.
I'm not sure if this is still commonly believed by Shintoists, but I do know it is believed by Christians where almost all believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
How about the definition I have provided above? Can we go with that?
Regarding Mr. Hirohito, we know for a fact that he was what we ususally define as human, although we haven't yet gotten definition for that word as used here in the OP's question, though. Anyway, I'll run over to the library, and pull out a definition from the Japanese Dictionary, and see if there is any real difference for assignment to the word 神 (kami=(a)god).
Almost like telling a Christian, that there is no Christ. . .
But going back to the roots of influences, it maybe healing and lead to another change, which also Shintoism has often had. . .
I sense the same old shocks.
But lieing does not restore. . .
And I can very well feel, what there is on certain places for example, that touched me deeply.
Looking forward to what you find, Mars man :-)
To me the spirit world is a world that exists in connection this world but is also separate. We only get the tip of the iceberg. Well most of us.
Also, it might be good to give notice of our area of discussion--mythology or reality.
Mythology OR reality? Isn't that like saying religion or reality?
lol, mythology just means a traditional story. Or at least that's what it says on the Christian mythology wikipedia article.
Reality. I use the word mythology to describe different things like I would say "Slavic" mythology or "Finnish mythology" or "Japanese mythology" but I don't view those "mythologies" as myths like I view Greek and Roman mythology or Christian mythology. Meaning I actually fairly strongly believe in the Shinto stuff even as agnostically as feel most of the time, more strongly than I believe in Jesus' divinity or anything Abrahamic. And I don't believe in the Greek or Roman mythology at all.
How can I be sure Inari doesn't exist? It's not like there's proof that Jesus exists. Like Christians say, it's a thing of faith.
Then, it seems that the idea of humans becoming deity in nature upon death, rather during life, is the Buddhist thing here...and with whatever degree of influence from Shinto of old...I don't know.
Regarding Christianity, while is it correct that most sects do believe in the doctrine of Yeshua's having been YHWH incarnate, it was the Gnostic branch that held the doctrine that all humans hold a divine element.
One question: would you like to leave this here, in order to discuss what the doctrines are in Japan, or would think that by moving this to Serious Discussions, with a possibly broader discussion taking place, more purpose would be served your essential question--whether humans can be divine?
Firstly, the definitions. For the very same reason, and based on the exact degree of validity for such in that we are using language, as symbols, to communicate, as I proposed for the difference for the English 'God' .vs. 'god', I will again show the difference between the word 'religion' and 'religious belief-system.'
Take the belief-system of the Greeks. What did that system say of the concept of god(s)? How many gods were there and to what degree of said reality? What were their individually prescribed and described attributes, personalities and so on.
Then, for example, take the earlier Jewish belief-system. What did that system say of the concept of god(s)? How many gods were there and to what degree of said reality? What were their individually prescribed and described attributes, personalities and so on.
Now, I guarantee you that after you have made a full study of those points, you will absolutely agree that the two systems do no intersect on some 80% of the spectrum, and yet to maintain the whole of each separate system, you will have to agree that they are indeed two completely separate systems, two separate god-models.
What this goes to show, is that the terms 'religion' and 'religious belief-system' are indeed different in broadness, and that the former is wider--I mean, even science can be termed a religion...but it's not a belief-system, because it is built on a method rather than a system of tenets.
Therefore, the statement 'So, as is clear, Catholicism is a definite belief-system, Protestantism is yet another. In that same way, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Hinayana Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Islam, and, of course, Shinto are all distinct and separate religious belief-systems' is true.
....?
and as is far too often the case, seemingly being used with a little less consideration for the original essence of the English word.
I am? I thought the word has more than one usage. That God could vary much more than universal creator or such.
English is Germanic language. Is the word God not appropriate to refer to Odin and Thor?
Then, it seems that the idea of humans becoming deity in nature upon death, rather during life, is the Buddhist thing here...and with whatever degree of influence from Shinto of old...I don't know.
Heh, I would have thought more common in Shinto than Buddhism.
I know the show Kamichu was Shinto based, not Buddhism based. But then again Kamichu is a cartoon and I just made myself look like a geek by using that as a reference didn't I? ._.
Bad kireikoori! No referencing pathetic otaku culture in serious legitimate discussion in Japan related forum. You're making yourself look dumb and geeky! ._.
Regarding Christianity, while is it correct that most sects do believe in the doctrine of Yeshua's having been YHWH incarnate, it was the Gnostic branch that held the doctrine that all humans hold a divine element.
Gnosticism is not mainstream Christianity...oh wait you already said most sects..
Anyway that would mean that all people are God. But couldn't some people be more God than others? Surely the Gnostics didn't hold everyone equally divine.
One question: would you like to leave this here, in order to discuss what the doctrines are in Japan, or would think that by moving this to Serious Discussions, with a possibly broader discussion taking place, more purpose would be served your essential question--whether humans can be divine?
I'm not sure. I made this thread because I was getting off topic in another. I was requested to move it to the religion section.
Perhaps the religious discussion about Japan is more suited for this section and asking questions is more suited for the serious discussion section?
If so then it's hard, because this is really a dual question. Both about Japan and the reader.
Or are you saying it would get more discussion in the serious discussion section? If so then yes please move it.
I would argue that the mixing of Shinto (as a system) with Buddhism (as a system) was very little; they mainly stayed apart. In Japan, then, what happened was that two religious belief-systems were maintained, and are still kept. The doctrine of Shinto is quite different from that of Buddhism. You will find families that do not practice Buddhism for the most part, but do Shintoism.
That aside, I'd hope to now deal with the title, theme, of this thread. I will have to wait for kireikoori san to come back too, however, but will start.
How are we going to define, or better reference the word 'god' here? Depending on that, and that alone, the answer to the question can be both yes and no. We will have to set those limits firstly, and I'll wait for the OP to get back to do that.
Sorry, but I do not quite agree here, because using our god-understanding is in fact very irritaiting, and it is very well known, that most Japanese generally do have a problem to even understand this, coming from another point of view of the matter.
The mix of Shinto and Buddhism is due to their acceptance of basically meaning the same, just seen from different angles, but no reason to argue about.
You find many Shinto and Temple zones united in Japan, even run by the same people, using both. I can give you many examples, fotos and according stories, experiences.
Often they tend to see the western god image in the very same way too, and it does in fact have same common denominations, if seen from their point.
Also I may say here, that despite this, hardly any Japanese calls him/herself religious in our sense and lives very well with all three at the same time, according to circumstances and occasions, which is, why Japan is said to be highly atheistic in the western strict "one and only" God sense. They define it differently, and thats what we also should try to see and learn.
This is widely accepted, also in serious researches, by the way.
I suggest this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion
as for:
Irreligion has at least four related yet distinct meanings:
absence of religion (either due to not having enough information about religion or to not believing in it)
hostility to religion
behaving in such a way that fails to live up to one's religious tenets
an inability to come into agreement with all doctrines and teachings of normally prescribed religious sects
See the amount of Japanese in this
in the statistics
An often heard sentence from Japanese:
"Buddhism for cementeries/death matters
Christianity for marriages
and
Shintoism for daily life
But religious in western style, whats that?"
Thus it should very well to be seen, at least also, if not basically, through their eyes, not through western eyes.
For politeness' and the question's sake, which was based on Japanese view after all. Thus we should see their point first.
Why do you keep assuming we see things from a Christian point of view?
And again, like my last post asked, what are you implying? That we shouldn't use words like God or god but instead kami because neither are perfect translations for the word? That the difference between god and God doesn't matter?
You haven't cleared up anything for me with this post. It just seems like you're repeating the same things you did in the last post you made but in more detail.
I don't assume, that you see things from a christian way at all, I never did. You must have gotten that wrong. But who wishes to use our (well, english, german, american etc.) god-image, thats based on christianity and the like, will not understand yours.
Thus I asked to leave it behind and go to your view.(I did not ask you, I asked Mars man, by the way)
Feel free, to describe, what you mean with god, I am very interested and with you there.
How do you see and call it, Kireikoori ?
Please. . .:-)
Hmm..I would agree with that small spirit larger spirit thing. And if not mistaken, I said something to that effect earlier.
It's like Inari, that is the authority over foxes. The good kitsune may have power, but Inari has further authority. Like I said earlier, god is defined by me as an entity with strong influence and authority over the spirit world. Far above and beyond the average human as far as spiritual impact would be a god.
Also, like the talk of the Pagan west that user you responded to just made, I also made one earlier. I think that the gods of Northern Europe like Odin and Ukko are quite comparable to the kami of Shinto. When you take Christianity away and reduce to the European Animist beliefs, the separation of terms is not enough to really take into account like you would Abrahamic religion versus Shamanism. Ukko is basically a Finnish Kami.
As for Hirohito(which is just one example of a claimed arahitogami or human god), both John W. Dower and Herbert Bix claim Ningen-Sengen was done in a way that he did not completely renounce his divinity. After Ningen-Sengen Hirohito still worshipped Amaterasu as an ancestor. Hirohito merely renounced akitsumikami.
Anyway, there are more examples that can be used than a controversial figure like Hirohito. Since he's already been addressed, perhaps we should move on to others, as to avoid turning a spirituality thread into a war thread.
Yes, we can continue to talk about his supposed divinity, but well...you know what I mean. Let's keep the thread on topic like Mars Man said.
The entire royal family can be brought into question, but the entire royal family.
Also, I read that arahitogami was first mentioned in Kojiki, the "oldest surviving book in Japan". So surely it's something that continued on as a concept(other than just royalty) and exists in other writings as well.
In order to discuss, and provide arguments which through the power of deductive logic, reach and support a conclusion (thus one answer--from the possible number of answers) on the following question :
Do you believe a human can be a god?
We have no choice but to define some terms and describe the references they symbolize. We can have no logical, formatted discussion if we do not have a working definition for the word god, for one. What do we mean when we use this common noun? What is the state, and descriptive properties of the entity to which we can attach the word god? This is one point that must be dealt with conclusively and concisely--otherwise the question is moot.
Since we are not talking about god-models here, but rather the definition of the term, and the description of properties of the entity that term has as a referent, we need not bring in matters of present systems, actually--unless it may be to help reinforce an image of the definition we agree on.
Again, how is this for a definition? [an entity or state of existence which as the aggregate sum of it parts is greater than can be known to the animal mind--including humans.]
Also, I'd like to point out, that if we simply go by the dictionary definition general, the question will also be moot--because according to that, as caster51 san has shown, anything and everything can be (a) god. . . leaving the question meaningless.
See you later and be well!
(well, english, german, american etc)
Incorrect. There are many people of other religions in these areas, and to claim that judeo-christianity is 'our' collectivley when talking of the west (EN,GER and USA). There are muslims who see it differently, there are buddhists, sikhs, scientologists, unbelievers etc etc etc etc.
I know, thats why I put an etc. yawn. . .
and it was more relating to the god view of the english writings. . . or anything not japanese, if thats more clear.
Its mostly a translation problem, thats why I think, we should first try to see it through her eyes and words, whats so difficult about this?
The use of the term god is possbily incorrect. In keeping with Pagan beliefs (which I do not hold) why not refer to these entities as the pagans do - pantheons.
May be as misleading, so why not using a japanese word then?
I believe that there is a spirit in everything, from wood to rock to gas to animals (including humans). Then there are the pantheons who rule over these spirits/small pantheons. I won't say any more, because the majority of my beliefs are my own and private.
I still wish to know:
How do you see and call it, Kireikoori ?
Please. . .:-)
It is a shame, but I have found so many even native speakers of English who use the language so loosely, almost (if not) to the degree of torturing the language. As I have been harping on in this thread so far...we have to have all terms and definitions/descriptions set before we can seriously discuss the matter of the OP's question. That, is starting to happen now !! Nice job.
I have to go to bed now, but will be back !! Trust me...it is very related...but it is embedding required to fully understand the terms used in the OP.
If I may sugguest here, the word 'religion' is broader in definition than the term 'religious belief-system.' So, as is clear, Catholicism is a definite belief-system, Protestantism is yet another. In that same way, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Hinayana Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Islam, and, of course, Shinto are all distinct and separate religious belief-systems. What is overly loosely called 'religion' should more precisely be kept to innate emotional element of the, at least, human brain which leads humans to have wonder and awe, the emotion to search and know, and thus follow the pursuit of learning.
All human created religious belief-systems are lacking in distinctly and independantly-of-all-other-systems truth of explanation of the universe in which we live, and of our most likely state of being. To that degree, they are all mythology just as the religious belief-systems of the Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians or Mayan are not seen to be. We have no reason to assign greater truth value to the presently living religious belief-systems.
Why do you keep assuming we see things from a Christian point of view?
And again, like my last post asked, what are you implying? That we shouldn't use words like God or god but instead kami because neither are perfect translations for the word? That the difference between god and God doesn't matter?
You haven't cleared up anything for me with this post. It just seems like you're repeating the same things you did in the last post you made but in more detail.
I think that LDS members have a very interesting perspective on the matter. But I am too scared to explain that here, such that I don't take confontation well. Perhaps there are others who can accurately explain the LDS beliefs for the OP.
It seems we're on the same page.
As I said at the very beginning. . .;-)
Also there is this asian idea of "things" (or whatever) being the same inside and outside. . .Perceptions and reactions thereof affect the inside, but also the inside creates and effects the outside, etc etc.
. . .cyclish thinking again, and you have it. . .
By the way, I just saw a wonderfull japanese film, called "Megane". VERY RECOMMENDED!:cool:
I am glad, such films and thoughts are still alive and well. . .full support from my side!
and to what degree of said reality?
Huh? I don't get what you're saying here.
Tenets? Do you mean that the difference between a religion and a religious belief system is rules?
Also, I understood what the difference between "god" and "God" had to do with the subject. If I were talking about "God" I'd be talking about an all creator and within the context of Abrahamic culture. But I was talking about god in the animist/spiritualist/pantheist/pandeist/shamanist sense. I needed to use the correct not Jewish way of the word, to clarify what kind of god I was asking if a human could be.
But this stuff you're talking about now I'm not sure how it's related to the topic of "can a human be a god?"
If you're argue what I think you're arguing then I disagree. Shinto and other Shamanism may have differences, but all are still Shamanism. And all have more in common with each other than do with say..any Abrahamic faith. I'm pointing to a general shamanist definition of god, not just limited to one shamanist/animist faith, but in general. That's why I'm using examples from several, like Ukko, Odin and Inari.
I would argue that the mixing of Shinto (as a system) with Buddhism (as a system) was very little; they mainly stayed apart. In Japan, then, what happened was that two religious belief-systems were maintained, and are still kept. The doctrine of Shinto is quite different from that of Buddhism. You will find families that do not practice Buddhism for the most part, but do Shintoism.
That aside, I'd hope to now deal with the title, theme, of this thread. I will have to wait for kireikoori san to come back too, however, but will start.
How are we going to define, or better reference the word 'god' here? Depending on that, and that alone, the answer to the question can be both yes and no. We will have to set those limits firstly, and I'll wait for the OP to get back to do that.
Once some becomes important enough to people that they would kill themselves if that person died, like Yukiko Okada, Hideto Matsumoto, Kurt Cobain or John Lennon, then MAYBE they've become a God. Because that's a pretty big tug on the spirit world.
Chi65, Mars Man is just trying to assert that Shinto is a religion of it's own. I don't think Mars Man is guilty of not being culturally open minded as you blame him of. Since you've opened the wikipedia floodgates by posting wikipedia, you should know that the wikipedia article for Shinto claims that Shinto only truly became organized as one to distinguish itself from foreign religion like Buddhism.
Most Japanese people are like me when it come to religion. They like to treat religion like a buffet and pick and choose the stuff they like. But Shinto is still viewed by most Japanese people as the true Japanese religion and distinct from Buddhism.
Shintoists often show an amount of religious tolerance. But that's because Pantheistic/Animistic religion believes in all having spirits so it's kinda hard to toss other religious viewpoints completely aside. But that hasn't made Shinto absolute perfectly tolerant, particularly close to war periods where national identity was important. And certainly not perfect universalism. Still I think Shinto has a fairly clean slate.
But about that god vs. kami thing...maybe you're right. I have in fact read and heard that god might not be a perfect translation for kami. I've also even heard that kawaii might not be the same as cute. But a lot of people in this world get annoyed if you throw words like kawaii into English sentences, so I'm doing this out of courtesy for them.
Anyway, he was just explaining to me some of my ignorance about Judeo-Christian religion. And I think that 'western eyes' statement is overdone and as usual out of place and crying wolf here. By your perspective of Eastern vs. Western does being an Odinist make me Eastern? Were the Vikings Eastern?
Or were you saying that the God vs. god thing is inherently intolerant? It seemed to me he described it as not better or more true than any other religion, but implying Jewish culture and omnipotent all creator instead of just divine authority. Again I see no "Western elitism" here, just a knowledge of Jewish culture that has penetrated Western culture.
Is the word God not appropriate to refer to Odin and Thor?
No, it isn't. Because both Odin and Thor are proper nouns whereas the word god is not.
Just the definition for god should not be just like our christian "one and only and everything view" (because that simply does not fit) on a question like the initial one, but it should be seen through other eyes as well. I may not have made this clear enough, but can only repeat it.
Be this a mostly english spoken forum or not, its still also Japanese, thus should be tried to be translated in both ways, not just the english (which I also mean with western) way.
That was my main point.
I do know very well even, that Shinto to be the original and shamanistic based "method" of Japan, as well as I know Korean, Siberian and native indian Shamanism (and according shamans personally myself!), in short, many forrunners of later methods, religions.
I also know about the history and ways, Shinto was kind of "adapted" by later Buddhism, yet still mostly as alive beside, at times in front once more, right (see my "but" further down then)
What is important here, that the Christians, for example in Korea, tend to call those former parts "Aberglaube", not the "right" belief/way, and in Korea some christian Taxi-drivers even refused to drive us to some temples, until we heftily insisted. They were simply disgustingly narrowminded.
This can as well happen in Japan and makes me feel worried. No such reactions are known to me about or between Shintoists or Buddhists, which I indeed consider to be more advanced and open.
It has to do with this one and only view of whatever god is, and it will disturb our discussion heavily, if we see it from "our" god-definition. It will simply not work.
Also, what I meant in my statement about the japanese emperor, which was the inition to make this thread, that this kind of one and only does not fit nor give anyone the right to do what ever he wants, for example ruling under the false name of "uniting" the world, which is already known from Dschingis Khan or several Chinese emperors or whosoever (incl. Bush!) claims to act in the name of "god" (and I insist in writing it small, because I deny any human emperor or ruler to be enough "only one god" to have this right over all humans, particularly when wars are involved).
Whereas I do like and accept the experience of really being "in tune" with everything, like having a buddha-nature or being in charge for different parts thus as a kami, which would be more easily to be understood for us as a wise spirit, thus close to a boddhisattva, a said before.
I have no problem in seeing these as different and reaccuring manifestations of certain aspects, and accept also the Dalai Lama as being such a boddhisattva, particularly this Avalokiteshvara, which he obviously is, but so would any Guanyin/Kannon-manifestation be, since it has the very same base, only changed into a woman in the long run to the east.
We also have the green Tara (fem. companion of Avalokiteshvara, actually) in tibetan buddhism as the female form, it also is exactly this one. To see Canon as green Tara is in fact very interesting, because all those aspects are very positively nature and creation supporting related and even close to. . .Amaterasu. By which you can see, how flux the understanding of positive "powers" (if I may use this word here, please) is. Non of them likes wars, any war, in fact.
Thus any honest relation to an Amaterasu- or Canon-image cannot be agressive or overpowering, nor against nature, any which way.
And how I wish, the Japanese would come back to this kind of thinking. . .but many men seem to have forgotten, that the red circle on their flag means a peacefull wise woman!!. . . that will hide in her cave, when wrongly opposed. . .no sun thus, how very right!
I would too.
Making wars with this sign is a hit right into the face of the very goddess and image therefor and will have according consequences. This also applies to unnecessary agressions and killings in general. . .nature will indeed strike back.
I therefor do not consider the Japanese emperor dynasty to be wise at all, still not.
I do consider Greenpeace to be in the name of the green Tara etc. though. That fits very well.
Protect natural balance and human rights as well is also a job for. . .Athene, who supported as long, as humans were peacefull, but very well, but rarely, asked for arms, when that balance was disturbed and had to be reastablished (she was never into any kind of imperialism or egotrip!). Then, and only then, she became armed (and also changed into a man at times), often opposed by a jealous mars, that was accordingly ruled out, because he was only into agression and warmaking, although needed as a helper at times.
These are all projections of general inside human nature onto outside images, to make such principles more clear. And if you compare these, then you may well say, yes, a human can be such a manifested god, but not THE overall God.
As such, christianisations fails heavily in relation to such archetypes and it accordingly far too often leads to war. Same with wrong understandings of the original meanings of Islam.
In this case, two wrongs still don't make one right, nor does a misinterpreted Shinotism, misused for nationalism, by the way. . .
Thats as much a misuse. And any misuse is fatal.
Yes, a human can be a manifestation of god images, that he makes himself, but never the one and only above all. Thats nonsense. Only we all together in all aspects can be this, including all else thats around us, including all times.
Some have this knowledge, thus are a door to this, but never it alone nor only. But being a fine door is a fine goal.
Therefore:
A god, yes, but The GOD, no.
And I answered the question my way, thus my own opinion, which she wanted to know.
Kireiikoori, I am with you by saying, that one cannot really know, if such spirits exist, since they are mostly projections, of how and where you were touched, given a name, as I said before. It not unfamiliar to artists to "project" images, and even make them as real as possible, to have a better look at the kind of inner picture, that it wakes up.
This equals the way, humans called spirits of the animals, that they wished to hunt by painting them. They made the experience, that if they concentrated on them this way, their selective consciousness helped them to have better hunting results. Thats not unknown in psychology, also that it does in fact lead to better results. We also call this self-programming/-suggestion(-manipulation or similar. You can do this via talking yourself into something by looking into your own eyes in a mirror. But then you can forget it, because your subconsciousness starts working.
In old times you would have said, you called a spirit in to help you. Of course this works better via "confrontation" with an outer image, and thus is the base for every cult, to come into such a state. Often a shaman knew about this and was thus in charge for such a ride into or with the subconsciousness. Insofar he was in fact at times "super"-human in relation to the "normal" state of consciousness, for example. If together with a wise use for benefit, it for sure at the beginning was a fine leader for his/her tribe.
Being of "control" over such normally uncontrollable parts made him/her simply "godlike", since this way he/she could achieve more than under "normal" circumstances, also collectively.
Insofar he/she was of "secret" (holy) knowledge.
The problem arises, when this is misused. . .for pure egocentric (also collective egocentric) reasons, and thats why so many retreated into hermit stages or "holy" places like monasteries etc., to regain unity with natural laws. The more complex real life became, the more it was too much for one person to relate to such states as well as "normal" daily communal duties.
Every shaman knows about the high exhaustion of such inner voyages, for example.
A wise one more often does retreat from the materialistic world, because it stops the inner processes and according connection to farther views (in harmony with inner laws) often other than daily needs. It stops them from going into "holy", thus "godlike" states, gets and /or holds them "down", so to say.
Thus very often the breaks into two separate parts that even fight each other in later cultures.
Its a picture of a split psyche, in general. . .something that should go hand in hand, in everyone of us. But overtly ego games destroys this again and again. A real holy state is no ego, because it knows about the relation to everything intuitively (collective subconsciousness once more). You may know the eightfold path in Buddhism, that one shows one possible way back to this unification, overcoming exatly this dividing ego-state. . .
So, if someone claims to be a god, he ought to know about no separation, if not, he is not, can even become a dividing demon, that causes only wars and separations from this unity (from all, not just one tribe or supposed to be enemy!).
There is one thing all these people have in common. They are seen beyond the norms for your average person. They have either been great leaders, rulers or very good at their jobs, Imhopet for example. It seems that their actions were somehow out of reach for your average person. The same way that celebrites are put on a pedestal nowadays, these people were put on the pedestals of their day. Seeming to be supernatural or possessing knowledge beyond your average person, they must have been channeling the divine or be an aspect of the divine. Even today some religions still elevate the status of some people beyond what you or I are. Catholics still create Saints and Buddhist Bodisattvas. It is still a form of taking a person and blessing them with divine powers. Of course the catholic faith no longer calls it deification, but Beatification, but in essence it is still the same thing. They even pray to saints, a form of god worship.
Of course in the modern world we have the ability of more or less free speech and the lives of our idols are more in the media spotlight. Our new gods can easily be torn down the next week, Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse, Tom Cruise. More diifficult to tear down the idols of the past. Their pasts have been written and in most cases their detractors were either killed and/or their writings were attempted to be removed from history.
For those with reference to Annubis posts LDS beliefs:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_beli.htm
In a certain state, that allows you to get in contact, so to say, you sense things, that others don't, and can even make them visible (and name them, thus the different names for the same in different countries). I described that lately somewhere else, I think, on the paranormal thread. I myself had lots of according experiences.
And thats the same, as I tried to express here. I am not "blaming" anything to the subconscious, in contrary, I honour it very much for "seeing things", that many others can't or can't any more or not yet.
Fact is, that this way, particularly via Synaesthesia, many blamed phenomenom are more and more accepted now! And I am a multiple one, and thus very interested plus informed now.
http://chalmarines.up.seesaa.net/image/060104_01.jpg
ENFP, INTP, neither are good at classifying people.
Many people who were classified as ADHD in their childhood have now been reclassified as Asperger's Syndrome.
Hypnosis is largely viewed to be ineffective and false. Most theories explain away hypnosis as not real. Like the social constructionism theory Also Hypnosis is considered very New Age like many things dealing with the subconscious.
Almost all books dealing with the idea of psychic power or energy talk heavily about the subconscious. Meaning, the subconscious isn't really an idea out of sync with the occult/new age. In fact most involved in the occult would agree that the subconscious plays heavily in contact with the spirit world.
When I go to boards about the "paranormal", things like hypnosis, subliminal messages and other things dealing with the subconscious are talked about heavily. It's the paranormal type who are fascinated by the subconscious.
Oh, and like hypnosis the idea of subliminal messages is largely viewed to be a hoax.
Nothing much is truly known yet about the mind. We have had ideas, but do we know exactly what causes people to become murderers? Exactly what makes all people tick? No, psychology is still just an infant. We have much to learn about the mind.
And thats the same, as I tried to express here. I am not "blaming" anything to the subconscious, in contrary, I honour it very much for "seeing things", that many others can't or can't any more or not yet.
Fact is, that this way, particularly via Synaesthesia, many blamed phenomenom are more and more accepted now! And I am a multiple one, and thus very interested plus informed now.
Ah, you're not claiming that psychology disproves the spiritual? Ah, wonderful! I very much agree.
It seems we're on the same page.
Ok, then, we know that there are far most likely no such realities as 'ghosts'--unless we throw away the usual definition/description of the referent for that word, but how can one demonstrate that the means and sources and method of coming to know what is actually meant by the term 'spirit world' is valid?
If I may sugguest here, the word 'religion' is broader in definition than the term 'religious belief-system.' So, as is clear, Catholicism is a definite belief-system, Protestantism is yet another. In that same way, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Hinayana Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Islam, and, of course, Shinto are all distinct and separate religious belief-systems. What is overly loosely called 'religion' should more precisely be kept to innate emotional element of the, at least, human brain which leads humans to have wonder and awe, the emotion to search and know, and thus follow the pursuit of learning.
All human created religious belief-systems are lacking in distinctly and independantly-of-all-other-systems truth of explanation of the universe in which we live, and of our most likely state of being. To that degree, they are all mythology just as the religious belief-systems of the Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians or Mayan are not seen to be. We have no reason to assign greater truth value to the presently living religious belief-systems.
Ummmm.... o.o
1. Perhaps there's no ghosts. You said unlikely. According to science it's unlikely that even an Deistic essence created the universe and it just came about through universal crunch. But I have faith in both.
2. Throw out the usual theories, and what would be an unusual ghost theory?
3. I'm not sure what you're asking here with spirit world, but I'll trying to explain. Though probably most of it will just be me repeating myself, I apologize if it's that.
As I view the world, it is spiritual on it's own. The Pantheist perspective that all is spiritual, though I believe their is a special spiritual focus on that which are living organisms. Then I believe there is a separate but connected spirit world. The idea of the separate but connected spirit world, while the original world stay spiritual as well, is a Pandeistic viewpoint.
I'll explain the perspective with pop culture. Remember Spirited Away? That world she was Spirited Away to was the Spirit World. That movie was a portrayal of a Spirit World. Not to say it's a true story, it's a cartoon. But it's an example, sort of like how Veggietales and Little Nicky are an example of Christian Mythology in popular culture.
4. Different religion? Now it feels like we're backtracking. Different religions are both connected and separated in different ways. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all Abrahamic religions. Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism are all Dharmic religions. Finnish, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic and Japonic ancient belief are all Animistic religion.
I'm confused as to how this was a response to my earlier post.
It pleases me that you view all religion as mythology. You say no religion has no more truth to you, but in feeling to me I believe in Ukko but I do not believe in Zeus.
To me the Greek and Roman idea is less so because it was strictly polytheistic without the animistic element. You can go in search of a Greek God but they will not appear, and no home of the Gods can be found at Mount Olympus. When you go to Finland and don't find Ukko you can conclude that he's residing among the spirits, the animistic way.
Am I wrong that the ancient Greek belief is not animistic?
And insofar K's shinto-idea is not bad after all. It merges with/into the buddhist thinking indeed, with according respect even, and is as such also a fine lesson of Japanese history, and how to merge both without violence, plus understand the Japanese much better in general.
Only, please, don't come with an Amaterasu, that really lived. . .except you relate to general Kami manifestations, which would partly be boddhisattvas in Buddhism, who are buddha manifestations hereabout, while the buddha nature is inherent in everybody, etc.etc.
So is the Amaterasu idea in every woman, but as female side also in every man, to be correct..
It is also interesting in terms of psychology, we can even switch to Jung's archetypes from here, if there are more questions.
Could become very interesting indeed, like a cultural translation lab.
(I missed this already)
:-)
(well, english, german, american etc)
Incorrect. There are many people of other religions in these areas, and to claim that judeo-christianity is 'our' collectivley when talking of the west (EN,GER and USA). There are muslims who see it differently, there are buddhists, sikhs, scientologists, unbelievers etc etc etc etc.
The use of the term god is possbily incorrect. In keeping with Pagan beliefs (which I do not hold) why not refer to these entities as the pagans do - pantheons.
I believe that there is a spirit in everything, from wood to rock to gas to animals (including humans). Then there are the pantheons who rule over these spirits/small pantheons. I won't say any more, because the majority of my beliefs are my own and private.
The mix of Shinto and Buddhism is due to their acceptance of basically meaning the same, just seen from different angles, but no reason to argue about. (bold mine)
I think it might be good, though, Chi65 san, to explain the words in bold a little more; giving some examples so that I can see exactly what idea you have in mind. Otherwise, the two religious belief-systems mixed very little it does seem. The fact that most Japanese attend to different phases of each one, does not make what I call a mix, because the tenets of the systems do not agree.
You find many Shinto and Temple zones united in Japan, even run by the same people, using both. I can give you many examples, fotos and according stories, experiences.(bold mine)
I find that word 'many' hard to believe, however, when describing those who 'run' the establishments. That many temples and shrines are in the same neighborhood, is of course correct, but temples don't have 'territory' like the shrines do. . . unless I have really missed something. If you do have information on that, it might be good to share it.
While some other points made about the two systems used in Japan are correct, the gods are different, and that, I guess is the main thing for this theme.
I do appreciate your concern there, kireikoori san, yet kind of wonder if you may not have read a little too much into what Chi65 san was getting at?
Anyway...a lot of terms have come up which I would argue need to be defined and/or described. It still sounds like you are kind of searching, kireikoori san, and I'd hope to not only encourage that, but to help out too--since I too have been there.
I think that I'd like to take the definition of the word god, as follows:
an entity or state of existence which as the aggregate sum of it parts is greater than can be known to the animal mind--including humans.
How does that sound, folks?
So God implies one divine omnipotent God while god means powerful but not ultimate?
Thor may not be considered a universe creator but I don't see why that means I have to write God for him in lower case.
Ugh. This is something I dislike about the English language. God, god, whatever. I'm thinking in terms of it all. And perhaps more specifically shinto "kami" when I say God. Since I don't like throwing random words from other languages into English, I said the closest English equivalent.
I don't believe in a universal creator. I believe the universe is God. And that the universe is apart from God. But that the essence that struck the universe into being didn't remain apart because it wasn't well defined. In the idea of the universe creator "God" that's just the massive essence. It is all avatars or gods put together.
Go ahead and move the thread. You said it'll get more discussion there. That's what I want, more discussion. The topic can then focus on the beliefs of the members and the Japan aspect can come second. Hopefully it will get addressed along the way.
I've had some experiences I could not explain in my life, but have often wondered about them. You can hallucinate just from being too sleepy. Perhaps I just see and hear things inconsistent with the world around me. But then again, the mind itself is a mystical thing.
I don't think it's inconsistent with science to believe in spirits. Well, I guess it depends on one's idea of science. What I mean is, there's no way to be sure there is not something beyond our universe. Or that there are occult things within our universe.
I've heard people I care about deeply and highly respect say they've seen ghosts and things. And I believe them. Also, the spiritual feeling I get from looking up Romuva, Shinto, Ghosts, Sigils, Ukko and Odin leads me to believe there's something to that feeling. That it means something. So I believe. It's like when say they've felt the holy spirit and that's why they believe.
Psychology is an infantile science. It makes me laugh when some explain away occult happenings with psychology. Hypnosis is no more legitimate than any kind of magick. imo blaming the subconscious isn't much of a step up from blaming spirits. The subconscious is quite a mystic thing. The subconscious explanation sounds like something out of a psychic power book.:blush:
Anyway I believe in these feelings. I believe they mean something. So I'm going to continue to believe in them and not become an atheist.
I wasn't exactly sure what you were getting at, but I tried to respond to what I thought you were getting at.
I person who has many many people care about them probably have a decent amount of tug on the spiritual world because of that. So...maybe celebrities do in fact have just a little bit of divinity to them. But a God...? I really...I have no clue. It's a bit of a hazy area for me anyway.
To me a god would have to have a strong soul to them. As in like a high level of ki(Japanese word for the Chinese Qi concept). Again in English that's having a high level of soul energy. Also, being a god would mean high connections to the spirit world.
Being supernatural would not be enough, because a lot of things are supernatural. Kitsune(Japanese fox legends) are said to inhabit people, most often young girls and old men. Yokai or spirits are supernatural, but they aren't considered kami, or gods in Shinto are they? Yuki Onna or Snow Girls would not be considered kami or gods would they?
So I would say no, being supernatural or a celebrity is not enough, but a supernatural person or celebrity could be a god.
Or maybe I'm wrong, I've heard that maybe the word kami, translated as god can simply mean spirit. But then why is Yokai a different word?
What does it take to become a god in the Japanese sense? How much more than a regular spirit is a "kami"?
How can a human be a god if it is human?
"You never know if the person sitting next to you is a god/goddess..."
and
"You never know if the person sitting next to you is good or bad."
so yeah. I dunno.
And thanks for putting the link here, I love that Religious Tolerance place in general. . .
Just one add, if the bloodline refers to being a god, it often becomes very silly, because the children must not necessarily be as clever or holy as their ancestors, and then the real trouble begins. . .and rather those around rule and use that empty puppet as a puppet indeed. . .wellknown sad facts in history.
Well, I have spelled this out before...I'll try to find it later. Originally in English, god was a common noun, any and every god was a god--there was no capital except at the beginning of a sentence maybe. Then came the Christians with Jewish superstition altering the word to use it as though it were the name of the god described and prescribed in Jewish and Christian religious writings. Once the King James Version went out, with the power it had with that name backing it...it became like holy writ itself.
In the English language today, the usage of the word, specifically written as "God" is in fact, by misusage today, that god of the Bible. (Although, it has become to be used for a specific god for the religion in which it is used in English--a copy of the Quran, for example, will use "God" for "Allah" (although Allah is not actually a proper noun either))
My efforts are to help keep the error from being spread. The English word god, is not to be used a name. "YHWH is a god" makes sense, while "God is a god" does not. I hope you can see my concern here. I'll be back tomorrow. I hope to have a good discussion here then.
ps the books I have use 'god' when they use it in the sense of the Japanese word 'kami,' otherwise they use the name, sense the gods do have names (proper nouns).
I can't help but get the feeling, Chi65 chan, that what you are trying to present in this thread has little bearing on the OP question in this thread. Now, in that this thread had sprung from discussion another thread, it might be that you are carrying that theme from over there, here...and then making statements along that line, thus appearing irrelevant here.
From Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary 5th Ed, 2003, pg 592. the Japanese word kami fits the general English usage, and from what I can make of the entry in 日本国語大辞典 2nd Ed, Vol 3, pg 972 (my character reading is not that good, and no time look up the ones I can't read) the general definition pretty matches general usage of the English god. The only difference will be found in belief-systems--for example the Shinto god Amaterasu-Omikami is a specific god-model, one which will not be found in any other system.
In another reference book on Japan...and I forgot to take down the bibliograph information...under the heading KAMI, gives us the general information too:
"In Shinto, the original Japanese religion, the word kami designates all divine spirits, considered 'superior' to the human condition."
It goes on to give information on the general system (god-models) that Shinto uses...such as the theological difference between the heavenly type and the earthly type. The work also points out that a few humans are considered to have become gods after death (such as Sugawara no Michizane, Ojin Tenno) and some humans, by extension, have been given the [b]title/b] kami due to exceptional talents and/or works.
The conclusion for this, then shows that the Japanese word can match that of English to a very high degree, because the English word god can readily be plugged into any of those except the title usage--where we would find the word lord instead.
I agree that we are giving consideration to difficult matters here, but it is not due Japanese cultural history, rather that what we are discussing within the range of the OP's question is indeed a difficult matter in many ways.
Now, once more...the question that we are to be looking at in this thread is as follows: Do you believe a human can be a god?
If person A and person B are using different definitions (references) for the word god when answering that question, we can say that both answers are correct in that we cannot deny their definitions--if we don'T set one first, you see. In fact, if no limits of terms and definitions are provided, all answers will be correct. In that case, the whole question is meaningless.
I will thus use my definition of god and take the position that the answer is negative. No, humans are humans, and we know of no god thus we cannot become god.
It seems to be time to compare. . .
Anyhow, even Hirohito said clearly, that he is not a god. . .
I happen to hold to a very specific definition of God that is quite separate, unique and not something that any person can somehow become.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
submit comment
