Japan’s Newest Technology Innovation: Priest Delivery
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
"Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe. " -Douglas Adams
But it's really a SaaS model of you think about it.
I really welcome the transparency this service will bring. Also, many people move to Tokyo from other regions and really don't have the "family temple" to turn to.
Spirituality as a service?
Well, it's a matter of semantics. In several Western countries, including Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Norway, Sweden such 'donations' are extracted by force from the people by the tax man, and then the state funds the church to varying degrees. Same result, different force.
Frankly, Buddhism in Japan was run like a business since the 1600s, when the government made every family register with a temple (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danka_system). This led to the development of "funerary Buddhism," in which Buddhist temples made most of their money providing funeral services and benefitted from legally mandated customer loyalty. The temples survived primarily on funeral income for a long time, and now that it's no longer legally required to register with a temple, the temples are having a pretty hard time. Most of them subsist mainly on tourism money and donations now.
Customers like Mr. Kai in the article seem just as likely to simply not use a priest at all, rather than figure out how to negotiate with the local temple that they have no roots in, if the "on-demand" service was not available.
Well if that's the case then Buddhism is pretty bad at it. It teaches that you have no self even when you are alive, much less after death.
It also does not promise reincarnation either, but rebirth, which is kind of an impersonal process.
Buddhism is remarkably compatible with the modern scientific view that the universe has neither purpose nor personality. Once you throw away the anthropocentric Judeo-Christian mindset, you are left with no external, authoritative source of purpose. Many people struggle to find an alternate source of purpose, either within themselves or in something else. This can be very stressful. Buddhism relieves you by teaching you that you don't need to try so hard, you don't even need to "be yourself". It's a strangely attractive proposition.
Granted, like any belief system people are free to pick and choose if they want, but we don't base our judgement of a belief system's "religiousness" on people who have chosen the very least amount.
Oh really, and why not?
Maybe some of us do know what it's like...
One could argue that "the very least amount" correlates roughly with Theravada buddhism which bases its practices on a set of very early talks given by the buddha that are believed to be the core teachings.
There are a _lot_ of theravada buddhists in the world, so you could say that many have chosen "the least amount".
Why do you come to HN if not to discuss things? Should we exchange credentials before being allowed to discuss things?
[1] http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/582/861/e26...
This is quite a position to put forward without providing some supporting evidence...
My take on what people get out of religion is totally different. To me, two things stick out:
1) Religion is a framework for approaching life. In the same way that a Rails developer relies on the collective wisdom encompassed by their framework to answer the question, "What is the best way to accommplish this in a web app?", a religious person leans on their framework to answer the question, "What should I do in this life circumstance?"
2) Religion is glue that binds people together into cohesive communities. And, frankly, I see the utter lack of connectedness in secular life and it seems like religious people are on to something here.
Jokes aside though, this makes a lot of sense. I would guess that in a busy urban life, religion probably gets the "no time today" treatment. The ability to get a house call, on that basis alone, seems like a smart model to follow. When you add in the problem of Japan's elderly and young shut-in population, maybe it even makes more sense.
Most likely the journalist will not answer these for you - bad journalists often rely on stereotypes and biases to appeal to your feelings of shock.
(there was a better story but I can't remember the search keywords for it…)