Atheism and agnosticism in Asian traditions?

[Politesse]

Korea formerly had a form of state Animism, called Shin-do, akin in character to Shinto (described in above posts). There was also a state-sponsored order of shaman-practitioners, or Mudang, who once wielded considerable power. South Korea secularized, North Korea officially embraced atheism, and at mid-century it was thought that the Mudang orders were in danger of going extinct, but in the last few years, many young South Korean women have been redicovering the profession, and public ceremonies are becoming more common, albeit often under the guise of "cultural displays" rather than official religious rituals. I would not describe either tradition as theistic, but as with Shinto, outsiders sometimes refer to the more powerful Shin-do spirits as gods, and the spirits that the Mudang embody in ceremony are sometimes called "the goddess".

 

[steve_bank]

An ancient Taoist mantra that is said to lead one to ultimate knowledge of the nature of reality.

Sit quietly take deep breaths and exhale as you repast the mantra emphasizing each syllable. It is said enlightment can be immediate or take years.

O-WA-TA-NA-SI-AM

 

[Sarpedon]

Did you check that for typos before posting? I'd hate to get a misspelled mantra.

 

[rousseau]

And who gets to say who the 'real' taoists are, or the 'real' christians are? You can't just pick the sort that you like better and say that their interpretation is 'correct.' In any religion there's a wide spectrum of differing beliefs, and if you have this preconception that the way Taoists look at their religion is somehow different from others, then you can probably find a few of them to support your view with.

The more correct, but challenging ways to understand religion is to look at all the traditions and see how they interact with and feed off each other. Then you will see what the 'philosophical' and 'alchemical' Taoists have in common.

The fact that taoist alchemy looks a lot like european alchemy confirms my suspicions that there is a great deal in common between the psychology of the people involved, despite their traditions being completely discontinuous. This reinforces my belief that general, superficial even definitions are the best place to start when talking about religions. Every religion will claim that it is different and better than others, and people who leave a religion are more likely to look favorably on different traditions and perhaps take their claims more credulously than they should.

I agree with this.

To me the logical extension of this is: does a religious sect being atheistic actually mean anything in practice? And if not, should we be making a distinction between an atheistic sect and bona fide atheism? Maybe a better term for 'atheists' would be the 'irreligious'. The irreligious are always atheists/agnostics, but atheists/agnostics are not always irreligious.