Carlita vs. Katzpur (Learning our Truths)

[Unveiled Artist]

Let's! [thank you for your permission]. How about you start things off? You offered in your OP to let the other person pick the topic. I'm okay with that, but I'd appreciate it if you'd maybe open the thread by listing three or four possible topics, things that would interest you, and then I'll choose from among them. I'll watch for the thread

Quote unrelated to thread.

Sure. Let me think. Hmm

Subjects:

1. I know when we say reality, we can't look outside it because our beliefs are our reality. What are logical/objective (rather than truthful/subjective) reasons that your (or my) religion is true beyond what we believe? (Our scriptures can be supporting evidence of course with commentary)

2. This one is interesting. Can we logically rather than based on opinion prove each other's beliefs as illogical in comparison to our own? (Is one faith more logical than the other in it's validity and existence rather than debating if god is real type of thing)

3. Which scripture has more logical authority to prove our beliefs are credible (even if we disagree with the conclusion)?

4. Are there logical flaws in each other's religions? How and why so? (I'm not scholar so I'm going off of what I know and read from the sutras and bible)

5. Ultimate goal of each other's faith: What makes one faith more of a logical way of seeing life than the other?

@Katzpur I can't really think of any others at the moment. We can list some more topics and find one that is worth going into more than on the surface level.

 

[Katzpur]

Quote unrelated to thread.

Sure. Let me think. Hmm

Subjects:

1. I know when we say reality, we can't look outside it because our beliefs are our reality. What are logical/objective (rather than truthful/subjective) reasons that your (or my) religion is true beyond what we believe? (Our scriptures can be supporting evidence of course with commentary)

2. This one is interesting. Can we logically rather than based on opinion prove each other's beliefs as illogical in comparison to our own? (Is one faith more logical than the other in it's validity and existence rather than debating if god is real type of thing)

3. Which scripture has more logical authority to prove our beliefs are credible (even if we disagree with the conclusion)?

4. Are there logical flaws in each other's religions? How and why so? (I'm not scholar so I'm going off of what I know and read from the sutras and bible)

5. Ultimate goal of each other's faith: What makes one faith more of a logical way of seeing life than the other?

@Katzpur I can't really think of any others at the moment. We can list some more topics and find one that is worth going into more than on the surface level.

Wow! You're one deep thinker. I'm not sure I'm going to be adequate to the challenge. I think I'd probably feel most comfortable with question #5, but I suspect that we'll end up addressing the other four questions as we explore #5. Since I know so little about Buddhism, I'm going to ask you to start. Maybe you could explain the goal of Buddhism and why you've found it to be a more logical way of seeing life than you see Christianity. That way I'll at least have some points to address.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'll give that a go. Mind you this is how I see and practice Buddhism. Like Christianity, there is such a fluctuation of beliefs for one person to speak for all.

I'm going to ask you to start. Maybe you could explain the goal of Buddhism and why you've found it to be a more logical way of seeing life than you see Christianity. That way I'll at least have some points to address.

The Buddha talked about ending suffering (our perspective and experience of an endless cycle of birth, age, sickness, and death) by understanding the mind and how we perceive the nature of life. The goal is to end suffering by changing how we view things and not attaching ourselves to what brings illness to our mind and, consequently, what affects ourselves (body and spirit) and people in the environment around us. Once we do that, that's enlightenment.​

The lineage (or denomination) I practice is Nichiren Buddhism. Nichiren Shonin is a Japanese Buddhist monk from the Ten Tai lineage. He felt that The Buddha's over 2,000 worth of scriptures (or Sutras) are summed into the Lotus Sutra. So, followers refer the Lotus Sutra as a guide to enlightenment. I try to read the other sutras to cross reference. (It's just like some Christians who only look at the New Testament while other denominations look at both old and new equally).

One thing I like that Nichiren says is "the mind is The Buddha and there is no Buddha other than the mind. Where more can you search for The Buddha than the mind itself". WND (Paraphrasing).

I find Buddhism more logical than Christianity because it's mind-centered rather than heart-centered.​

Everything we experience from how we describe as "in the heart" to eating yummy chocolate origin of interpretation of how we see these things are from the mind. In Christianity, there is a lot of "it's about the heart." When I prayed at the Church and went to confession, I felt it in my heart. However, instead of going by feelings of the heart, I find it more beneficial to understand the nature of life by understanding the mind since that's how we interpret the heart. In other words, I can't understand the nature of life by the heart. So, it's always mind first then heart.

In Mahayana Buddhism (or, to compare, protestant) we believe each of us have a pure nature.​

Different lineages view it differently. Our nature has been crude over with attachments, delusions, and things we identify as ourselves (as some would say, their sin) rather than departing from these attachments and delusions and seeing things as they truly are. The purpose is to get rid of these attachments by seeing them differently and not identifying ourselves by the horrid nature of our environment and behaviors we distaste out of habit and environmental influence.

In Christianity, of course getting rid of sin is, well, a big thing. The part that's discomforting is how we identify with sin. One of my favorite biblical passages is Galatians 2:20 "I have died in Christ. I no longer live, I but Christ in me. Insofar, I don't live for myself but for the son of god" (by memory surprisingly).

In Buddhism, we don't die to ourselves because our selves are already pure and clean. There is no person to die to.​

The "sins" die when we see them differently. When we are not attached to sin (birth, age, sickness, and death) we are free from sin. That's enlightenment. The Buddha gives the teaching to get to enlightenment but without seeking it by observing ourselves then we will never be "born again."

It's different than Christianity where Christ is the center of relieving suffering. The Passion of Christ doesn't have an equivalent to Buddhism since The Buddha always talked about life. Death never was a play in getting to that state.​

There are other points but it would be too long of a post. Mostly in my opinion, Buddhism focuses on life and Christianity focuses on death.

That's not wrong in and of itself. One needs to die to one's sins in order to be one with Christ and hence with his Father. It's just not a method or avenue I see myself in if I want to change my life for the better. It honestly makes me depressed.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry for the long post. I will cut it short.

 

[Katzpur]

I'll give that a go. Mind you this is how I see and practice Buddhism. Like Christianity, there is such a fluctuation of beliefs for one person to speak for all.

The Buddha talked about ending suffering (our perspective and experience of an endless cycle of birth, age, sickness, and death) by understanding the mind and how we perceive the nature of life. The goal is to end suffering by changing how we view things and not attaching ourselves to what brings illness to our mind and, consequently, what affects ourselves (body and spirit) and people in the environment around us. Once we do that, that's enlightenment.​

Could we talk about this "endless cycle of birth, age, sickness and death"? I admit that I know next to nothing about Buddhism, but I'm at a loss as to what the point of this endless cycle really is. You said the cycle is "endless." Somehow I was of the opinion that it was supposed to end with "enlightenment." But if this is not the case, what's the logic behind it being repetitive?​

The lineage (or denomination) I practice is Nichiren Buddhism. Nichiren Shonin is a Japanese Buddhist monk from the Ten Tai lineage. He felt that The Buddha's over 2,000 worth of scriptures (or Sutras) are summed into the Lotus Sutra. So, followers refer the Lotus Sutra as a guide to enlightenment. I try to read the other sutras to cross reference. (It's just like some Christians who only look at the New Testament while other denominations look at both old and new equally).

One thing I like that Nichiren says is "the mind is The Buddha and there is no Buddha other than the mind. Where more can you search for The Buddha than the mind itself". WND (Paraphrasing).

You know, it was only a few years ago that I came to know that "Buddha" is not the name of a deity Buddhists worship. Shortly after that, I learned that many, many Buddhists don't actually believe in God at all. To me, a religion without some kind of a deity can hardly be called a religion at all. I'm not saying that in a condemning way. It's just how I feel. So do you personally believe in a god of some sort? Or, if there is no Buddha other than the mind, do you see the human mind as being some kind of deity itself?

I find Buddhism more logical than Christianity because it's mind-centered rather than heart-centered.

I should have focused more on your use of the word "logic" when I first agreed to this discussion. I would have to agree with you that Buddhism probably is more "logical" than Christianity for the reason you stated. None of the Abrahamic religions could really be described as "logical," but I don't see how this makes them any less "valid" than Buddhism. Would you agree or disagree that there are some truths that cannot be discovered by logic? In other words, is it possible that the heart can sometimes be trusted more than the mind?​

Everything we experience from how we describe as "in the heart" to eating yummy chocolate origin of interpretation of how we see these things are from the mind. In Christianity, there is a lot of "it's about the heart." When I prayed at the Church and went to confession, I felt it in my heart. However, instead of going by feelings of the heart, I find it more beneficial to understand the nature of life by understanding the mind since that's how we interpret the heart. In other words, I can't understand the nature of life by the heart. So, it's always mind first then heart.

Do you believe there is necessarily a conflict between the two? To me, there is such a thing as absolute truth. I'm not saying, incidentally, that I have found it, just that it exists. And I believe that ultimately the mind and the heart will arrive at the same conclusion as to what it is, provided we are willing to open both of them up to all of the possibilities.

In Mahayana Buddhism (or, to compare, protestant) we believe each of us have a pure nature.

Different lineages view it differently. Our nature has been crude over with attachments, delusions, and things we identify as ourselves (as some would say, their sin) rather than departing from these attachments and delusions and seeing things as they truly are. The purpose is to get rid of these attachments by seeing them differently and not identifying ourselves by the horrid nature of our environment and behaviors we distaste out of habit and environmental influence.

In order to help me understand this, could you possibly give me a personal example of how you have been able to get rid of a negative attachment through Buddhism?

In Christianity, of course getting rid of sin is, well, a big thing. The part that's discomforting is how we identify with sin. One of my favorite biblical passages is Galatians 2:20 "I have died in Christ. I no longer live, I but Christ in me. Insofar, I don't live for myself but for the son of god" (by memory surprisingly).

In Buddhism, we don't die to ourselves because our selves are already pure and clean. There is no person to die to.

The "sins" die when we see them differently. When we are not attached to sin (birth, age, sickness, and death) we are free from sin. That's enlightenment. The Buddha gives the teaching to get to enlightenment but without seeking it by observing ourselves then we will never be "born again."

It's different than Christianity where Christ is the center of relieving suffering. The Passion of Christ doesn't have an equivalent to Buddhism since The Buddha always talked about life. Death never was a play in getting to that state.​

Wow, I'm really starting to wonder if I'm in over my head here. I'm assuming you have some sort of a concept of "sin" -- even if it differs from the Christian concept. To me, sin is the intentional violation of a religious law or moral principle (for those who believe in God) or an act that violates what one personally believes to go against one's conscience (for those who don't believe in God). So let's say a Buddhist commits some sort of an act that he personally realizes is morally repugnant (let's take rape as an extreme example). How does he free himself from the personal feelings that anyone with a conscience would feel as a result of having committed this act? How can this rapist learn to "see his having committed rape" in any other way than "sinful" (i.e. in opposition to what his own moral compass tells him is "good")? And why would he want to? Maybe I'm misunderstanding enlightenment, but to me it almost sounds like the goal is not to better oneself but to be able to be okay with our flaws.​

There are other points but it would be too long of a post. Mostly in my opinion, Buddhism focuses on life and Christianity focuses on death.

I suppose that might be true of traditional Christianity. It's definitely not true of Mormonism. (I can elaborate if you would like.)

That's not wrong in and of itself. One needs to die to one's sins in order to be one with Christ and hence with his Father. It's just not a method or avenue I see myself in if I want to change my life for the better. It honestly makes me depressed.

So are you saying that in order to change your life for the better, you you need to "see your sins differently"? And if so, how do you think you should be looking at them? Also, if there is no God (and I don't know whether you believe in one or not), what reason is there for change, particularly if the cycle you started out by describing never ends? Or, as I asked before, does it actually end when you become enlightened?

And could you explain, please, your beliefs on reincarnation? I'd be really interested in hearing them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wow! You are good. Don't worry, I can't reply to all within 10 mins. Funny, I was reading my post the same time I got your alert. To be continued...

Could we talk about this "endless cycle of birth, age, sickness and death"? I admit that I know next to nothing about Buddhism, but I'm at a loss as to what the point of this endless cycle really is. You said the cycle is "endless." Somehow I was of the opinion that it was supposed to end with "enlightenment." But if this is not the case, what's the logic behind it being repetitive?​

You know, it was only a few years ago that I came to know that "Buddha" is not the name of a deity Buddhists worship. Shortly after that, I learned that many, many Buddhists don't actually believe in God at all. To me, a religion without some kind of a deity can hardly be called a religion at all. I'm not saying that in a condemning way. It's just how I feel. So do you personally believe in a god of some sort? Or, if there is no Buddha other than the mind, do you see the human mind as being some kind of deity itself?

I should have focused more on your use of the word "logic" when I first agreed to this discussion. I would have to agree with you that Buddhism probably is more "logical" than Christianity for the reason you stated. None of the Abrahamic religions could really be described as "logical," but I don't see how this makes them any less "valid" than Buddhism. Would you agree or disagree that there are some truths that cannot be discovered by logic? In other words, is it possible that the heart can sometimes be trusted more than the mind?​

Do you believe there is necessarily a conflict between the two? To me, there is such a thing as absolute truth. I'm not saying, incidentally, that I have found it, just that it exists. And I believe that ultimately the mind and the heart will arrive at the same conclusion as to what it is, provided we are willing to open both of them up to all of the possibilities.

​

In order to help me understand this, could you possibly give me a personal example of how you have been able to get rid of a negative attachment through Buddhism?

Wow, I'm really starting to wonder if I'm in over my head here. I'm assuming you have some sort of a concept of "sin" -- even if it differs from the Christian concept. To me, sin is the intentional violation of a religious law or moral principle (for those who believe in God) or an act that violates what one personally believes to go against one's conscience (for those who don't believe in God). So let's say a Buddhist commits some sort of an act that he personally realizes is morally repugnant (let's take rape as an extreme example). How does he free himself from the personal feelings that anyone with a conscience would feel as a result of having committed this act? How can this rapist learn to "see his having committed rape" in any other way than "sinful" (i.e. in opposition to what his own moral compass tells him is "good")? And why would he want to? Maybe I'm misunderstanding enlightenment, but to me it almost sounds like the goal is not to better oneself but to be able to be okay with our flaws.​

I suppose that might be true of traditional Christianity. It's definitely not true of Mormonism. (I can elaborate if you would like.)

So are you saying that in order to change your life for the better, you you need to "see your sins differently"? And if so, how do you think you should be looking at them? Also, if there is no God (and I don't know whether you believe in one or not), what reason is there for change, particularly if the cycle you started out by describing never ends? Or, as I asked before, does it actually end when you become enlightened?

And could you explain, please, your beliefs on reincarnation? I'd be really interested in hearing them.

 

[Katzpur]

Wow! You are good. Don't worry, I can't reply to all within 10 mins. Funny, I was reading my post the same time I got your alert. To be continued...

No hurry.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have to snip some of your replies and shorten mine since there's a word cap.

Let me define enlightenment real quick. The purpose of enlightenment is liberation of the mind. Bhikkhu Bodhi says it nicely:

However, in the Buddha's teaching the criterion of genuine enlightenment lies precisely in purity of mind. The purpose of all insight and enlightened understanding is to liberate the mind from the defilement, and Nibbana itself, the goal of the teaching, is defined quite clearly as freedom from greed, hatred, and delusion. From the perspective of the Dhamma defilement and purity...correct understanding of the human situation in the world. Source

The Buddha says "an untaught worldling, O monks, experiences pleasant feelings, he experiences painful feelings and he experiences neutral feelings. A well-taught noble disciple likewise experiences pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. Now what is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists herein between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling?" Sallatha Sutta

Could we talk about this "endless cycle of birth, age, sickness and death"? I admit that I know next to nothing about Buddhism, but I'm at a loss as to what the point of this endless cycle really is. You said the cycle is "endless." Somehow I was of the opinion that it was supposed to end with "enlightenment." But if this is not the case, what's the logic behind it being repetitive?

Since life goes in a circle, everything is repetitive. The Buddha says that until we reach liberation of the mind, we will always be in an endless cycle of rebirth (birth, age, sickness, and death). The details? I'm sorry, I wish I was a pro at this. I'm still studying it myself.

To me, a religion without some kind of a deity can hardly be called a religion at all. I'm not saying that in a condemning way. It's just how I feel. So do you personally believe in a god of some sort? Or, if there is no Buddha other than the mind, do you see the human mind as being some kind of deity itself?

Gosh. No one asked me this in an honest and open way. Thank you. I had a longer reply. I cut it short. No. I don't believe in a deity. I do believe in Spirits and though I don't call myself a polytheist, it makes more sense that more than one spirit (rather than deity) takes care of us from our family, ancestors, to spirits of our environment. Nichiren Buddhist do pray to our ancestors. So, I find that comforting that I'm not meshing beliefs.

Would you agree or disagree that there are some truths that cannot be discovered by logic? In other words, is it possible that the heart can sometimes be trusted more than the mind?

I'd say Buddhism is more logical than Christianity too . In general, though, you're right, it doesn't have to be logical to be valid. What I mean by logical is a fact that is universally true even without our existence. For example, we don't have to exist for the earth to turn on its axis or one and one to make two. Religion, on the other hand, comes from human culture, tradition, and need to find solace in oneself, in other, or however one defines it. The thing is, though. Christianity says there is a god even without humans. With no humanity, there is no Buddhism. So, logic may be the eye of the beholder.

Do you believe there is necessarily a conflict between the two?

Naw. It's only differences between the two. Correct me if I'm wrong. Christianity sees more Christ coming into the heart and that's how one sees and understands things is through Christ? In Buddhism, it's how one understands things in the heart or faith is by understanding the workings of the mind.

In order to help me understand this, could you possibly give me a personal example of how you have been able to get rid of a negative attachment through Buddhism?

I'ma do this in my next post. I think I'm reaching my limit. Wish me luck?

Wow, I'm really starting to wonder if I'm in over my head here. I'm assuming you have some sort of a concept of "sin" -- even if it differs from the Christian concept. How does he free himself from the personal feelings that anyone with a conscience would feel as a result of having committed this act? How can this rapist learn to "see his having committed rape" in any other way than "sinful" (i.e. in opposition to what his own moral compass tells him is "good")? And why would he want to? Maybe I'm misunderstanding enlightenment, but to me it almost sounds like the goal is not to better oneself but to be able to be okay with our flaws.

I haven't read in the sutras so far the word sin. I know Nichiren uses the word; but, it also depends on the translators too. He uses it to refer to actions of gravity. So sin in this isn't the violation to god's laws" (You know how some say "this is a greater sin and this is less because they are basing it off of god's view rather than the sin itself). In Buddhism, it's a sin the act itself that's wrong. The action or karma. There isn't an authority person. It's part of the laws of life and described in the Dharma rather than the Dharma being the authority (or deity). If that makes sense?


The second part, naw. Seems that way. The goal is to see our flaws differently so we won't experience attachment to them. We still better ourselves--the goal to liberation. We just don't attach ourselves to our flaws in order to achieve our goal. In Christiantiy (imo) it seems the opposite. I don't know about LDS, but Catholicism teaches that you have to "sacrifice yourself" before you are resurrected. We look at our flaws, go to confession, follow what Jesus would have done in the situation, receive communion, and be resurrected in Christ. It's a beautiful experience, though most of the time it makes me feel like I've sined even though I haven't. That and I know I'm not a sinner when I don't sin; so, I find it odd to say I'm a sinner from the get go.

That's coming from an "inherited sin" view. How does LDS see that?

I suppose that might be true of traditional Christianity. It's definitely not true of Mormonism. (I can elaborate if you would like.)

Yes, please...

So are you saying that in order to change your life for the better, you you need to "see your sins differently"? And if so, how do you think you should be looking at them? Also, if there is no God (and I don't know whether you believe in one or not), what reason is there for change, particularly if the cycle you started out by describing never ends? Or, as I asked before, does it actually end when you become enlightened?

And could you explain, please, your beliefs on reincarnation? I'd be really interested in hearing them.

It's like the grieving process. When The Buddha was teaching, he was aging and dying. So, when he taught, it was as if he was in constant grief but at the same time complete acceptence of his situation and knowledge of life from his experiences. He achieved perfect wisdom and liberation. He did that not by being angry at the process as the first part of grieving. He wasn't in denial anymore. I guess the best way to see sins (birth,age, sickness, and death) differently is acceptence. The best way to live through this cycle without commitng sins (the actions rather than violation against an authority) is to develop actions that promote peace, love, and the nine yards.

It ends when you become enlightened. No one has ever explained to me what the "end" is. When I read the sutras it means perfect understanding of life, suffering (sins), and perfect wisdom etc. As for a "heaven" or place of peace, it doesn't mention that. It's more about how we think more than anything else. It's an internal peace.

I personally believe, though I haven't read this in Buddhism, that the spirits of my family are alive on earth. So, that brings me peace. I just feel that the way I see this and understand about the spirits does come from my heart but to find better understanding of how this relates to reality rather than just me, I have to start with my mind.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Katzpur It went through, ha.

My experience?

In order to help me understand this, could you possibly give me a personal example of how you have been able to get rid of a negative attachment through Buddhism?​

Meditation and chanting has helped me greatly. I believe that the Lotus Sutra sums up The Buddha's teachings and when we chant to the Dharma we inherit those teachings within us. We believe we have a pure nature and when we intune with the Dharma both in chanting meditation and in actions (showing compassion to how we pray), our actions change. We acknowledge that, find proof through the results of our actions, and thus they confirm to our minds "this works" and we continue with the practice.

That's what helps me rid myself of negative attachment. That and I still have an attachment to the "sola scriptura" outlook. I always refer to the Dharma. It has a lot of poetry in it useful for prayers. The Buddha's analogies and conversations with his disciples are intense but they help me see things a bit differently. Meditation on all of these helps. That, and we chant the Dharma as well as it being our "object of worship" for lack of better words. So, when I chant the Dharma, it's another action of my living it both in prayer and outside.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We should have debates like this more often

Let me ask. How do LDS (appropriate reference?) see life? Is it more live a life in Christ to go to heaven? How is heaven defined-is it a place, state of mind?

If Christianity (and Buddhism for that matter) doesn't need to be logical to be valid, why would we believe in what we do? If it doesn't make sense or have some coherent order besides our feelings (and in my view attachments), then why follow it?

Do you see sin as an action in and of itself (noun) or a violation (verb) against god's commandments?

I come from the complete opposite end, probably a full half turn when it comes to how we see deities. I don't understand how spirituality or religion can be a religion if one isn't focusing on who they our as their own authority, to be blunt. It's like Sapranos (if you've seen it?) when Saprano's mother says before she died "in the end we die in our own arms." If we accept that (the grieving process) then we are liberated. A deity blocks that avenue of liberation.

Can you elaborate how there can't be a religion (or something called religion) without a deity? I hear it a lot but it's always foreign to me.

Sorry, one more tonight, how do LDS see the afterlife?

 

[Katzpur]

Hey, Carlita! I've had a really busy day (was away from my computer most of the day) and the same will be the case tomorrow. I should be able to get back to all of your posts on Thursday for sure, though, so be patient!

 

[Katzpur]

Hi, Carlita. I'm back. I really do apologize for the lengthy delay. I was away from my computer for most of the day on Tuesday and Wednesday. Last night (Friday), we had a neighborhood barbeque at our house and I spent the entire day Thursday and Friday preparing for it (cleaning house and yard). I really thought I'd be able to sneak an hour or so in on RF during those two days, but as it turned out, I just didn't have any spare time.

Let me define enlightenment real quick. The purpose of enlightenment is liberation of the mind. Bhikkhu Bodhi says it nicely:

Thanks for the link to the Sallatha Sutta. I'm not 100% sure I really understood it, so I'm going to try to explain what I got out of it. It seemed to almost be teaching mind over matter. Is that right? In other words, enlightenment would be learning to deal with physical pain and suffering by training the mind to simply accept it and not to make things worse by responding in the way we normally do (grief, worry, etc.) I'll explain my beliefs on the concept of pleasure vs pain, etc., but I don't want to do that until I know that I understand yours accurately.

Since life goes in a circle, everything is repetitive. The Buddha says that until we reach liberation of the mind, we will always be in an endless cycle of rebirth (birth, age, sickness, and death). The details? I'm sorry, I wish I was a pro at this. I'm still studying it myself.

It's funny, but my initial response was that this "endless cycle" makes no sense. However, further examination of the concept leads me to see a couple of similarities between it and the LDS understanding of the purpose of God's plan for mankind and how it unfolds. I can go into that later, but won't yet since it would get pretty involved and I'd rather stick with trying to understand your beliefs first. For now, I would say that the closest thing in Mormonism to your concept of enlightenment is our concept of exaltation. But more on that later, as I said.

Gosh. No one asked me this in an honest and open way. Thank you. I had a longer reply. I cut it short. No. I don't believe in a deity. I do believe in Spirits and though I don't call myself a polytheist, it makes more sense that more than one spirit (rather than deity) takes care of us from our family, ancestors, to spirits of our environment. Nichiren Buddhist do pray to our ancestors. So, I find that comforting that I'm not meshing beliefs.

Could you explain what you actually believe a spirit is, and how it comes to exist? Do you believe that your spirit, for instance, has always existed? What is the relationship between the spirit and the physical body?

I'd say Buddhism is more logical than Christianity too . In general, though, you're right, it doesn't have to be logical to be valid. What I mean by logical is a fact that is universally true even without our existence. For example, we don't have to exist for the earth to turn on its axis or one and one to make two. Religion, on the other hand, comes from human culture, tradition, and need to find solace in oneself, in other, or however one defines it. The thing is, though. Christianity says there is a god even without humans. With no humanity, there is no Buddhism. So, logic may be the eye of the beholder.

To me, religion is simply the way that human beings see their relationship with the divine. This is why it's hard for me to understand how a worldview that doesn't believe in the divine can be considered a religion? To me, it's more of a philosophy. But that's just my own understanding, which may be flawed.

Naw. It's only differences between the two. Correct me if I'm wrong. Christianity sees more Christ coming into the heart and that's how one sees and understands things is through Christ? In Buddhism, it's how one understands things in the heart or faith is by understanding the workings of the mind.

Mormonism emphasizes understanding through both faith and reason. I think that's one of the things that draws me to it.

I haven't read in the sutras so far the word sin. I know Nichiren uses the word; but, it also depends on the translators too. He uses it to refer to actions of gravity. So sin in this isn't the violation to god's laws" (You know how some say "this is a greater sin and this is less because they are basing it off of god's view rather than the sin itself). In Buddhism, it's a sin the act itself that's wrong. The action or karma. There isn't an authority person. It's part of the laws of life and described in the Dharma rather than the Dharma being the authority (or deity). If that makes sense?

I don't think there has to be an "authority person" involved in order for there to be sin. I believe every human being is born with an innate sense of right and wrong. In Mormonism, this is called "the light of Christ." It's roughly synonymous with "conscience," so obviously a person doesn't have to be a Christian in order for it to be at work in their life.

The second part, naw. Seems that way. The goal is to see our flaws differently so we won't experience attachment to them. We still better ourselves--the goal to liberation. We just don't attach ourselves to our flaws in order to achieve our goal. In Christiantiy (imo) it seems the opposite. I don't know about LDS, but Catholicism teaches that you have to "sacrifice yourself" before you are resurrected. We look at our flaws, go to confession, follow what Jesus would have done in the situation, receive communion, and be resurrected in Christ. It's a beautiful experience, though most of the time it makes me feel like I've sined even though I haven't. That and I know I'm not a sinner when I don't sin; so, I find it odd to say I'm a sinner from the get go.

Maybe you don't think of "sinning" in the same respect as I do. Mormonism doesn't have a concept of venial sins versus cardinal sins like Catholicism does, although we do see some sins as being more serious than others. I'd probably have to say that for me personally, anything that I do that in any way violates my conscience is a sin. In other words, if I base my own value on how I compare myself to someone else (either positively or negatively), I'm sinning. If I'm not taking good care of my body, I'm sinning. If I lose patience with my husband, I'm sinning. If I'm being lazy and unproductive, I'm sinning. That probably sounds like we are so focused on sin that we must be filled with self-loathing and feelings of inadequacy. Actually, the reverse is true, because we also believe that even our desire to better ourselves is seen by God as a good thing and that He blesses us for even trying to improve. We also believe that whenever we recognize our flaws and make a commitment to overcoming them, the slate is wiped clean and we're back on the road to perfection. That's it in a nutshell, and I wouldn't want to mislead you by oversimplifying what we believe the process to be.

That's coming from an "inherited sin" view. How does LDS see that?

We totally reject the notion of "inherited sin." We believe that every person who is born is born clean and pure and free from sin. Yes, we do believe that Adam and Eve disobeyed God's commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but for us, this was exactly what God knew would happen and precisely what He knew had to happen in order for His plan for us to be fulfilled. We believe that we are, as human beings, predisposed to choose what it wrong over what is right, but we believe we will be punished only for our own sins and not for Adam's.

Wow. I think I'm starting to ramble. I'm going to stop for now and finish up later today. I've probably already given you more to try to understand than you bargained for.

I'm enjoying our conversation! Hope you are, too.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm enjoying our conversation! Hope you are, too.

I am definitely enjoying our conversation.

Hi, Carlita. I'm back. I really do apologize for the lengthy delay. I was away from my computer for most of the day on Tuesday and Wednesday. Last night (Friday), we had a neighborhood barbeque at our house and I spent the entire day Thursday and Friday preparing for it (cleaning house and yard). I really thought I'd be able to sneak an hour or so in on RF during those two days, but as it turned out, I just didn't have any spare time.

.....and I bet that barbecue was delicious too.

Thanks for the link to the Sallatha Sutta. I'm not 100% sure I really understood it, so I'm going to try to explain what I got out of it. It seemed to almost be teaching mind over matter. Is that right?

Yes, exactly. How we interpret life from our relationship with our parents to our relationship with our god(s) all originate from how we define and interpret these relationships are based on how we think.

In other words, enlightenment would be learning to deal with physical pain and suffering by training the mind to simply accept it and not to make things worse by responding in the way we normally do (grief, worry, etc.)

The first part, yes. The Buddha says to train the mind so we won't attach to suffering and make it worse than what life really is.

The second part, The Buddha doesn't ignore (my words) grieving or natural things like aging, sickness, and death. He is providing us a way to deal with such things. He says that we are in delusion because we attach to things we think are permanent. For example, when we think of love, we may say "I will experience love for god all my life. God is with me all the time. I will always be with Jesus." The Buddha is more "Yes, you love god and the next hour you may not and so forth" because we always in flux. We are always continuing in an endless cycle with our beliefs, emotions, and just life.

We basically take for granted what we hold as eternally true where The Buddha says we need to be comfortable with things "dying". We need to be comfortable with change.

That's what I love about The Buddha's teachings. They teach us how to deal with change and uncertainty. In Christianity and many faiths believers are "certain" that god (or whomever) exists or their idea of spirituality exist and never changes regardless of the shades of colors it becomes.​

I mean, yesterday, I almost got hit by two cars crossing the street. I have a vision impairment and had my white cane. They had full time to see me and was a couple of inches from running me over.

I was in shock for a good while that even though I have seizures, I had to get some wine, water, and a meal.

We do simply accept grief etc. It's not a bad thing. It's healthy if you take the "simply" out. ​

The Buddha doesn't say "you should train your mind to not react to shock", that's natural. He is saying how we perceive shock or any suffering (or sin) is always in transit. It's not static. So, instead of thinking "I will be in shock indefinitely" it's more "I understand this is shock. This is how I experience it." I had my prayer beads and prayed and doing that and the process of mental meditation, I can't say I was enlightened, but I got through it.

If I didn't have that support, I'd probably still be glued to the curb for an extra hour of the thirty minutes I stood there.

It's funny, but my initial response was that this "endless cycle" makes no sense.

Hmm. Think of recycling. Crude comparison, but nothing just disappears or appears out of think air. We just change form, combine, split, and basically everything (matter) is part of everything else. I feel humans are no different.

For now, I would say that the closest thing in Mormonism to your concept of enlightenment is our concept of exaltation. But more on that later, as I said.

I would like to know more about exaltation. I haven't heard that and interestingly you compared it to what I'm saying. You caught my attention.

Could you explain what you actually believe a spirit is, and how it comes to exist? Do you believe that your spirit, for instance, has always existed? What is the relationship between the spirit and the physical body?

Spirits are souls of the deceased and environment (sun, moon, earth, stars, etc). They exist because we exist. When we die, The Buddha talks about the our karma is what continues to exist and our actions are what dictates how we will be in the next life (and the next) until we reach full understanding of the nature of life.

Maybe if I stretched it, karma could be our spirit. In the sutras, it's defined as actions. So, I assume we are our actions in that context.​

They relate only because they are the soul of ourselves, environment, and things we own. My family looked it the same as everything else. So, the spiritual significance of a spirit is kind of foreign. I only heard about it's spiritual significance when I was introduced to Christianity more seriously five years of today.

To me, religion is simply the way that human beings see their relationship with the divine. This is why it's hard for me to understand how a worldview that doesn't believe in the divine can be considered a religion?

I see religion as an action and way of practicing our faith. I disagree that the divine needs to be part of the definition. Just my opinion.

To me, it's more of a philosophy. But that's just my own understanding, which may be flawed.

Not flawed. Maybe it's more lack of knowledge and connection based on what you know is true.

I don't think there has to be an "authority person" involved in order for there to be sin. I believe every human being is born with an innate sense of right and wrong. In Mormonism, this is called "the light of Christ." It's roughly synonymous with "conscience," so obviously a person doesn't have to be a Christian in order for it to be at work in their life.

This is Buddhist thought (in my opinion) just different terminology.

Anything that I do that in any way violates my conscience is a sin.

True. My thoughts exactly.

We totally reject the notion of "inherited sin." We believe that every person who is born is born clean and pure and free from sin.

Exactly.

Wow. I think I'm starting to ramble.

I do that too. I think I'm giving the staff more than they can chew. Not on purpose.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Katzpur Take your time, of course. From that suttra, here is something in my book that isn't mentioned in the summary:

"Beings are owners of their actions, heirs of their actions they originate fromt heir actions, are bound to their actions, have their actions as their refuge. It is action that distinguishes beings as inferior and superior." Culakammavibhaga Sutta (I couldn't find it online)

Basically, Buddhism is about our actions. Cultivating our mind brings good actions. Good actions help with our karma. When we make good karma we are lead to enlightenment. Once we find the full nature of life via our actions, we are enlightened. Free from sin.

I honestly don't understand how Jesus literally has a play in another person's actions and how he saves them from their sins. I understand the idea and experience the result of the sacraments. However, actually seeing it outside of myself and as a fact, that I don't understand.

Maybe you can shed some light (well, not now but something to think about)

 

[Katzpur]

Mostly in my opinion, Buddhism focuses on life and Christianity focuses on death.

I suppose that might be true of traditional Christianity. It's definitely not true of Mormonism. (I can elaborate if you would like.)

Yes, please...

Okay, I think at this point, I really need to take a few minutes and just give you some background on the LDS understanding of what God's purpose for humanity is, and how it differs from traditional Christianity's. Otherwise, most of my answers from this point forward really aren't going to make a whole lot of sense. I suspect my explanation is going to be longer than I'd like; unfortunately, I've never mastered the art of brevity. Actually, I hardly know where to start, so I'm going to give you a brief (sort of) point by point synopsis, and then I can elaborate on any of these points if you'd like me to.

1. We (Mormons/LDS) believe that God created our spirits from highly refined matter that was co-eternal with Him. This highly refined matter could probably best be described as "truth and light." (I'm not sure, but that sounds to me like something a Buddhist might be able to relate to.)

2. We lived in spirit form with Him for who knows how many years (perhaps billions) before we were born. Although we had no physical bodies, our spirits were fully cognizant beings, capable of learning and understanding and decision-making.

3. We actually chose to be able to experience mortality, knowing that it might include a lot of suffering (but probably hoping that it wouldn't). In other words, every person who has ever been born or will ever be born actually made the decision to do so.

4. We knew that we would have to go through the ups and downs of life in order to eventually become like God, our Father in Heaven. The idea that it is necessary for us to experience an existence where we are exposed to both good and evil is fundamental to Mormon theology.

5. Attaining exaltation was our goal, but we understood it came with risks. To begin with, we knew that God's standard for us was that we be "perfect... even as [He] is perfect." We also understood that there would be consequences for our disobedience and failure to perform up to God's standard.

6. The consequence for sin would be eternal separation from God or the payment of the debt owed for the sin's committed.

7. We had essentially two options: We could either accept the punishment for our sins (this would not be a "Lake of Fire" but the emotional torment and anguish we brought upon ourselves through our sins) or we could accept the gift of grace offered by God's Son, Jesus Christ.

8. Because, unlike any of us, He was already perfect, He was in a position to be able to pay the price for us, thereby sparing us the punishment we would otherwise deserve. Furthermore, this is something that -- because of His absolute and unconditional love for us -- He actually wanted to do.

9. As I said before, we believe that we all came into this world completely free from sin. We also believe that there is not one of us who will go through our entire life without committing sins of some sort.

10. A Mormon/LDS baptism, typically performed at the age of eight (the age at which we believe a child has the maturity to recognize right from wrong), enables us to enter into what we call a "covenant relationship" with Jesus Christ.

11. When we are baptized, we commit ourselves to our Savior, Jesus Christ. In so doing, we make a promise that we will do our best to live as we know we should. We believe that He, in turn, agrees to take our sins upon himself, freeing us from punishment and allowing us to be able to live knowing that our sins are forgiven. As I said before, we believe we are blessed even for our desire and effort to live in accordance with God's will.

12. We believe that, upon death, the human spirit leaves the body where it resided during mortality and continues to exist in what we call "the Spirit World." LDS prophets have said that the Spirit World is really right here on earth. This would be why we are occasionally able to feel the presence of our loved ones who have died.

13. For us, death is not "the end." Spirits in the Spirit World can continue to learn and grow and change for the better. Their choices during this intermediate period between mortality and the resurrection will definitely have an impact on their eternal destiny. Those who did not accept Jesus Christ's offer of salvation during mortality may still be able to do so.

14. At a time appointed by God, the bodies of all who have ever lived will rise to new life and the spirits which occupied them in mortality will be reunited with their respective bodies. Our resurrected bodies will be made immortal, never again to be subject to disease, deformity, injury or death.

15. Each resurrected person will then be called individually to stand before God to be judged. Almost all will end up receiving a degree of heavenly glory -- for having done nothing more than be willing to experience mortal life. Those who kept the terms of the covenant they entered into with Jesus Christ will be granted exaltation, which is the opportunity to progress literally forever, ultimately being privileged to attain perfection and to have all of the attributes of our God.

That's it in a nutshell. At least, that's as concise as I could make it without leaving out something really important. I could elaborate on every one of these points, but hey... this isn't all about me. Watch for another post either today or tomorrow, where I continue responding to your posts where I left off.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Okay, I think at this point, I really need to take a few minutes and just give you some background on the LDS understanding of what God's purpose for humanity is, and how it differs from traditional Christianity's. Otherwise, most of my answers from this point forward really aren't going to make a whole lot of sense. I suspect my explanation is going to be longer than I'd like; unfortunately, I've never mastered the art of brevity. Actually, I hardly know where to start, so I'm going to give you a brief (sort of) point by point synopsis, and then I can elaborate on any of these points if you'd like me to.

--Thank you for sharing your faith in a nutshell. It is very different than what I am used to in mainstream Christianity. Forgive me if my pendulum swings to far opposite.

I'll compare and contrast what you believe with mine, opinions, and questions. This won't be in all one post (had to use note-pad just in case I clicked the wrong button) but I hope my lack of brevity doesn't bother you as much either.

This will be in parts.

Part 1:

1. We (Mormons/LDS) believe that God created our spirits from highly refined matter that was co-eternal with Him. This highly refined matter could probably best be described as "truth and light." (I'm not sure, but that sounds to me like something a Buddhist might be able to relate to.)

-Two question marks went in my head about "truth and light" actually. Is it similar to when Jesus says "I am the light of he world"?

-I looked it up and it brought John 2:21 "But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."

-Basically what you have done for Jesus you have done for god, and that is truth...and the light is possibly the awareness or realization of this truth?

-In Buddhism (always coming from my belief and opinion) truth would be the Dharma. Light, if I made a comparison, would be the Way (Realiziation as an intemediary to truth). Zen Buddhism talks about the Way. The Dharma or teachings of The Buddha are the Way to know the Buddha's mind, his enlightenment. In Nichiren Buddhism, we see that enlightenment as the Buddha's actual mind. So when we experience the light (revelation), it is our own mind which is that of The Buddha's.

-The truth, interpreted by Nichiren but expounded by The Buddha in the Lotus Sutra, they say that To chant (read, recite, and write) "Myoho Renge Kyo (The Lotus Sutra) with this is to inherit the ultimate Law of life and death (the Lotus). This is a matter of the utmost importance for Nichiren's disciples and lay supporters, and this is what it means to embrace the Lotus Sutra." Writings of Nichiren Diashonin (WND) 216

-I'd have to look it up, but I think in some lineages, Light is used in Buddhism. In the Pure Land sect they have, what I was told by the priest, more of a christian similiary. Heaven, concept of god, things of that nature. As for the original Buddhist teachings-Theravada, the word Light I haven't read. I'd have to ask.

2. We lived in spirit form with Him for who knows how many years (perhaps billions) before we were born. Although we had no physical bodies, our spirits were fully cognizant beings, capable of learning and understanding and decision-making.

-This is the first time learning this. I do agree that spirits are full beings, can learn, and make decisions. I can't really say to much about living in spirit for with god, though. I don't think Buddhism has an equivelant. I think Hindu does, which Buddhism takes a lot from; but, I'd have to ask. In Nichiren's point of view, he was influenced by the native beliefs of Japan such as Shintism. So, he did believe in the sun god and the moon god etc. We also believe in our ancestors; so, I guess you can say we are all one mind. But I wouldn't compare mind with god.

3. We actually chose to be able to experience mortality, knowing that it might include a lot of suffering (but probably hoping that it wouldn't). In other words, every person who has ever been born or will ever be born actually made the decision to do so.

-Interesting. This reminds me of the story of Lucifer and his decision to rebell against god. I'm sorry to compare it to Lucifer, do you think just as he has a decision, that is why you can make decisions before birth as well?

-In Buddhism, since everything is about actions, the decisions we make on earth tells us where we will be during rebirth in the next and next. So, I guess you can say we make decisions before hand. Then we also do so in the present, and to extend it, in the future as well. Kind of deep.

4. We knew that we would have to go through the ups and downs of life in order to eventually become like God, our Father in Heaven. The idea that it is necessary for us to experience an existence where we are exposed to both good and evil is fundamental to Mormon theology.

-That would mean the decision to come here on earth is to experience existence in order to know good and evil to be with god?

-Would it not make sense to live with god without going through the experience of pain etc?

-Would it be right to say it's worth staying with god rather than depart from him to experience bad, ask for his salvation, to be back with him again?

-In my point of view, that is kind of like wanting to experience suffering so I can create good karma rather than make good karma to prevent suffering. I was reading the Tibetan Book of Living and Death and the author was saying that Westeners are afraid of or in denial of death. They separate it from life (hence the "veil" between one world and the next, for example). So, the author tells us to practice ways to experience death so we are comfortable with rebirth and as a result, not unnaturally react to pain and suffering.

-It's an interesting comparison. I haven't read that in Mahayana Buddhism and definitely not in Nichiren.

5. Attaining exaltation was our goal, but we understood it came with risks. To begin with, we knew that God's standard for us was that we be "perfect... even as [He] is perfect." We also understood that there would be consequences for our disobedience and failure to perform up to God's standard.

-Is exaltation a way to be god? (I keep hearing myths(?) about LDS wanting to become god). I guess another way to ask, exltation a way to be perfect just as god? Not making yourself the creator but like Jesus one with the creator?

-In Buddhism we want to obtain The Buddha's enlightenment (ours) but not become The Buddha himself. Instead, some schools look to become Buddha's themselves. The school (and similiar schools) I practice with are more concerned with helping other people become Buddhas before ourselves. So, instead of exaltation to The Buddha's mind, we keep ourselves as a Bodhisattva, and help others to reach that exaltation before we do so.

-I am not sure, but I think when we do, we become Buddhas. There are some schools that say we are already Buddha's because of our pure nature (similar to what you are saying about a clean nature until the age of eight). We call it Buddha-nature. There's a lot of debate if this nature exist, what is it called, and so forth. I believe we all have it.

-I think we are in an agreement there about the pure nature.

6. The consequence for sin would be eternal separation from God or the payment of the debt owed for the sin's committed.

7. We had essentially two options: We could either accept the punishment for our sins (this would not be a "Lake of Fire" but the emotional torment and anguish we brought upon ourselves through our sins) or we could accept the gift of grace offered by God's Son, Jesus Christ.

-That makes sense. I actually think separate from god is worse than hell and fire to tell you honestly.

8. Because, unlike any of us, He was already perfect, He was in a position to be able to pay the price for us, thereby sparing us the punishment we would otherwise deserve. Furthermore, this is something that -- because of His absolute and unconditional love for us -- He actually wanted to do.

11. When we are baptized, we commit ourselves to our Savior, Jesus Christ. In so doing, we make a promise that we will do our best to live as we know we should. We believe that He, in turn, agrees to take our sins upon himself, freeing us from punishment and allowing us to be able to live knowing that our sins are forgiven. As I said before, we believe we are blessed even for our desire and effort to live in accordance with God's will.

-Tell me something. If I heard and read about someone on the other side of the world I have never met and found out he (or she) was perfect, what in my mind and motivation would I want him or her to take my sins because he written that he would do so?

-Say, I can't travel to meet him. I only know him from his ancestors ancestors and that wasn't that long ago. So, would it not be questionable to put trust and receive love from someone you have also a physical connection with?

-I've had one online crush and she is in Chili. We known each other for almost four years. I will never forget her. However, even though I know her personally, "met" her family, and comfort her through her mother's passing, that physical and literal (not just spirit-ual) connection, like a marriage, is needed to make that bond.

-Without that "ring" what motivates you or let's you know that what you read and experience is true of one person compared to another given they (any spiritual leader) is not present to share your hand?

continued...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Part 2

12. We believe that, upon death, the human spirit leaves the body where it resided during mortality and continues to exist in what we call "the Spirit World." LDS prophets have said that the Spirit World is really right here on earth. This would be why we are occasionally able to feel the presence of our loved ones who have died.

9. As I said before, we believe that we all came into this world completely free from sin. We also believe that there is not one of us who will go through our entire life without committing sins of some sort.

-I agree to that. The Buddha said life is suffering because we are born into this life. So, we can't quite excape it even though we are born pure from the start.

10. A Mormon/LDS baptism, typically performed at the age of eight (the age at which we believe a child has the maturity to recognize right from wrong), enables us to enter into what we call a "covenant relationship" with Jesus Christ.

-Nice

-I guess in my view there isn't an "age of maturity". As soon as we are born we are born into delusions and such. When we (well, I haven't yet formally) take the precepts-like taking the ten commandments-do not kill, do not take intoxicants, etc then we become disciples of the Buddha. So, I guess covenant can be used. Relationship, though, I'd personally say a relationship with life itself. However, since the Dharma are teachings rather than a person, I'd find it weird to say I have a relationship with it in a literal sense.

-Though I understand what you mean.

13. For us, death is not "the end." Spirits in the Spirit World can continue to learn and grow and change for the better. Their choices during this intermediate period between mortality and the resurrection will definitely have an impact on their eternal destiny. Those who did not accept Jesus Christ's offer of salvation during mortality may still be able to do so.

12. We believe that, upon death, the human spirit leaves the body where it resided during mortality and continues to exist in what we call "the Spirit World." LDS prophets have said that the Spirit World is really right here on earth. This would be why we are occasionally able to feel the presence of our loved ones who have died.

-This one I agree with 100 percent. Spirit World, I wouldn't say unless making a point or discussion (like this one) of one stage of life from another. In Buddhism, we continue on stage after stage. I don't know if it's a Buddhist teaching that we are on earth; but, I do believe in the presence of our loved ones and they too are going through the path towards enlightenment.

-Which makes me think just now, The Buddha talks about our actions tell us where we will go (the anguish or pleasure of the state of mind rather than place) depending on what actions we make for good or for worse. It's in the beginning of the Cjakammavibhanga Sutta I linked earlier. The longer version is a good read if you have the time to. Let me know if you want me to find it.

13. For us, death is not "the end." Spirits in the Spirit World can continue to learn and grow and change for the better. Their choices during this intermediate period between mortality and the resurrection will definitely have an impact on their eternal destiny. Those who did not accept Jesus Christ's offer of salvation during mortality may still be able to do so.

--Agree to the first part. In mainstream Christianity excluding Catholicism, if you have not accepted Jesus' Offering, you won't have salvation. Same as, if I give you a lollipop and you say I don't want it, logically, unless you forcefully put it in my hands, I wouldn't receive it. In Catholicism, once a person has willingly taken the sacraments (taken the lollipop), then one is saved by grace.

--Is your view similar to Catholicism for example, once a child is baptized, that child is saved even if she doesn't accept Jesus' offer? What happens when they don't?

14. At a time appointed by God, the bodies of all who have ever lived will rise to new life and the spirits which occupied them in mortality will be reunited with their respective bodies. Our resurrected bodies will be made immortal, never again to be subject to disease, deformity, injury or death.

15. Each resurrected person will then be called individually to stand before God to be judged. Almost all will end up receiving a degree of heavenly glory -- for having done nothing more than be willing to experience mortal life. Those who kept the terms of the covenant they entered into with Jesus Christ will be granted exaltation, which is the opportunity to progress literally forever, ultimately being privileged to attain perfection and to have all of the attributes of our God.

-Nods-

That's it in a nutshell. At least, that's as concise as I could make it without leaving out something really important. I could elaborate on every one of these points, but hey... this isn't all about me. Watch for another post either today or tomorrow, where I continue responding to your posts where I left off.

-Gosh. Take your time with this one. This will be in three parts.

Take care.

Nam.

 

[Katzpur]

It's like the grieving process. When The Buddha was teaching, he was aging and dying. So, when he taught, it was as if he was in constant grief but at the same time complete acceptence of his situation and knowledge of life from his experiences. He achieved perfect wisdom and liberation. He did that not by being angry at the process as the first part of grieving. He wasn't in denial anymore. I guess the best way to see sins (birth,age, sickness, and death) differently is acceptence. The best way to live through this cycle without commitng sins (the actions rather than violation against an authority) is to develop actions that promote peace, love, and the nine yards.

I don't know all that much about Taoism, but this sort of sounds like what I do know about Taoism -- the idea that you just need to learn acceptance or how to go with the flow. In other words, since there are some things that you can't change, no matter how much you wish you could, your best response to them is to just ride them out. Are the two religions related, do you know?

It ends when you become enlightened. No one has ever explained to me what the "end" is. When I read the sutras it means perfect understanding of life, suffering (sins), and perfect wisdom etc. As for a "heaven" or place of peace, it doesn't mention that. It's more about how we think more than anything else. It's an internal peace.

This is just a thought... If I'm understanding you correctly, then the Buddha must still exist and still aware, but have come to where he is no longer troubled by the things that still trouble everyone else. He's just at complete peace with the world.

I personally believe, though I haven't read this in Buddhism, that the spirits of my family are alive on earth. So, that brings me peace. I just feel that the way I see this and understand about the spirits does come from my heart but to find better understanding of how this relates to reality rather than just me, I have to start with my mind.

It brings me peace, too. It's one of the things I like best about Mormonism and one of the ways it differs from traditional Christianity.

 

[Katzpur]

Meditation and chanting has helped me greatly. I believe that the Lotus Sutra sums up The Buddha's teachings and when we chant to the Dharma we inherit those teachings within us. We believe we have a pure nature and when we intune with the Dharma both in chanting meditation and in actions (showing compassion to how we pray), our actions change. We acknowledge that, find proof through the results of our actions, and thus they confirm to our minds "this works" and we continue with the practice.

That's what helps me rid myself of negative attachment. That and I still have an attachment to the "sola scriptura" outlook. I always refer to the Dharma. It has a lot of poetry in it useful for prayers. The Buddha's analogies and conversations with his disciples are intense but they help me see things a bit differently. Meditation on all of these helps. That, and we chant the Dharma as well as it being our "object of worship" for lack of better words. So, when I chant the Dharma, it's another action of my living it both in prayer and outside.

This is really interesting. You know, it almost seems to me that a person could chant whatever phrase was meaningful to him and it would have essentially the same result as chanting the Dharma. I'm still a little bit confused about the concept of "negative attachment." I feel like maybe it's just referring to negative ideas, thoughts and feelings that you have that you don't seem to be able to get rid of. Is that right? Obviously, replacing them with positive feelings would have to have some benefit, but this would require effort, since the negative ones seem to be so set on sticking around!

I've just got to add one quick thought. I have always been of the impression that Sola Scriptura was a Protestant doctrine and not a Catholic doctrine. It originated with the Protestant Reformation, I'm like 99% sure. I thought Catholics specifically rejected this doctrine since they also believe in Holy Tradition (which would encompass teachings not specifically found in the Bible). I think this is one "negative attachment" you can safely cast aside, and move onto something else!

 

[Katzpur]

Let me ask. How do LDS (appropriate reference?) see life?

We LDS (yes, that's an appropriate reference, although we don't mind "Mormon" either), believe that God's purpose in creating us is for us to have joy. That doesn't mean that every moment of life is going to be filled with joy. It just means that successfully completing this experience of mortality will bring us more joy that we can every begin to conceive of. I have never been able to get a satisfying answer to that question (why did God create us?) from any non-LDS Christian. I do occasionally hear that God created us so that we could have joy, but then Adam and Eve went and messed things up, putting God in a position where His only real option was to cast them out of Eden and into a world that was going to be a miserable place for them and all of their posterity. We LDS don't see it that way at all. We believe that the Fall of Adam was exactly what was supposed to happen and that it was really just a temporary fall from which we as human beings could begin an ascent to something much better than Adam and Eve ever had. So what this gets down to is that we see God as having created us for 100% unselfish reasons. Mortality is just one stage of our existence, but it's an absolutely necessary one.

Is it more live a life in Christ to go to heaven?

Well, for starters, we believe (as I mentioned previously) that essentially everyone who has ever lived will end up going to Heaven. We don't think of "salvation" the way most Christians do. We see it not so much as being plucked from an eternity of terrible suffering because of a belief in Jesus Christ, as of the opportunity to attain perfection through trusting in His sacrifice for us and His continually lifting us to an ever higher plane. Our focus in life is on personal growth and betterment, and on helping others along this path, too. We think a lot more about what we can become than about what we are going to have the good fortune of being able to avoid. Little LDS kids are never, ever, ever threatened with hell-fire and damnation. Instead, they are constantly told how much God loves them and wants to help them find their way back to Him.

How is heaven defined-is it a place, state of mind?

For us, it's definitely a very real place. Of course, it's not just a place. If it were just a place, we could be miserable there just as easily as anywhere else. So it's a state of mind, too. But since many Christians think of it solely as a state of mind, we focus on it being our heavenly home, a place where we will live in God's presence and surrounded by our loved ones, going back for as many generations as have ever existed. We see ourselves as literally the spirit offspring of God, so that gives us a real sense of self-worth and of being personally known and loved by Him.

If Christianity (and Buddhism for that matter) doesn't need to be logical to be valid, why would we believe in what we do? If it doesn't make sense or have some coherent order besides our feelings (and in my view attachments), then why follow it?

I think it does need to be logical. I know that in my earlier comments, I said that Buddhism was probably more logical than Christianity. What I meant by that was that Christianity requires faith in something that can't be seen, a Deity who created us, who cares about us and who desires to help us on our path back to Him. Belief in this unseen Being requires faith in what can't be proven, whereas Buddhism seems to rely solely on the functions and working of the human mind. The functions and workings of the human mind are more provable to second parties than the spiritual experiences Christians have when they feel a connection with God.

Do you see sin as an action in and of itself (noun) or a violation (verb) against god's commandments?

Hmmm. I'm not quite sure I understand. I see sin as being an action, of course, but it's a "sin" because it impedes our progress and growth. It's a disappointment to God when we sin, but this is primarily because He understands so fully that in order to be truly happy, we cannot be sinful.

I come from the complete opposite end, probably a full half turn when it comes to how we see deities. I don't understand how spirituality or religion can be a religion if one isn't focusing on who they our as their own authority, to be blunt. It's like Sapranos (if you've seen it?) when Saprano's mother says before she died "in the end we die in our own arms." If we accept that (the grieving process) then we are liberated. A deity blocks that avenue of liberation.

I guess this is going to have to be a point on which we're going to have to agree to disagree. If God, my Father in Heaven, is trying to give me tools to enable my growth and development, it hardly seems as if He is blocking my avenue of liberation. He isn't the enemy; He's our biggest advocate.

Can you elaborate how there can't be a religion (or something called religion) without a deity? I hear it a lot but it's always foreign to me.

I probably can't, at least not to your satisfaction. I've just always thought of religion as involving some Higher Power. As a matter of fact, my understanding of religion matches the dictionary definition perfectly. Could you explain how you see a religion as differing from a philosophy? Because to me, a religion without God is really just a philosophy. I don't know if this is the best article out there on the subject, but I did come up with this in a google search.

Sorry, one more tonight, how do LDS see the afterlife?

I'm going to give you an abbreviated answer to this, at least for now. We believe in a Heaven comprised of three primary "degrees of glory." (These are, incidentally, referenced in the Bible, but overlooked by traditional Christianity.) Jesus Christ said He was going to "reward every man according to His works." To us, that doesn't mean that the more righteous person is going to end up as first chair in the harp section of some heavenly orchestra, or be given a gold halo as opposed to a brass one, or a whiter, fluffier cloud to lounge about on. It means that the ultimate reward for the most righteous is to become like God, to have knowledge and power and majesty that we cannot even conceive of at this time. We will also be in God's actual presence (and to us, He is not merely some force, but a heavenly Parent), and in the presence of those we love, having the same relationships with them as we did on earth. Those who don't attain exaltation will not have all of these blessings, but they will have an eternity of peace and rest and happiness that far exceeds what they have known on earth.

You've got to let me catch up! I'm so far behind!