Carlita vs. Katzpur (Learning our Truths)

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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!

Dont worry. Im at the skating rink. Have as much time as you need!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You gave me a lot to chew on. I will be busy all tomorrow; so, I might not be as detailed in my answers until the evenings.

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?

To tell you honestly, I'm not familiar with Taoism strictly. Here is a Differences and Comparison of Buddhism and Taoism. It's not a "academic" source, but below are my comments and how I see it from the Buddhist side. Religion Library seems to be more reliable but I can't verify the latter.

As I understand Tao, it means an underlining force behind life. I think it is more similar to Christianity than Buddhism even though the origins tao and mahayana buddhism are local if not neighbors. If you take Jesus and the Creator from the picture, and leave only the Holy Spirit and make it less of a personal relationship but more of seeing the spirit (not person) as something that sustains life, then that is the closest to Tao I can think of.

In Buddhism, in general, I don't see an equivalent. From what I know of Theravada (oldest school of Buddhism), each person is focused on his own realization to be future Buddhas. Since there is no Buddha-nature or one seed in each person that will be Buddha, in that sense there is no Tao. It's like reaching for the Tao (or spirit or seed) but only working to get there.

The school I practice sees this differently. We feel we already have the seeds to be Buddhas. Nichiren says that what we do (as the actions I mentioned earlier) makes us Buddhas already. Basically, when we live, we already live The Buddha's mind. Comparing that to mainstream and LDS Christianity. Mainstream would say "We will get there if we believe or do this or that" and what I'm hearing you say is "we are there because we do this or that." Nichiren Buddhists see it in the same context as LDS.

The details of Tao beyond the force of life whether describe as a nature, seed, spirit, or force, I think that's another topic I'm can't talk about intelligently.

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.

Exactly!

"..Constantly I have preached the Law, teaching, converting countless millions of living beings, causing them to enter the Buddha way, all of this for immeasurable kalpas. In order to save living beings, as an expedient means I appear to enter nirvana but in truth I do not pass into extinction, I am always here, preaching the Law. I am always here, but through my transcendental powers I make it so that living beings in their befuddlement do not see me even when they are close by..." The 16th Chapter of the Lotus Sutra​

I see it as, if The Buddha wasn't here then the Dharma really doesn't mean much more than my reading another inspirational book. Going back to mainstream Christianity, it is almost like without Jesus then how can the Bible be worthy of being god's word, type of thing. I slip into that thinking.

In Buddhism in general, this is a form of attachment. Using things like teachings, gods, and even positive things as definitions of our enlightenment. (Making them idols, in other words).

Sorry, I'm rambling. Yes, he is at total peace. It reminds me of what my mother said when her mother passed. My grandmother wanted her funeral (she was dying) in all white. When she passed away, she had a smile on her face. She was at total peace.

Many of us get to that state after acceptance. What interest me about The Buddha is he got to that state before his enlightenment (or acceptance of the nature of life). He says he knew before he was born. He had a realization rather than finding something new. I think that's how we should approach life, really. "Nothing special." Letter B?

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 want to say no, but objectively, yes.

The difference is the goal of the chanting. I don't believe chanting any meaningful phrase would help that individual understand the nature of life unless he is faced in idea, experience, and/or whatever means by life and death (the Lotus). Nichiren Buddhist do this by chanting the title of the Lotus Sutra but it goes beyond the chanting. If that meaningful phrase doesn't show him what it means to die (suffering or nature of sin), then how, in my opinion, can it show him the meaning of life?

I always use objectively because I know other Buddhist may be cringing their teeth right now. Then again, when you think of it, if your faith is your reality, how can you see your faith as not objective.

continued...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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?

Yes. If you have time and interest, you can read about The Hindrances to Mental Development I have the abridged version; so, this may be a bit too much. It's basically talking about what is keeping us from liberation of the mind. Things like lust (in general rather than sexual oriented), ignorance, hatred, and so forth.

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!

Yes, a lot of effort. The Buddha's disciples have been trying to succeed in this for ages. In Nichiren Buddhism, we believe that we are already in the stage of enlightenment. So, instead of going to the goal, we are living the goal. It's unfolding around us rather than it becoming not blurred the closer we get to it.

That's one of many reasons I like Mahayana Buddhism point of view from Zen, Nichiren, and others is that sense of journey and "we already have it" we just have to realize it type of thing.

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!

Haha! You caught me. Nah. My outer family are all sola scripturians. Every time I talk to my uncle, his "hello" is: have you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior. My immediate family are far from Christian, but we still got the influence.​

You are right, Catholics (Roman Catholicism specifically), 100 percent rejects sola scriptura. They feel, per their CCC, that apostolic tradition has the same meaning and spiritual benefit etc as that of scripture.

Yes, both are attachments. The Buddha didn't say all attachments are negative, though. He says instead the ones that block one from enlightenment are ones to avoid. This means the positive ones to. For example, Nichiren talks about Buddhist monks holding on to their statues and chanting in front of the statues as it inspires them to bring out the Dharma in them rather than chanting to the Dharma itself. Basically reminds me of the protestant vs. catholic debate.​

Interestingly enough, the "protestants" of Nichiren Buddhism (Shu and SGI among others respectively) were part of the "Catholics" of Nichiren Buddhism (Nichiren Shoshu priesthood). The president of SGI had a political fall out with the priests and Shoshu excommunicated all SGI followers. They have been bickering ever since. That's how I came to this practice was through Shoshu. Given the political heat and their expressed hatred even in their practice and conversation with SGI, I left. SGI centers are closer to me but I'm an "independent" chanting with friends.

It got so bad that Shoshu didn't want SGI to have their Gohonzon (Lotus Sutra Dharma on a scroll) sacrament which used to be open for everyone to chant to (like the Eucharist). Then SGI started creating their own and now they are bickering about who has the "real" Dharma. It turns a lot of people away from the practice. However, I feel if they can get passed the politics (like if people can get pass the gold in Catholic Churches), then they can see similarities we have with the older teachings of The Buddha.

Anyway, another ramble...to be continued?

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.

This is just a repeat question from another post. It seems odd to me to want or choose mortality if you already was with god from the start. Why would you (LDS) want mortality if you were already with god?

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.

I think this is beautiful. I never knew how LDS parents teach their children. I actually didn't know so many people were indoctrinated forcefully in the Church until RF. I am sure, honestly saying, LDS has more of a uplifting history than Catholicism.

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.

I like that.

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.

That makes sense. I don't really mind about things that don't need to be proven. For example, our Buddha-nature can't be proven even though to me and many people it's common sense for it to be put under a microscope. Nichiren talks a lot about faith. He defines it as trust in actions rather than trust in beliefs.

The way you make it sound, though, is as though Buddhism is more impersonal and Christianity more personal.

To tell you honestly, I can't say which is more personal because in Catholicism, you had a literal relationship with the sacraments. It wasn't based on just belief, but an action and partaking in Christ's body. In Nichiren Buddhism (and some Mahayana sects, more than likely), it's an intense literal connection with the Dharma. The Dharma not only being a teaching but also a sacrament. In Buddhism in general, knowing The Buddha is knowing yourself.

I find both are personal but I can see why Christianity would be less "provable". They are both valid in their own right.

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.

Aah, I see. The Buddha doesn't use the word sin but the hindrances like ignorance and hatred would be called sin because it impedes, likewise, from our personal progress and growth. I think the difference is not really what is a sin but the context of why it's a sin. The Buddha feels that sin studs or mental growth and progress which leads to a less pleasant life. So, we are disappointing ourselves when we don't take care of ourselves healthily (spiritually speaking).

I hope you can follow, but this is a brief of Buddhism, Theravada, Mahayana, and Nichiren Buddhism (denomination)

Quick note:

Buddhism: Self-revelation, cultivating one's mind through actions and helping others.

Theravada: Revelation of one's self (above) via knowing oneself first as a foundation of helping others.

Mahayana: Acknowledgement (rather than revelation) of one's self (or nature) to help others as so to find revelation in oneself.

Nichiren Buddhism: The same goal as Mahayana but we specifically do so by studying, reciting, and chanting the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren Shu uses Pali Canon so I likened to their approach but their monastery is on the other side of the states from me.

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.

That's logical. We'd have to disagree on the logistics

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.

Don't worry, I read it all

This caught me:

Philosophy and religion are related. By general understanding, religion is composed of a set of morals, rules, principles, and ethics that serve to guide one’s way of living. Philosophy, on the other hand, is a bigger domain of discipline that tackles many concepts like: metaphysics, the search for the ultimate truth, knowledge, and life itself.​

Buddhism has a set of morals, rules, principles, and ethics and it tackles topics such as metaphysics, ultimate truth, knowledge, and life itself...

We do this by having an

Object or person of worship: Most Buddhist "object" of worship is themselves/minds rather than a god, nature, or object. They may not call it worship, but the reverence, application, and practice (worship) makes that Buddhist religious.

Temples/Places of worship/things of that nature.

God or concept of divinity: Theravada has many gods (and devas and so forth). Mahayana has countless Buddhas and Bodhisattvas some human some not. It's not an atheistic religion, though people treat it as such. We just don't worship a higher power.

Higher power: In all sects, the "higher power" would be the Dharma. However, described etc, what guides that person's life (what's higher) and what is most important (power) is the religion or moral pathway he takes up. So, Buddhist do this in many ways.

I know I am stretching the universal accepted definition of the term religion given we are in a christian environment. Though, idegeneous cultures, like Buddhism once was, didn't have a word for religion. It was all a part of life. No separation between devas and gods and humans. In the Lotus Sutra, they all heard The Buddha preach at their own level of understanding.

I'd have to know about Indian cosmology and mythology etc to understand how they view culture and define "god" and "deva" but as for Buddhism being a religion, in a general sense, it very much is.

From a Christian view point, well, not so much. As long as you understand even if you disagree.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I type faster than I can think so don't mind me.

 

[Katzpur]

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.

I agree completely with that. Actually, the concept reminds me a little bit of of a story an LDS author and motivational speaker once related. He tells the story about when he was a younger man, and was going through some particularly hard times. He finally went to his bishop with his problems and his bishop told him, “Don't worry John. I know things seem hopeless right now, but trust me: This will pass." The next day John felt much better and he was filled with comfort and understanding and happiness. Well, he happened to run into his bishop again that day and he said, "Bishop, you were right! It did pass! Everything’s okay again!" And his bishop responded, "That’s great! But, John, this too shall pass." Whether we are experiencing bad times or good times, it can be said with remarkable accuracy that “this too shall pass.”

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 agree. I think that's really an excellent way to look at it. I think that Christians, in particular, could learn from that. I'm not sure about traditional Christians, but I know that when some Mormons have a faith crisis and start to doubt certain things they've always believed, it just about kills them. I'm this way, too, to a certain extent, but I've learned a few coping mechanisms over the years.​

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.

Wow! That must have been terrifying, especially once it was all over and you had time to think about it.

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.[/quote]

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.

Yeah, I can buy that. Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, taught that there is no immaterial matter. Consequently, Mormons don't believe in an ex nihilo creation. We believe, instead, that God created our world -- and our spirits -- out of matter that was already in existence. I know a lot of Christians who recoil from that concept, as if this makes God less great. Mormons don't see it that way. Heck, if you can create a universe and all forms of life out of unorganized matter, that's pretty impressive to me.

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.

I'm not sure what more I can tell you than I already have. Maybe someone else's words would make more sense. Here is what C.S. Lewis had to say on the subject:

“The command ‘Be Ye Perfect’ is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.”

Now he didn't use the word, "exaltation," but we Mormons would explain exaltation pretty much as he did. It means, essentially, to become someone who is like God, and to be given a share of His godly attributes. Again, most Christians are appalled by this concept. What they do not seem to realize is that our being exalted isn't something we can do on our own. We couldn't even begin to approach this perfect state if it were not God's will that it happen. As I always ask people who are so bothered by the idea that we believe we can become like God, we don't believe in a God who is so petty and insecure that He wouldn't want His children -- His own spirit offspring -- to be able to reach their full potential. What would you think of a mortal father who was in a constant state of anxiety that his son might achieve even greater things than he did. To me, that sounds like a pretty darned lousy father. Besides, we're never going to catch up with God (as C.S. Lewis pretty much indicated). God will always be "God" to us and there will never come a time throughout all eternity that we will not worship Him as such.

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.

Okay, this raises a question. If a spirit is the soul of the deceased, then does it only exist until another incarnation comes around? Or can a spirit inhabit a physical body? In other words, I'm assuming that you believe you have a spirit, and that when your body dies, your spirit continues to exist until it's time for a new person to come into this world, at which time it inhabits that person's body. Am I right? Am I even close?

You also said that spirits are the souls "of the environment." I'm taking that to mean that everything in the environment has a spirit, even inanimate objects. Did I get that right?

I see a spirit as essentially being a life force, but I do see everything God created as having some sort of a spiritual component.

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

Hey, differences of opinion are just fine, as far as I'm concerned. To be perfectly honest, it's very refreshing to me to be having a conversation with someone who isn't telling me that because my opinions are different from his, that I am doomed to an eternity of suffering.

True. My thoughts exactly.

Exactly.

(your comments regarding the nature of sin and inherited sin, in particular). Nice! I love it when people from entirely different religions can find some common ground.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Bishop, you were right! It did pass! Everything’s okay again!" And his bishop responded, "That’s great! But, John, this too shall pass." Whether we are experiencing bad times or good times, it can be said with remarkable accuracy that “this too shall pass.”

I like this story. This is actually what The Buddha talks about when discussing impermanence. He even says not to attach to positive things. I am still learning the lingo of "emptiness is form and form is not emptiness" and things like that. I think The Buddha is saying things are static and not static at the same time. So, they exist but not outside of change. I think your Bishops hit it on the nose there.

Wow! That must have been terrifying, especially once it was all over and you had time to think about it.

Yes. It took awhile, well, the whole night, to get over it. I had my beads with me the whole time and thought "this is what everyone is talking about when it comes to life/death." You really never know. Sometimes I catch myself becoming paranoid. I talk sometimes on a Buddhist forum and ask for sutras on the subject. I should ask here too. The forum doesn't look too kind on Nichiren Buddhist (same as mainstream looks down on LDS and JW type of thing). So, it's just throwing my hands up and say "why don't we all just get along?"

Can you imagine Jesus, Joseph, The Buddha, and Bodhisattvas all saying that?

Yeah, I can buy that. Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, taught that there is no immaterial matter. Consequently, Mormons don't believe in an ex nihilo creation. We believe, instead, that God created our world -- and our spirits -- out of matter that was already in existence. I know a lot of Christians who recoil from that concept, as if this makes God less great. Mormons don't see it that way. Heck, if you can create a universe and all forms of life out of unorganized matter, that's pretty impressive to me.

Let me ask, and you probably have been asked this a lot, if god is the creator of the universe then wouldn't he have had to create matter in order to form the world and our spirits?

If everything always existed (which I believe this too), what role does god play as the creator if by him being a creator doesn't mean he created the first matter but shaped what already existed into new form? (if that makes sense?)

Now he didn't use the word, "exaltation," but we Mormons would explain exaltation pretty much as he did. It means, essentially, to become someone who is like God, and to be given a share of His godly attributes. Again, most Christians are appalled by this concept.

I can understand that. The way I see Buddhism, cultivating our mind, is also taking on attributes of The Buddha's mind. In Theravada Buddhism, from what I know, it is more developing attributes of ones own mind by following the Dharma. Some Mahayana sects teaches that our mind is to take on attributes of The Buddha. So in that sense, we "don't have our own mind but that of The Buddha." Kind of like how you are saying becoming gods by taking on god's attributes as he not you wanted.

Nichiren focused on our being one with The Buddha. I guess you can say that we have similar outlooks. The only thing that rocks me is that Buddhism, in the general sense, is about liberating one's own mind. So, when I read the Lotus Sutra, it takes on a "The Buddha is a savior and we must be like him" perspective.

It's good to have different perspectives of the Dharma.

In your view, does the perspectives of other denominations influence negative or positively how you view your faith? Are there things that you agree with even though there may be much that you disagree (excluding the basics, of course)?​

What they do not seem to realize is that our being exalted isn't something we can do on our own. We couldn't even begin to approach this perfect state if it were not God's will that it happen.

Yes. I think that's the biggest difference. Maybe they think you are trying to be god rather than god wanting you to be like him in his being and character. I can see the conflict; and, now that you clarified it, I can see why both sides makes sense. Hopefully, there would be peace between the two views since it all starts with god regardless, right?

Okay, this raises a question. If a spirit is the soul of the deceased, then does it only exist until another incarnation comes around? Or can a spirit inhabit a physical body?

Hmm. This one is kind of complicated only because I believed in spirits long before I heard of Buddhism. What I believed and still do before I learned about The Buddha was that spirits are deceased souls (like my grandparents and people who lived with us but where not alive-reminds me of Six Sense, honestly. This was way before it came out. Mother's young adult years). I don't know if it is like Six Sense where the souls stay until they finally find communication with the person that hurt them or love them. It does makes sense, though. Like the spirits my mother talks about she says some warn her about things in our home, situations we shouldn't get into, and things of that nature. We had a real estate lady who came over and asked "whose that guy in your house?" and my mother said (she told me) "oh, that's just the ghost living upstairs." I wish I witnessed the real estate lady rush from the house and never returning. Likewise, my father saw him and thought my mother was cheating on her. Stories like that.

Whether they are incarnated, I believe spirits-like our ancestors-inhabit us. I read it in theory and books but always knew it in spirit. I'd say they are always around and are in us just to know more about who we are-our family-we need to acknowledge their existence in us. We can do that by learning more about ourselves, our family, and our environment-blood, kin, humanity, and history. It's like putting together pieces of a puzzle. I think some of us stop at the edges or just give up because they can't see the picture. It takes a lot of discipline to say "I will get this" even if it is all one color.

Maybe you can relate in a way because of how you view your ancestors and relations in your faith? Would you say your loved ones are a part of you literally?​

In other words, I'm assuming that you believe you have a spirit, and that when your body dies, your spirit continues to exist until it's time for a new person to come into this world, at which time it inhabits that person's body. Am I right? Am I even close?

Yes. However, like the guy above, some spirits are restless. I think those that inhabit other bodies (reminds me of horror movies) or those who are a part of another person's soul is usually someone they love or someone they have some type of attachment too whether good or bad.

The Buddha actually made it more clear to me. He talks about himself existing through many manifestations of himself. So, since we are manifestations of our ancestors-blood,kin, history, and humanity-why would it be wrong to say that we are manifestations of the spirits/souls of the deceased?

I know, kind of long winded answer. I hope you got that.

You also said that spirits are the souls "of the environment." I'm taking that to mean that everything in the environment has a spirit, even inanimate objects. Did I get that right?

Yes. Family belief, actually. It's interesting that Nichiren came from the Ten Tai sect (denomination). They believe that inanimate objects also have a Buddha-nature. Though I find that quite odd, and I wouldn't call it Buddha-nature, if that meant another word for spirit or soul, then I'd say yes. I wish I can go back and interview all The Buddhas and Buddhists who contributed to the teaches we have today.

Side note, I do believe everything and everyone has a spirit. Recently, I come to like the term soul. It makes it more personal and it doesn't have as many multiple meanings and "paranormal feel" (in an outsider's view) as spirit does.

I see a spirit as essentially being a life force, but I do see everything God created as having some sort of a spiritual component.

Exactly-life force. (Star Wars?) Tao. That's the only way I understand the Holy Spirit, actually. Can the Holy Spirit be compared to a life force?​

I know Christians say they are alive by the spirit of Jesus, but that I never got because all the spirits that made me alive are those I have relationships with in one way or another.

How does LDS view that-the Holy Spirit or Jesus' spirit being the life force of humanity or believers?​

Hey, differences of opinion are just fine, as far as I'm concerned. To be perfectly honest, it's very refreshing to me to be having a conversation with someone who isn't telling me that because my opinions are different from his, that I am doomed to an eternity of suffering.

Haha! My sentiments exactly.

(your comments regarding the nature of sin and inherited sin, in particular). Nice! I love it when people from entirely different religions can find some common ground.

I know. It is nice.

I have been trying for AGES on RF (and former chat room days) to see if people of different religions can find a common foundation first then talk about their differences et cetera. It gives both parties something to come back to and reduces arguments because at the end, we at least agree on somethin'

 

[Katzpur]

@KatzpurI 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)

I'm going to get back to you on this. I'm going to have to give some careful thought to how I explain this, and it's getting too late right now for me to give careful thought to much of anything except going to bed. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays both, it's kind of hard for me to be able to post much, so if I don't get back to you until Thursday, please forgive me. (I just re-read the next posts of yours that I need to respond to, and they, too, will require a bit more thought on my part. So definitely plan on hearing from me on Thursday and Friday, as I'll have much more time then.)

 

[Katzpur]

--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.

There's nothing to forgive, though, is there?

Part 1:


-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 suppose that's a legitimate way of looking at it. In the scriptures, darkness appears to be the primeval condition, and light was introduced by God. We believe that Jesus Christ is God's appointed source and giver of light. He reveals God's glory and banishes darkness. In the LDS volume of scripture called "The Doctrine and Covenants," it says: "And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.... The day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him."

-Interesting. This reminds me of the story of Lucifer and his decision to rebel 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?

Absolutely. As a matter of fact, that's what we believe happened.[/quote]I was going to explain how closely you hit the target by writing a couple of paragraphs on our beliefs. Then I remembered an old thread in which I outlined our beliefs on this subject for someone else and decided against re-inventing the wheel. So, here's the summary of what we believe took place prior to our births:

1. God the Eternal Father is a glorified, immortal being of flesh and bone. While He has the appearance of a man, His body is perfect and incorruptible.

2. Co-eternal with God was a form of spirit matter that has been described "the light of truth." Latter-day Saint scriptures refer to it as "intelligences." It is neither created nor made.

3. God took this intelligent matter and from it created the spirits of all who would someday dwell on this earth and of some who would not. A spirit is a conscious entity, visible to God, but comprised of such highly refined matter that human eyes cannot see it.

4. These spirit creations were known to God as His spirit sons and daughters. They knew Him as their Father.

5. Among them were two who stood out as incomprehensibly superior to the others. Like their Father, they were perfect in every respect. God the Father called His firstborn spirit son, Jehovah; He would come to be known to billions as Jesus Christ. His other perfect son would be known as the Holy Ghost. Together these three constituted the Godhead; three divine beings who were one in will, purpose, mind and heart.

6. God was the archetypal man, the Man of Holiness. He was the perfect role model and all of His spirit children looked to Him with deep reverence and respect. It was their desire to be like Him in every way.

7. God called a heavenly council and presented a plan to His spirit children. All were present, and shouted for joy upon hearing the announcement.

8. The plan became known as "The Plan of Salvation." God would create a world for them apart from their heavenly home. All who wished to participate would be given the opportunity to come to Earth, to be born to earthly parents and to obtain a mortal body. They would have no memory of their premortal existence.

9. As part of their mortality, they would be tried and tested. Prophets would be sent to guide them, but they would have to learn to walk in faith and to distinguish between good and evil. This knowledge was essential in order for them to someday become like their Father in Heaven.

10. There was, however, one caveat. After their time on Earth was finished, they could return to His presence only if they were without sin. He would not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Sin would be seen as a debt that could only be forgiven if paid in full by someone who owed no debt Himself.

11. Jehovah, our elder Brother, stepped forward and said, "Here I am. Send me." With a love so absolute we could not comprehend it, He offered to take upon Himself the guilt we would incur during our mortality and to pay the price required by the Father for our forgiveness. The price would be His own blood. All of the glory, He insisted, would be the Father's. He wanted nothing but the privilege of helping His Father to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind.

12. Our salvation would be contingent upon our recognizing Him as our Savior and doing our best to keep His commandments, repenting as necessary, because we would inevitably sin. Each of us would be given the freedom to choose for ourselves

13. Another of God's spirit sons stepped forward at this point. His name was Lucifer. Once known as the "Son of the Morning," he was full of animosity towards his brother, Jehovah and toward their Father. He offered an alternate plan. His plan took away our agency or the right to choose for ourselves. We would each obtain a mortal body, but the choice to obey or to disobey, and the privilege of learning to discern between good and evil would be taken away from us. Having lived perfect lives, but not by choice, we would all return to God's presence. The glory would be forever his, not his Father's.

14. The Father chose Jehovah to be "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Lucifer, proud and rebellious, turned against his Father and vowed to turn as many of his fellow spirit siblings as possible against Him, too.

15. A "War in Heaven"; ensued. All of God's spirit children chose sides. Some fought with Lucifer for the right to participate in the plan as he had suggested. Others fought on the side of Jehovah, led by the archangel, Michael.

16. In the end, Michael and his angels (i.e. all of us who would someday be born) defeated Lucifer and his angels (the remaining third of the host of heaven). Because of their willful rebellion against God, Lucifer and those who had sided with him were cast out of Heaven. They would never again have the privilege of being known as God's children. They would never receive mortal bodies. And in the end, they would be cast into Outer Darkness forever.

17. The rest of us (i.e. every human being who ever has been born or will be born) rejoiced, knowing that the Plan was about to commence. Every one of us chose to come to Earth. There are no exceptions.

18. Under the direction of His Father, and aided by the archangel, Michael, Jehovah created our Earth and the universe in which we live.

-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.

Yeah, kind of. But you've explained it well.

-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?

I hope my previous list of points answered these questions.

-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.

Well, remember how in Genesis, after Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, God says, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." Well, we believe that it is impossible to fully appreciate any good thing without having a frame of reference with which to compare it. In other words, if you'd never been sick a day in your life, you'd be enjoying good health, but would probably not appreciate it as much as you do, having also experienced illness, pain and suffering. Apparently God knows both good and evil, since He said that "to know good and evil" is a prerequisite for godhood. It's what we do with our knowledge of good and evil that matters.

-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?

Well, since we believe God is an actual Being and that we are actual beings ourselves, we cannot "become God." We can only become "like Him."

-In Buddhism we want to obtain The Buddha's enlightenment (ours) but not become The Buddha himself.

Yup, that would be the same idea exactly.

-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.

And we believe we human beings have a divine nature, as yet undeveloped. One LDS prophet said, "We are gods in embryo."

-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?

Well, to me, the question itself is illogical since no such person exists or could exist. We believe that Jesus Christ was the only perfect person to have ever lived, and that He alone was in a position to be able to atone for our sins. Think of Him as representing a positive, yet infinite value, and us as representing a negative and finite value. What is the sum of a positive, infinite value and a negative, finite value? It's a positive, infinite value, of course. So when we enter into a covenant relationship with Him, we give Him all of our sins and weaknesses and He in turn gives us all of His perfection. This, of course, requires our full commitment, and not merely lip-service, but if we are sincere in wanting to live up to our promise to try to take His name upon us, always remember Him and keep His commandments, that's all He expects of us.

-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?

Well, yes, but you may be missing out on something by only trusting that which you can prove.

-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?

Hard to explain. Just a very strong feeling, I guess, that I just can't shake and that gives me comfort and peace.

 

[Katzpur]

Part 2


-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.

Yes! Very well said.

-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.

Hmmm. I'm having a hard time understanding this. A relationship with life?

-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.

I'm pretty sure that Mormonism is the only Christian denomination that believes this, but just so that you understand why we differ so much from traditional Christianity, let me explain. We believe that during His Ministry, Jesus Christ established a Church and structured it according to a specific pattern, giving certain individuals authority to officiate in its ordinances (i.e. Sacraments). (We have this in common with Catholicism.) We believe, though, that during the years immediately following the death of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, men changed both the teachings and the practices that He had established and the Church as it existed at the time of His death ceased to exist. That doesn't mean that we believe there were no Christians left; it just means that we believe the doctrinal purity of His teachings was lost and that the authority He gave His Apostles was taken from the Earth. In other words, we don't believe that the first Pope (Linus?) ever actually received the authority Christ had given Peter. We further believe that since it was Jesus Christ who established His Church in the first place, He needed to be the one to reestablish it, at a period of time and in a part of the world where it could take root and actually survive. We believe He did this through Joseph Smith. (I hope it doesn't sound like I'm trying to proselytize, because I'm not. I just figured you might be starting to wonder how we can call ourselves Christians when so many of our beliefs differ from those of traditional Christianity. What it gets down to is that we believe that, through revelations to Joseph Smith, the original Christian doctrines were reintroduced.)

-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.

So, is your existence in each new incarnation based upon your actions and the level of understanding you reached in the prior incarnation? And what about how animal life fits into this? Do you believe that a human can be reincarnated as an animal and visa versa? I'm really curious about that. Do you feel any kind of a connection to anyone you believe you might have been in a past life?

--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.

We believe that while almost everyone will ultimately be "saved" (if, by "salvation," we mean escaping eternal torment), we also believe that we will be rewarded for our degree of faithfulness to Christ. So you might say that we are "saved by grace" but "rewarded for obedience."

--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?

Well, in theory at least, every child who chooses to be baptized, does so having accepted Jesus' offer. When you are eight years old, you are in a much better position to be able to do that than when you are baptized as an infant. Of course, the reality is that most 8-year-olds are going to be baptized because their parents say, "Wow! You're eight! Now you can be baptized! Isn't that wonderful?" LDS kids are taught a lot, though, between the ages of three and eight, so most of them have a pretty good idea of what their baptism means and what will be expected of them in the future.

I'm curious... Do Buddhist parents typically try to explain Buddhism to their children, or is this a religion that is seldom adopted before one reaches adulthood? And is there anything a person must do to actually "become" a Buddhist, other than to call himself one? I hope Buddhists are more open-minded towards other Buddhists than Christians seem to be towards other Christians!

Hey, I think I'm actually ready to see Part 3, so when you're ready to post it, please go right ahead. I hope I've answered your questions reasonably well.

 

[Katzpur]

Carlita? Hello? Are we still talking?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita? Hello? Are we still talking?

Oops sorry. Have a class project and just found out my father had his liver surgery already. I haven't forgot

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita? Hello? Are we still talking?

I'm sorry. I loss track of who posts next?

 

[Katzpur]

I'm sorry. I loss track of who posts next?

It's your turn. You were going to post Part 3 of a 3-part post. How's your dad? Doing okay, I hope.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Edited the full post​

Wow. Okay. Here we go.. then I gotta skate!

Hmmm. I'm having a hard time understanding this. A relationship with life?

Yes. I balled religion all down to a relationship with life itself. For example, everyone, all living, and everything of the natural world is a part of life. What keeps us alive from the sun to whomever saved us from getting hit by a car. I find these are blessings from life (or better word, finally to use, actual karma rather than "blessings from"). We are a part of the karmic cycle or the actions we make and the consequences or benefits (lack of better words) we receive from it. It's like we are living within life not for it (say we live to work) and not under it (I have to do be obedient to societal rules) but it's a relationship with life. It's what we do in life, our purpose, and actions that create a better relationship with our "purpose for living".

In one word, it's gratitude, basically. A constant thankfulness for being alive, living life, and celebrating its stages to our passings and our next lives. It's a cycle and when we are grateful for the progress we make towards that cycle, we reach a better understanding the nature of life (enlightenment).

What it gets down to is that we believe that, through revelations to Joseph Smith, the original Christian doctrines were reintroduced.)

I have always been curious about Joseph Smith. Maybe because the name doesn't sound foreign. It doesn't have the Hebrew twang or hard to pronounce like Bodhisattva Mahasthamaprapta. Does LDS have a sense of "if it is pass this time period X it is no longer authentic doctrine accepted by the LDS congregation or do you feel revelations still happen even though Joseph Smith is the only or last (?) one to transmit the original revelations to rebuild the Church?

So, is your existence in each new incarnation based upon your actions and the level of understanding you reached in the prior incarnation?

Yes. It's hard to use that word incarnation given the Christian background; but, I do believe that what we do affects us not only now but it tells us what type of karma or influence we will have in the future lives. I honestly haven't "felt" I was alive previously but I know my spirit didn't just pop into existence (nothing appears/disappears from thin air, type of thing). I don't know many Buddhist that would call it spirit and the sutras don't call it that. The best word is karma or actions.

I've been having a feeling lately that if I know more about myself and family, I'd know more about my past. Then, if I go back, then I can know about the live I lived before I was born (weird to say) or past incarnations and further on back. I do believe the past tells us about ourselves, so yes my level of understanding would be better the more I learn about my past as well as my present.

And what about how animal life fits into this? Do you believe that a human can be reincarnated as an animal and visa versa?

I can't speak intelligently about it, but I think that is more of a Hindu teaching that was mixed with Buddhism. Hinduism is much older than Buddhism.

Do you feel any kind of a connection to anyone you believe you might have been in a past life?

Hmm. Actually, no. I've been isolated by illness most my child life so I never had a religious foundation. Now it's more of learning and communing with my ancestors. I am sure if I go further back, I will find a connection.

So you might say that we are "saved by grace" but "rewarded for obedience."

Same with Buddhism but different wording. We are enlightened by our actions rather than our beliefs. edit Let me rephrase that. Jumped back into mainstream Christian thought. I guess rewarded, if I were to compare it to Buddhism, would be create good karma because of our discipline rather than obedience. I think the goal is the same as we both focus on actions. The destinations and how to get there are different.

LDS kids are taught a lot, though, between the ages of three and eight, so most of them have a pretty good idea of what their baptism means and what will be expected of them in the future.

I like that. I wish to see that more in looser denominations, for lack of better words.

I'm curious... Do Buddhist parents typically try to explain Buddhism to their children, or is this a religion that is seldom adopted before one reaches adulthood?

I think both. I noticed a lot of Buddhist I speak with are raised into it. My friend has a Buddhist mother and a LDS father. So, when he took me to the Veitnamese temple, we said our prayers to The Buddha but then was shocked that I don't believe in god. Other Buddhist I meet are monks or they have been practicing longer than anyone I know who says they are Buddhist but I honestly don't know if they are.

And is there anything a person must do to actually "become" a Buddhist, other than to call himself one?

Which leads me to this answer. A Buddhist is someone who wishes to understand the nature of life (suffering via our birth/life/age/death) by practicing The Buddha's teachings in our actions as well as at heart. It's a direct connection with ourselves (in contrast with god) and, what makes it different than general psychology, it's a religion that has many traditions and specific practices to reach that state.

So, in my humble opinion, I honestly do not believe anyone can just say they are a Buddhist and walla! they are disciples of The Buddha. To be a Buddhist is more of a discipline rather than a title of achievement. So anyone can be a disciple (any person/student who follows The Buddha's teachings) would be a Buddhist. It's kind of tricky because The Buddha says he is no different than anyone else.

Sorry. long story short. Anyone can call themselves a Buddhist but to me it's a discipline rather than a title of a religion. If one wants to walk The Buddha's path, then by all means, he can say he is a Buddhist (like myself). However, to formally be a Buddhist, I feel one needs to take the vows either Theravada or Mahayana/Bodhisattva vows. Nichiren Buddhist have vows but I am hoping to visit a temple near me soon to take formal ones.

I hope Buddhists are more open-minded towards other Buddhists than Christians seem to be towards other Christians!

Haha. You would think. I actually think they are only because Christianity is a dominant religion and the dominant religion; so, it influences a lot of our culture and people's freedom for individual morals. On the same side, I go to a Buddhist forum and they literally shun me or challenge every question I have because Nichiren Buddhism, in their view, isn't "real" Buddhism. None of them asked me what exactly do I practice. If you look up Nichiren Buddhism (just as Catholics and protestants) you'll see a lot of controversial and political junk.

I actually don't have much in common with Nichiren Buddhists themselves just the practice. SGI has a lot of focus on their organizational founder rather than the actual Dharma (same as if LDS looked at Joseph before they look at god). It bothers me but the only sect that I experience was very "fundamental" was Nichiren Shoshu.

So there is some conflict, yes. I think Buddhist are a bit more, how would I say, nice about it though to some extent. I have stories, but they don't cover Buddhists as a whole. Just my experiences.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's your turn. You were going to post Part 3 of a 3-part post. How's your dad? Doing okay, I hope.

Yep. Just clicked post. I called him today, he is resting from his surgery. They told him to rest for a couple of weeks to see if the splint or tube they put in his liver will stay before they decide if he needs a liver transplant. He still has a sense of humor even though on the phone I can tell he is sick. I don't know really how to feel about it, honestly. I'm in between emotions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So, is your existence in each new incarnation based upon your actions and the level of understanding you reached in the prior incarnation? And what about how animal life fits into this? Do you believe that a human can be reincarnated as an animal and visa versa? I'm really curious about that. Do you feel any kind of a connection to anyone you believe you might have been in a past life?

I read this in my daily sutras and thought this may relate to what you're asking:

"The “mutual possession of ten realms” doctrine is as difficult to maintain as it is to see fire in a rock or flowers in wood. However it is not totally impossible because rocks spark when struck together and a tree blooms in spring. It is most difficult to believe that the realm of Buddhas is contained in the realm of humans because it is like saying that fire is in water or water in fire." Writings of Nichiren Shonin (our founder)

Nichiren Shu (another sect of Nichiren Buddhism) is the only sect I heard of that really goes into The Buddha's teachings both is former and present. Here is their commentary on the passages above:

"Nichiren wrote this in his treatise on Spiritual Contemplation and the Most Venerable (Kanjin Honzon-Shō). “Mutual Expression of Ten Realms” is one of the more difficult ideas from the Chinese Master T’ien-t’ai. Nichiren uses it to illustrate what the Buddha teaches in the Lotus Sūtra: that Buddha nature is contained within all beings. Even though this idea is difficult, we can see it in the transformations of everyday objects we encounter: rocks, fire, flowers and trees. With his similes, Nichiren reminds us that with the Lotus Sūtra as our guide, we can see the Buddha Dharma in all aspects of our lives."

Ten Tai believes every living thing such from rocks to of course people. Rocks, water, and things of that nature have a pure nature and uncorrected. While we are born pure but born into a messy world right upon birth. I feel nature is the closest to Buddha-nature you can get.

There is a koan (a Zen parable used for meditation) that talks about a frog perched on a rock. He only eats when he needs to. He doesn't move but is in constant concentration of the present moment.

That's basically the bare bones of Buddhism is mindfulness and understanding the full nature of life.

As for my present life, since life goes in a cycle, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Katzpur]

Carlita, I just wanted to let you know that I'm not going to be able to post until Thursday.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes. I balled religion all down to a relationship with life itself. For example, everyone, all living, and everything of the natural world is a part of life. What keeps us alive from the sun to whomever saved us from getting hit by a car. I find these are blessings from life (or better word, finally to use, actual karma rather than "blessings from"). We are a part of the karmic cycle or the actions we make and the consequences or benefits (lack of better words) we receive from it. It's like we are living within life not for it (say we live to work) and not under it (I have to do be obedient to societal rules) but it's a relationship with life. It's what we do in life, our purpose, and actions that create a better relationship with our "purpose for living".

In one word, it's gratitude, basically. A constant thankfulness for being alive, living life, and celebrating its stages to our passings and our next lives. It's a cycle and when we are grateful for the progress we make towards that cycle, we reach a better understanding the nature of life (enlightenment).

That's interesting, but... I'm not sure I can agree with it. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying that it's actually karma that controls everything. Our good fortune would be a result of good karma, which would be a result of the degree of enlightenment that we have received over a period of time (i.e. the number of cycles we have repeated). Bad fortune would be a result of bad karma, which means you need to be working harder on attaining enlightenment. In other words, if something truly tragic happens to you, it all gets back to "it's your fault." Thus, nothing that happens is random. I really have a hard time thinking that we are essentially responsible for all of the good or the bad that happens to us. Maybe that's not what you mean at all, though. I could have completely misunderstood you.

I have always been curious about Joseph Smith. Maybe because the name doesn't sound foreign. It doesn't have the Hebrew twang or hard to pronounce like Bodhisattva Mahasthamaprapta. Does LDS have a sense of "if it is pass this time period X it is no longer authentic doctrine accepted by the LDS congregation or do you feel revelations still happen even though Joseph Smith is the only or last (?) one to transmit the original revelations to rebuild the Church?

We believe that Joseph Smith was only the first in a series of prophets that God has called since 1830 and that He will continue to call as long as the world exists. We believe that the man who currently stands at the head of our Church is every bit as much a prophet as Joseph Smith was -- and he's the 16th such person. The idea of a "final prophet" is, incidentally, my one biggest hangup with Islam. To me, for any prophet to declare that he is the last and that God will never speak to another like him is really kind of the height of presumptuousness. People in every day and age need guidance from God, and if He is going to use prophets at all, it makes no sense to me that He'd just have one and then leave humanity with nothing more than a book to go on in the future.

I've been having a feeling lately that if I know more about myself and family, I'd know more about my past. Then, if I go back, then I can know about the live I lived before I was born (weird to say) or past incarnations and further on back. I do believe the past tells us about ourselves, so yes my level of understanding would be better the more I learn about my past as well as my present.

Well, that makes more sense to me that you might think, since I believe choices we made before we were born have some bearing on what our lives are like here and now.

Hmm. Actually, no. I've been isolated by illness most my child life so I never had a religious foundation. Now it's more of learning and communing with my ancestors. I am sure if I go further back, I will find a connection.

You've mentioned illness and sight problems before, and you mentioned something about an online crush. You've mentioned classes, too. I started thinking about all of these things and realized that I really don't know anything at all about you your life aside from your religious beliefs, nor do you know anything about me to speak of. If you wouldn't mind sharing a few of these details, I'd definitely be interested in learning more about the real Carlita. (No pressure, though, if you'd rather not.) I'll just give you a brief rundown on me...

My real name is Kathryn. I am 67 years old (although most people don't think I look, think, or act it ). I was born and raised in Salt Lake City to LDS parents who were, nevertheless, quite a bit more liberal than what people generally think Mormons would be like. They both always taught me to have an open mind and to respect other people's beliefs. Furthermore, they never made me feel guilty for having doubts or questions about my religion's teachings. I married my husband, Matt, forty-six years ago when we were both in college and he was my boss at my part-time job. I graduated from the University of Utah and got a B.A. degree in English. Had there been a degree at that time (at the U of U) in linguistics, I'd have probably gone for that instead. I'm not sure it ended up mattering much, either way, though, as I ended up being a software designer and coder. I retired not quite six years ago. We have two grown children, a son, 36, and a daughter, 34, and no grandchildren. (Both kids are in serious relationships, but I'm thinking neither of them will ever end up tying the knot.) We raised both of them as LDS. Today, I'd described them both as theists, but not religious at all. I am a super animal lover. My pets mean the world to me. Right now, I just have a cat. She will be turning 21 in about a month, and I have had to promise her that she will live out the rest of her life as an only-pet. For most of our marriage, though, we have also had dogs. The most recent ones were a Collie and a Golden Retriever. I love to travel; I love gardening, and I love talking to people online. I consider myself to be a strong LGBT ally (despite my Church's stance on same-sex marriage). I guess that's pretty much it.

Which leads me to this answer. A Buddhist is someone who wishes to understand the nature of life (suffering via our birth/life/age/death) by practicing The Buddha's teachings in our actions as well as at heart. It's a direct connection with ourselves (in contrast with god) and, what makes it different than general psychology, it's a religion that has many traditions and specific practices to reach that state.

That's probably the best explanation of the religion I've heard. At least it helps me understand it better.

So, in my humble opinion, I honestly do not believe anyone can just say they are a Buddhist and walla! they are disciples of The Buddha. To be a Buddhist is more of a discipline rather than a title of achievement. So anyone can be a disciple (any person/student who follows The Buddha's teachings) would be a Buddhist. It's kind of tricky because The Buddha says he is no different than anyone else.

I like that! That's really pretty much how I personally feel about Christianity.

Haha. You would think. I actually think they are only because Christianity is a dominant religion and the dominant religion; so, it influences a lot of our culture and people's freedom for individual morals. On the same side, I go to a Buddhist forum and they literally shun me or challenge every question I have because Nichiren Buddhism, in their view, isn't "real" Buddhism. None of them asked me what exactly do I practice. If you look up Nichiren Buddhism (just as Catholics and protestants) you'll see a lot of controversial and political junk.

Darn! What is it with people anyway?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's interesting, but... I'm not sure I can agree with it. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying that it's actually karma that controls everything. Our good fortune would be a result of good karma, which would be a result of the degree of enlightenment that we have received over a period of time (i.e. the number of cycles we have repeated). Bad fortune would be a result of bad karma, which means you need to be working harder on attaining enlightenment.

Yep. I guess simplified, our actions/karma tell us if we will benefit from our actions or suffer consequences. The Buddha talks about building good karma/make good actions. As as a result, it not only affects the person who acts but the people and environment around him too. It's like a ripple in a lake. You put your finger in and it disturbs the water making it ripple. Same with our actions/karma. We are putting out ripples as we speak.

Yes, also good karma leads to enlighenment (understanding of the nature of life) because, like sin in Christianity keeping one from god, it doesn't block us from deeper understanding and keep us from practice. While bad actions/karma, like sin, blocks that understanding hence, and you are right, more effort is made to get back to that state. Some Buddhist say it takes life times. Nichiren Buddhists (and many Mahayana sects) say we already have the seed of enlightenment/knowledge of life in us. It's about realization and practice rather than effort to reach a goal.

In other words, if something truly tragic happens to you, it all gets back to "it's your fault." Thus, nothing that happens is random. I really have a hard time thinking that we are essentially responsible for all of the good or the bad that happens to us. Maybe that's not what you mean at all, though. I could have completely misunderstood you.

Good and bad things happen because of everyone's actions and their benefits or consequences effect not only ourselves, but others, and our environment. So, if something tragic happens to you or say I get hit by those two cars, it could have been my karma, yours, or Joe Smoe. However, I don't see it as "it's someone else's fault" because we make ripples everyday so it's hard to blame a person when everyone is involved.

That, and I do believe we are responsible with what happens to us. Just if I steal a cookie from the store, I know who is at fault. If I get hit by a car, I don't know whose bad karma I was just affected by. I don't look into it since that's life and part of change and spontaneity. That's what The Buddha taught, being comfortable with uncertainty and change.

I don't think you misunderstood, though. We are at fault for bad actions we make because we don't know who it affects (or where the ripples will go). However, unless we made a direct action like steal a cookie, it's hard to blame oneself or anyone in particular for something tragic that happen.​

People in every day and age need guidance from God, and if He is going to use prophets at all, it makes no sense to me that He'd just have one and then leave humanity with nothing more than a book to go on in the future.

I agree. That's one thing I liked about Catholicism. They didn't stop at the disciples. Many saints and followers contribute to a faithful Catholic's spiritual growth. They made Mother Teresa a saint, I believe. Mainstream christian denominations seem to stop at revelations as if the bible and the time period is isolated from ours. If that's the case, when was the drawing line between when something was sacred to now being filth? I dont know.

Well, that makes more sense to me that you might think, since I believe choices we made before we were born have some bearing on what our lives are like here and now.

Exactly

My real name is Kathryn....

About me?? You're the only one who asked me this on RF.

My middle name is Carlita, so I usually go by that online. I'm 35 and a college undergraduate. My focus these days is my health and spiritual life. Other than seizures and vision impairment, I'm pretty much healthy. In college, I am going towards my American Sign Language Interpreting degree and license. It's sketchy given the vision though it's gotten better. So, I'm having a language proficiency interview to see what level I need to start from again.

Family, I'm the oldest of three brothers and two sisters. One biological father (of course), two step fathers, and a step mother. I'm pretty much online these days. I love to write, read, and definitely skating.

I know there is a bit more about me. I'm not married and don't have kids. I live alone; so, I'm basically doing my own thing. Other than concentration on school and possible career (a lot of issues preventing me to work full-time at the moment), I'm developing a prayer and devotional life. I found a very good clinical psychologist who is helping me crystallize my beliefs (organize them, really) so I can actually see the foundation and work on my clinical issues based on that foundation. I have a huge problem with organization. Have to work on that.

What else? It's good you're a GBLT ally. You're in good company with this laid back, single lesbian. I'm pro on anything that creates freedom for people to express their morals, and themselves. I don't believe in hierarchy. So, my values is looking authorities in the eyes, type of thing rather than be subordinate to them. In other words, I believe everyone is on equal grounds. I just wish our a lot of us would not take advantage of our roles.

I'm pretty controversial at first but when you get to know me, I just have a lot of opinions that I don't talk to many people about. I'm taking public speaking and thinking of going into that as a career. I may be motivational speaker given I have the passion for it.

Other than that, I don't have a busy life. That's pretty much me.

That's probably the best explanation of the religion I've heard. At least it helps me understand it better.

I like that! That's really pretty much how I personally feel about Christianity.

Thank you!