What Kind of Buddhist-Mormon Are You?

[Anonymous]

There is a fascinating post over on Wheat & Tares, written by Mike S., that I just want to recommend to everyone here. If you want to excerpt any of it – or anything from the comments (which I think are thought-provoking, in and of themselves) – and comment about it here, that would be great; otherwise, feel free to comment there or not at all. Primarily, I just want to recommend the post.

“Are You A Theravada or Mahayana Mormon? (With Poll)”

(http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/10/26/are-you-a-theravada-or-mahayana-mormon/)

[Anonymous]

I like this post by Mike S on the link you provided, Ray.

I voted that I am a bit of both types.

Quote:

Theravada is inward, perfecting oneself.

Mahayana is concerned with others.

Theravada may seem selfish, but realistically, I think I have always adopted the Inside-Out approach. I do not try to change my wife, I change myself and work on my own inner problems and why things others do bother me and how I can handle myself to resolve them. I focus inwardly to develop characteristics and traits and skills that help me better serve others and love others. I strive to cleanse the inner vessel.

Although that is my focus, I then take that focus, and look outwardly for the concern of others, not to make them agree with me or validate me, but to find what they need and see if I can help, or at least, just be a friend. That is the way to exercise my Theravada goals. It is similar to going to church on Sunday to interact with others and practice my faith, not just stay home and study and read about my faith. In some ways, it becomes useless if not developed to help the world around me, and especially those I love. But if I’m doing it for glory or power or recognition, my heart isn’t in the right place, and the Theravada side is not being attended to…making it hollow.

So it is a bit of both, but starts with the inside-out approach, and then makes sure it doesn’t get stuck inwardly trying to perfect myself that I neglect the opportunity to truly help others and forget about myself.

My Buddhist-Mormonism tells me it is a bit of both. Balance. Temperance. Middle-way.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

In Mahayana Buddhism, the “ideal person” is a Bodhisattva (Sanskrit, Bodhisatta in Pali). In this case, someone also tries to attain Buddhahood, but primarily for the ultimate goal of helping to save all other beings. Even though someone has “succeeded” in the test of life, as a Bodhisattva, they postpone their ultimate reward indefinitely until literally EVERYONE has also reached the same point.

Herein lies my quandry. Both forms of Buddism/Mormonism seem to involve perfection. I don’t think I would qualify as a Theravada because I am much more comfortable in my imperfect skin (perhaps too much, but that is a subject for another post). I would lean to Mahayana, but I am not so sure of what other people should become/strive for that I feel comfortable pushing them to meet my ideals.

I guess I am thinking about it like missionary work. Theravada serves because it is something on the lifeplan list that needs to be marked off or because they want the personal development etc. (I served under similar motivators). Mahayana serves out of love for the people and a desire to improve their lives. But for this to work it would seem that both have the overall view that to be Mormon and to reach the Mormon ideal (or Buddhahood in Buddhism) is the pinnacle to strive for. But then again …

Quote:

Perhaps they have a hard time with missionary work, because they see strengths and goodness in others and don’t really know if they’d be better as Mormons.

This seems to fly in the face of my understanding of this distinction. How do you help others become their ultimate selves without knowledge of what their ultimate selves should look like?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

This seems to fly in the face of my understanding of this distinction. How do you help others become their ultimate selves without knowledge of what their ultimate selves should look like?

If you take the Sermon on the Mount as the primary example in Christianity, “the ultimate self” is “perfection” – which, based on the original Greek meaning of the word translated as “perfection”, actually is “complete, whole, fully developed”. That means “helping others become their ultimate selves” is nothing more than helping them acquire godly characteristics, which has absolutely nothing to do with specific religious or denominational affiliation. It means focusing on the character traits that make one “blessed” (again in terms of the NT), and that can happen with anyone, no matter the specifics of the lives they lead at any given moment.

One of the reasons I love the principle and concept of vicarious temple work is that it makes practical the ideal that everyone can “become their ultimate selves” regardless of religious or denominational affiliation – that all have the potential to be “saved” and “exalted”. We tend to put qualifiers on that as humans, but as long as we talk about the process of “becoming” as an eternal journey, we can avoid the dogmatism that dominates when we lose sight of that over-arching, ultimate goal – to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”.

I believe too few members really “get it” when it comes to this topic, but that’s to be expected – and helping others “get it” is part of helping them “become their ultimate selves”, imo.

[Anonymous]

I scored about the same for both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism on the religion quiz, slightly higher than Hinduism and Neo-Paganism but lower than Islam. It sounds like these are just different ways to approach the same “4 Noble Truths” and “Eightfold Path” that both groups already agree on. Probably the closest LDS equivalents to these central Buddhist tenets are the points included in the temple interview questions.

Basically, to be a good Mormon you are supposed to be a full-tithe payer, strictly obey the WoW, have a testimony of the restoration (one trueness), and accept the top Church leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators, among other things. What I think the Church could use more than different reasons for agreeing with the same old doctrines would be for more members and especially some top leaders to step back and re-evaluate whether some of these things should be such a central focus to begin with similar to the way that Jesus and Paul were Jews but rather than just agreeing with the Pharisees about what the religion they inherited from previous generations was supposed to be all about they said that some of these established traditions were not really necessary.

[Anonymous]

Interesting, thanks for sharing that Ray.

It reminded me of a quote, “Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.” – John Wooden

God (whatever you call God) is LOVE… it’s striving for what’s best of all possibilities.

I think there are many ways of serving & there are many ways of developing character… some ways better than others.

Both loving others & loving ourselves need to be in harmony.

[Anonymous]

I guess I’d go with Vajrayana, if that were an option …

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

If you take the Sermon on the Mount as the primary example in Christianity, “the ultimate self” is “perfection” – which, based on the original Greek meaning of the word translated as “perfection”, actually is “complete, whole, fully developed”.

presuming you mean:

Matthew 5:48 wrote:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

is the “ultimate self” perfection? complete? whole? fully developed? is this what the verse means?

if so, then what is the “therefore” there for?

in my impression, this is the single most mistranslated verse in scripture, and in the meaning of perfect or “fully developed” the most destructive. i have the same issue with buddhism and hinduism entire– the constant seeking of enlightenment and revering of those who have “arrived”. the buddha did not cultivate such a thing: his seeking did not achieve enlightenment, he came to the realization under the bodhi tree that enlightenment cannot be sought — it simply is.

be that as it may, matthew 5:48 is not a command to live the ideal, perfect, whole, complete, or fully developed life. the “therefore” is there, for a reason, it conjoins this verse with what precedes it. here is the complete teaching:

Matthew 5:43-48 wrote:

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

note that verses 43, 44, 46, & 47 all speak of being partial in your dealings: in loving, doing good, and saluting others. in verse 45, the master speaks of how the father is the opposite of partial: the sun rises on both the good and evil, and rain falls on the just and unjust. god is thus impartial. now, take a look at 48, again. be ye therefore [“whole”/ telios…the opposite of partial…impartial] as your father in heaven is [impartial].

there is no statement by christ commanding us to strive, strive, strive to be perfect. there is no seeking the far off goal: he says seek and ye shall find: present tense imperative: the finding is the oneness within that connects impartially as one in love with god and with others. to be one with christ, to fully internalize the at-one-ment is to realize that “I AM”–not: “I will be”.

lao tzu said, “to the good, i am good. to the not-good, i am also good.” the ethic of oneness precedes christianity–it is called by some “the way”. to those who journey on the way, there is no destination. there is no seeking enlightenment. there is only fully living the authentic life in harmony with one’s true nature. since we by nature make mistakes, then the impossible act of being prefect or flawless is not in harmony with nature: it is not the way.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer, I agree with your comment completely, and I think the differences you see are semantic in nature with the way I see it – that we see it the same way but describe it differently. I might be wrong about that, but I think we agree on this one – with one caveat:

Yes, v.48 is twisted badly when taken out of context and proof-texted as a stand-alone message – but I also believe it is twisted almost as badly when its meaning is limited only to vs. 43-47. There are 42 previous verses that all build to the message in vs. 43-48 – and then two more chapters that follow and expand on it, imo.

If you are interested, here is a post I wrote almost exactly 2 1/2 years ago:

“An Epiphany Regarding “Ask, Seek, Find” – A Truly Beautiful Message” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/06/epiphany-regarding-ask-seek-find-truly.html)

Oh, and I believe we have no idea how far out into the eternities we will be “walking toward perfection”, if you will. As you said, the idea that this type of perfection is attainable in mortality is one of the central fallacies of humanity, imo.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

wayfarer, I agree with your comment completely, and I think the differences you see are semantic in nature with the way I see it – that we see it the same way but describe it differently. I might be wrong about that, but I think we agree on this one – with one caveat:

Yes, v.48 is twisted badly when taken out of context and proof-texted as a stand-alone message – but I also believe it is twisted almost as badly when its meaning is limited only to vs. 43-47. There are 42 previous verses that all build to the message in vs. 43-48 – and then two more chapters that follow and expand on it, imo.

If you are interested, here is a post I wrote almost exactly 2 1/2 years ago:

“An Epiphany Regarding “Ask, Seek, Find” – A Truly Beautiful Message” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/06/epiphany-regarding-ask-seek-find-truly.html)

Oh, and I believe we have no idea how far out into the eternities we will be “walking toward perfection”, if you will. As you said, the idea that this type of perfection is attainable in mortality is one of the central fallacies of humanity, imo.

Yes, the entire sermon on the mount has context, but quoting the whole thing wasn’t necessary, so I accept your caveat.

While we may agree in basic terms, I would like to take this conversation one step further. Your last statement still refers to perfection as something attainable in eternal time. what I am saying is that there is no “there”. there is no point at which eternal progression ends, nor a place where it starts. We are living eternal life here and now. There is no walking toward anything at all, there is only the Way, and one without a destination.

We’re in agreement if we’re both saying that the injunction ‘be ye therefore perfect’ applies to a way of being in present. The step further has to do with two things: 1) there is no destination beyond the present in this injunction, and 2) it’s key message is about interpersonal praxis (“I say unto you be one, and if you are not one your are not mine’) and not ‘becoming the whole man’. there is no becoming in he sermon on the mount — there is only the way, and that is ‘to be’.

My concern in the language you use in both the response above and in your beautiful post is that there is still a sense of becoming, and a target to something. The Way does not have those attributes. Jesus simply said “I am the Way, the truth, and the life”. There was no “I am the Way to Eternal Life”, because eternal life is here and now in walking in the Way he laid out.

In the context of this thread, coming back to buddhism — this concept of being rather than becoming tends to reject the idea that one seeks and strives for enlightenment. One is either enlightened in the present, as was Gautama Siddhartha under the Bodhi tree, or not. To me, that is the great message of Buddha, as well as Adi Shankara, and Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.

[Anonymous]

It looks like it’s been pulled. OOPS 😳 Didn’t go back far enough.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

there is no point at which eternal progression ends, nor a place where it starts. We are living eternal life here and now. There is no walking toward anything at all, there is only the Way, and one without a destination.

Yes, I agree with that. The idea that time is measured only unto man is key – and I believe that. I also believe there is no end to (fill in the blank) and that progression never ends. However . . .

As I said, we use different terminologies when we talk about the central concept publicly. That’s because I believe there are relatively few who can understand, in this “moment of their present” (and, yes, I understand that’s an oxymoron), the full idea as you are expressing it. I don’t mean that arrogantly, at all – just that people see things differently and there are relatively few who are able to see these things in the way you are describing. It literally blows their mental gaskets. I think perhaps that is one of our “differences” – that you seem to be frustrated by that inability more than I am. Honestly, if that’s correct, I’m not sure if either of those results (you caring more vs. I caring less) is “more enlightened” – since I think both of them are important and necessary (the idealist who continues to hold up the un-compromised ideal AND the realist who is willing to compromise the ideal and preach a preparatory version).

I personally see no real difference between the type of “being” you are describing and the type of “becoming” I describe – but there is a HUGE difference, imo, between how most people would see and interpret those words. Most people, unfortunately, really do see things in a linear, progressive, timeline fashion – and most people, including I myself, need to be able to “break down” the total “being” into elements of “becoming” in order to actualize the “being” in any real, practical way – even as I understand the damage that does to the ideal of “being” fully in the here and now. (fwiw, one of the things that drives my wife nuts is that I live so fully in the moment – considering possibilities “FOR the future”, but not stressing out in the slightest about things that might or might not happen “IN the future”. That’s because I see “the future” fundamentally differently than she does (as non-existent in real terms and simply an extension, if you will, of the present) – and my biggest challenge when talking about “the future” with her is to recognize and honor that fundamental difference and remember to speak “in her terms” during those discussions. “Being true to myself” in those situations just doesn’t mean enough to me to hurt her in real ways as a result – so I change the words I use while trying to remain true to the fundamental meaning of what I want to say.)

Iow, I talk of “becoming” as a process toward “being” because there are things that keep me and most others from living in such a way that I am “being” fully (or with the proper balance). My goal is to “be” (as my own “I am”), but most people simply can’t conceptualize that at the purest level and need a more linear explanation in order to understand – and, more importantly, not to misunderstand. Thus, I write for those I believe are reading my writing – trying to speak with and to them “according to their language and understanding”, and to myself – trying to figure out a practical way for me to “be” a “more perfect” person (again, even as I understand the tension in saying it that way).

Obviously, as evidenced by some of my comments on this site and the responses to them, I fail at that quite regularly – but I try, anyway.

[Anonymous]

GB, what looks like it’s been pulled – just so I know and can find out? If you’d rather, you can send me a PM.

[Anonymous]

Ray

Instead of clicking on the link I went to the wheat and tares sight and didn’t scroll back far enough to find the OP. Once again typing before thinking.

[Anonymous]

Got it.

Glad I’m not the only old person here. 😆

(Where’s george when you need to feel young?)

[Author]

Posts