Wednesday, May 22, 2013

The Tree of Life: Temple symbol in Ancient Eastern Philosophies and Mormonism


discussions. Colleen Is there a Tree of Life motif within Hindu and/or Buddhist tradition? It seems that the Tree of Life shows up in almost any ancient tradition. Is it found in Vedic and other Asian traditions? And, if so, what does it mean? 3 months ago Like CommentFollow Flag More Lisa J. M., Natubhai P. and 4 others like this 35 comments • Jump to most recent comments Avinash Bhushan Avinash Bhushan S. • I cannot speak of other traditions. But there are references in the Dharma traditions to a tree whose root is Brahman - the One Soul of the Universe, that is the source of light (consciousness) for all living beings, and that is beyond the laws of time, space and causation. Here is a reference from the Upanishads: This is that eternal Ashvattha Tree with its root above and branches below. That root, indeed, is called the Bright; That is Brahman and That alone is the Immortal. In That all worlds are contained and none can pass beyond. This, verily, is That. Katha Upanishad 2.3.1 This Ashvattha tree was the most important tree for the ancient rishis (sages). In the Bhagavad Gita (10.26), Lord Krishna states that "Of all trees (I am) the Ashvattha." 3 months ago Lisa J. Lisa J. M. • I've seen it very much in Celtic culture and tradition as well...really, The Tree of Life, is shown or conveyed in most traditions even if in the way of metaphor. 3 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • Thank you, Avinash and Lisa. Your comments are helpful. 3 months ago RHEA RHEA M. • I'm most familiar with the tree of life from the Sioux Native American culture. I was cast as Black Elk and got to speak about the sacred tree back in my actress days. It made me do a ton of research on it. I even drew my own version of it. This was fifteen years ago. I wish I could remember the details now but memory fails me. The tree is such an awe inspiring symbol. The roots are like links to our ancestors and the branches are like many paths our lives can take. Aside from that, trees are beautiful metaphors for life in general. The Christians had their tree of knowledge of good and evil The Buddhists have their bodhi tree I would love to hear about other traditions Another symbol that has universal appeal is the circle. 3 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • Rhea, In your experience of the Sioux tradition, is there a story that accompanies the tradition of the sacred tree? It really is interesting to me the way that sacred symbols show up in multiple traditions, and sometimes at great distance from each other. 3 months ago RHEA RHEA M. • yes, there is but I can't remember it. I'll have to go back to the library and bring up all the research I did so many years ago. Maybe I will for fun and get back to you. I think Black Elk himself saw it in some of his amazing visions. I'm not surprised that the tree shows up in so many traditions. A tree is such an awe inspiring object that a child who has never been exposed to any culture, would see the sacredness of it. 3 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • Thank you Rhea. If it is interesting to you, please share what you learn. The branching nature of the tree is a frequently occurring pattern (fractal) in nature. It is rich with allegorical possibility. 3 months ago RHEA RHEA M. • Your question made me nostalgic, so I did an internet search and found this for you: http://nwindian.evergreen.edu/curriculum/SacredTree.pdf 3 months ago RHEA RHEA M. • http://www.arbutusarts.com/sacred-trees.html 3 months ago Regis Regis C. • Interesting question! I always draw a tree-like structure when I describe the nature of this philosophical structure of Gods and Goddesses (Brahman, Ishwara; Brahma, Vishnu, Siva and so on), but have not seen any iconography on the topic. I will peruse the comments to see if I can find references to nice ones. Thanks! 3 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • Great, Regis, welcome back! Circles, spirals, branching structures, hexagons, 6-pointed stars, etc. They are interesting shapes but they are also geometry, and geometry is math. Back to the numbers, and it kind of makes me laugh. How much mystery is right in front of us, and we don't see it? 3 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • Thank you, Rhea. I enjoyed the links. They are just what I am looking for. If anyone has more to add.....please! 3 months ago Spafford Spafford A. • The conversation piqued my curiosity too! Here's what I turned up (as the importance of the Bodhi tree came to mind in the Buddhist tradition): http://www.whats-your-sign.com/bodhi-tree-symbolism.html Thanks! 3 months ago Vijay Vijay B. • In Bhagvat Geeta Ch 15, the Supreme Lord said: 'Anyone who knows that the As'vattha is said to be an imperishable [banyan-]tree that has its roots upwards, its branches downwards and of which the leaves are the Vedic hymns, knows the Vedas. Extending downward and upward, its branches by the modes of nature downward developed twigs as the sense objects and to the extending roots [upward] the karma that binds one to the human world. The form of this tree which is without a beginning or end cannot be perceived in this world nor can one see how it is maintained; this strongly rooted Banyan must be cut by the weapon of detachment. After doing so one has to find out about that place for which one is going and from where one never returns and then surrender to Him, the Primordial Original Person, from whom everything extended since time immemorial. 3 months ago Simon Simon G. • HARI-OM Hi....Colleen, A beautiful question. Yes there is mentioned in the Buddhist and Hindu Scriptures ( Vedas) regarding the "TREE OF LIFE" The Human Brain is the TREE OF LIFE Wisdom and Knowledge are its fruits. Even in the "HOLY BIBLE" also it is mentioned about such a Tree …..Lest he put forth his hand and take also of the TREE OF LIFE and eat and live for ever …… (Gen.3:22) In the Midst of the street of it, And on either of the River, was there the TREE OF LIFE-(REV.22:2) Namaste 3 months ago Swami Swami P. • what is question ? could you Please elaborate it Please? 2 months ago Susan Susan H. • From Yogi Ananda Saraswathi: (Part 1) ASVATTHA TREE. In spiritual literature, this tree is represented as the Upside-down tree with roots exposed above. It is called the Tree of Samsara. Asvattha is the Sanskrit name for the Peepal or fig tree. It is familiar in the Indian landscape. Its leaves are heart shaped; the fruit is purple when ripe. The tree is said to be first depicted on a 3000 BC Mohenjodoro seal. It is also linked to the Buddha as he supposedly meditated under its cool shade and got enlightened. There it got called Bodhi and some writings writing more about Bodhi than the Buddha himself. There could be some substance to emphasizing the Asvattha. TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: Traditional and symbolical treatment of the asvattha is seeing it as the mystical tree of knowledge and tree of cosmic life represented in a reversed position; the branches extend downwards typifying the visible cosmic universe and the roots are upwards typifying the invisible world of spirits. Hindus were not alone in such representations. Tree symbolism depicted that the roots sprang from the divine heart of things; the trunk, branches and leaves represented various planes and spheres of the world and the universe. The seeds from the cosmic tree were the seed of future ‘trees’ being evolving entities. At the end of the evolutionary journey through long eons of majestic rounds, they (men and gods) become cosmic entities. Thus, every living thing, and the so-called inanimate objects are trees of life with their roots in their spiritual realms, the trunks passing through intermediate spheres and the branches manifesting in physical realms. GITA versus UPANISHDS: In the beginning of Bhagavad Gita, Book Fifteen, Sri Krishna teaches Arjuna that the Asvattha is the Tree of the Universe, the Tree of Samsara; the relative universe with its endless cycles of births and deaths: Gita 15.3. Urdhvam – roots are above; adhas – its branches are below; guna pravradhah – nourished by the Gunas; visaya pravalah – sense-objects are its buds; karma anumbandhini – originating action; manusya loke – in the world of men. The upside down tree is also a metaphor for the mirror imae of the unreal which is only a reflection of Real. SHANKARACHARYA: Of this the great Sri Adi Sankaracharya wrote: “This Tree of the Universe, Samsara, is said to be noisy ‘constantly reverberating with the tumultuous’ sounds that arise from the cacophony of all human activity. Its trunk is formed by ‘the various subtle bodies of living beings.’ Its growth is fed by desire and its fruits are the Lokas, the worlds of the afterlife, which are experienced as the reward for actions.” Thus longing for results, the fruits of our acts, engenders the roots which reach down into the earth plane and further blind human consciousness. 2 months ago Susan Susan H. • (Part 2) ADIH-ANTAH: In Gita 15.3, Sri Krishna states that the form of the Tree of the Universe cannot be known by living beings on earth as it has no adhih-beginning or antah-end; nor can its continual existence be perceived. Thus it forms the link between the transcendental aand phenomenal worlds. ASANGASASTRENA DRDHENA CHITTVA: ‘Having cut asunder this firm rooted (asvattha) with the axe of non-attachment.’ The Samsara tree is an illusion projecting Imperishable Oneness. During births and deaths, Souls enjoy the experiences provided b transmigration. They must also learn to discern the Real from the effects of guna-maya and cut down this tree with asange-sastrena, Axe of Non-attachment. Sastrena is an axe or weapon; asange means that which is opposed to desire. Dispassion and renunciation of the signals which transmit the perceptions of the five senses to the brain, become a drdhena-mighty sastra-weapon because they detach human consciousness from the world of desire, attachment and aversion, likes and dislikes, pleasure and pain. What makes the axe strong is eagerness for knowledge of the Supreme Self. What sharpens the weapon is the repeated practice of discriminations between the eternal Real and the temporal unreal produced by prakriti-guna-maya. KATHA UPANISHAD: This is That eternal Asvattha Tree with its root above and branches below. That root, indeed, is called the Bright That is Brahman, and That alone is the Immortal. In That all worlds are contained, and none can pass beyond. This verily is That: Katha Upanishad 2.3.1. ‘The eternal Asvattha tree with its root upwards and branches downwards, which is the pure immortal Brahman, in which all these worlds are situated, and beyond which there is nothing else: Katha 2.6.1. According to this passage, the Asvattha tree is the Brahman itself, and that it is imperishable. How far does the description in the Bhagavad-Gita correspond to the description in the Katha Upanisad and are there inherent contradictions between the two texts? Both Katha and Gita agree that the Asvattha tree is regarded as having its root upwards and its branches downwards. In one aspect, the Gita could be antagonistic to the Katha. Katha states that the Asvattha tree is real and identical with the Brahman and is, therefore, impossible of being cut off. However the Gita states that the Asvattha tree must be regarded as unreal, and identical with existence. It further states that it is necessary to cut off this tree of existence by the potent weapon of nonattachment. These are opposing views. In Gita 15.4 Sri Krishna speaks of Padam-goal. Padam is also place or footing. The state of being that is beyond that illusory Tree of Samsara is to be sought. The detachment from Prakriti and the staunch attachment to the Supreme Purusha are the potent means for the destruction of the tree of Samsara of the Jivatman. Those who attain, who have gatah-gone to this abode beyond the Tree, they do not nirvartanti bhuyah – again return to the world. The wise ones who have cast off the veils of amudhah- delusion, go the avyayam padam – imperishable abode They have become free from nirmana - pride and arrogance; they have conquered sanga –attachment. YGGDRASIL: This is the Tree of the Universe in Scandinavian mythology. It is in the centre of their divine world. Here, the roots of a big ash grow in the three underworlds, the world of death, world of forest giants and world of men. The branches spread over the world. The tree unites earth and heaven and the underworld. Parts of the Scandinavian Yggdrasil would agree with both the Katha and Gita. It would agree with Katha Upanishad to the extent of the Tree identical with Reality, and, therefore, having a real concrete existence. It also agrees with the Gita in making the actions, the motives, and the histories of mankind the boughs and branches of this Tree of Existence. The Yggdrasil is as a Tree of existence is past, present and future. 2 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • Wow, Susan, thank you so much! Prem, I am asking if there are references to a "tree of life" in Dharmic traditions? I hope that helps. 2 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • In Judeo-Christian tradition, there are two trees: the tree of Life and the tree of Knowledge (of good and evil). They were somewhat in opposition to each other, somewhat like the relationship of Non-duality and Duality. It sounds like the tree of Samsara is more like the tree of Knowledge. Are there two trees or are they represented with just one tree? 2 months ago Jay Jay G. • Hi Colleen: A wonderful question and a big opportunity for all of us to learn from different traditions. Please elaborate on the 2 trees from Judeo-Christian tradition. Thanks. 2 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • I must preface my post with a caveat, that what I am writing is from a Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) perspective. In some ways it is closer to Hindu thought than the typical Christian view. As the story goes, among the trees of the Garden of Eden, there were two trees of particular importance. One of them was the Tree of Life, the fruit of which would have maintained life as it was forever. The other, the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, offered the "fruit" of duality. The partaker would be immersed in a world of opposites--happiness/misery, right/wrong, etc. The point of it is to offer choices, and the opportunity to learn from one's own experience. It also brought mortality with birth and death. When Adam and Eve (first mortal parents) ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, the "fruit" of the Tree of Life was no longer available as it would have trapped them in this duality. So, it was required that there be one who would be powerful enough to overturn this condition. A Messiah or Christ through His atonement of this transgression, makes the Tree of Life available to us again. Unique to Latter-day Saint doctrine is the story of a dream of an ancient prophet, repeated also to his son, about a Tree of Life, the fruit of which is Eternal Life. Surrounding this tree, are many objects. There was a deep canyon filled with dirty water and mists of darkness. There was also a path with a rod of iron as a railing that led to the Tree. Also present was a great and spacious building full of people who laughed and mocked at the people who were on the path. The metaphor is probably quite obvious to most people of faith. If anyone is interested, you can find the story by following this link in the Book of Mormon: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/8?lang=eng This will take you to Chapter 8 where the prophet tells of his dream. Chapter 11 tells of the son's desiring to understand his father's vision and his own experience with it. 2 months ago Dr. Satyajit Dr. Satyajit K. • Interestingly there are mentions about seeds in (advaita vedanta) and tree in the song of Mahamudra. Both my favorite. But these represents tree which are illusions which are to be rid off. In the monumental book Vivekachudamani Shankara says : The seed of the samsara tree is ignorance, identification with the body is its shoot, desire is its first leaves, activity its water, the bodily frame its trunk, the vital forces its branches, the faculties its twigs, the senses its flowers, the manifold pains arising from various actions its fruit, and the bird on it is the individual experiencing them. 145 Of the tree of conditioned life truly the seed is tamas, the sprout is the conviction that the body is the ego, attachment is the leaf, Karma truly is the sap, the body is the trunk, the vital airs are the branches of which the tops are the organs, the flowers the objects (of the organs), the fruit the variety of sufferings from manifold Karma, and jiiva is the bird that feeds. 147 Identification of oneself with the body is the seed of the pain of birth etc. in people attached to the unreal, so get rid of it with care. When this thought is eliminated, there is no more desire for rebirth. 164 A seed is seen to grow with the development of the necessary conditions, while the failure of the conditions leads to the failure of the seed. So one must remove these conditions. 312 It is observed that the growth of motive is the growth of the seed (of changing existence), the destruction of the former is the destruction of the latter; therefore the former is to be annihilated. 346 The fire of the knowledge of the oneness without limitation, burns down completely the forest of avidyaa; where then is the seed of changeful existence of him who has completely attained the state of oneness? (347) Now from Mahamudra my favorite song: Tilopa says to Naropa, Mahamudra is beyond all words And symbols, but for you ,Naropa Ernest and Loyal, must this be said ... .... ....Cut the root of the tree and the leaves will wither; cut the root of your mind And Samsara falls. The light of any lamp Dispels in a moment The darkness of the long kalpas; The strong light of the mind In but a flash will burn The veil of Ignorance. 2 months ago Ari Ari V. • In tibetan buddhist traditions they use refusetrees as a meditation object. There is also a tree in the centre of universe or mandala sometimes 2 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • More Trees and Bushes: I found this quote on Facebook this morning but I don't know the author: "Those who aspire for self-transformation have to adopt this practice of conscious self-discipline in their lives. Human life, with myriads of latent physical, mental and spiritual qualities, may be likened to a garden of sweet fruits. Even if only a few of these qualities are cultivated systematically, one can relish the fruits of joy. But if the baser tendencies and bodily habits are left undisciplined, they run amuck. Such aimless life leads to the growth of thorny bushes of misery and suffering in the garden of life. Like a kalpavriksha (a mythological tree supposed to fulfil every desire of a person sitting beneath it), the human life is potentially full of innumerable precious gifts. One can benefit from these divine gifts only when life's energies are properly focused, disciplined and directed towards noble deeds." 2 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • Thank you, Satya: [The light of any lamp Dispels in a moment The darkness of the long kalpas; The strong light of the mind In but a flash will burn The veil of Ignorance.] What a beautiful passage! Thank you Ari! Interesting parallels from around the world. 2 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • I like to think that if we plant and cultivate the Tree of Life with its eternal fruit in our lives that eventually it will grow so large that it will crowd out the other stuff. Another thought ...or two. Eternal is another name for God. So when we speak of Eternal Life, we speak of God's life. I think that there is an interesting parallel in the terms "Eternal Life" and "Sanatana Dharma" Sanatana=Eternal Dharma=That which sustains I love making connections.... :-) 2 months ago Dr. Satyajit Dr. Satyajit K. • Colleen, however trees themselves are worshiped in Hindu tradition. If you are interested I can send you few details about that. 2 months ago Dr. Satyajit Dr. Satyajit K. • You can see the following two links : http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Sacred-Trees-of-the-Hindus-1.aspx http://handicraft.indiamart.com/products/religiousproducts/sacred-trees.html 2 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • Thank you, Satya This is perfect. I enjoy the symbolism 2 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • The second link is a valuable source of information about the medicinal properties of these trees. Thanks, again. 2 months ago Dr. Satyajit Dr. Satyajit K. • You are most welcome Collen ! 2 months ago Dan Dan B. • There is much talk in Judaism about trees, life, an trees of life. The Hebrew Bible, or Torah, is sometimes referred to as a Tree of Life. The German-Jewish language of Yiddish has an affectionate word for tree: boimeleh. Judaism even has a New Year for the Trees, originally for tithing and now as a sort of Earth Day or Arbor Day with lots of fruit, nuts, juice, and wine (all vegan).. May our collective tree keep thriving! 2 months ago Colleen Colleen D. • In the last few days, Dr. Pradeep Sharma posted some pictures of jelly-fish on Facebook. Through their beautifully delicate bodies you can see the translucent images of their branched circulatory systems. I thought to myself, "Look at those tiny trees pulsing with life." The tree of life is everywhere. Circulatory, lymphatic, and most especially our nervous systems diverge and converge in this endless expression of being. ...and the Eternal Family Tree, perhaps the greatest of all of the expressions of Eternal Life. 2 months ago Fernando Fernando Y. • In the south of Chile and Argentina, we have the "Canelo" tree (Drymis enteri/winteri) that is the Mapuche main Sacred Tree. It is the symbol of kindness, peace and justice. Also, it has many medicinal uses and that's why the Canelo gives "magic" powers to the Machi (shaman). The Voigue (Canelo) is in the center of any social and religious meetings. http://www.myetymology.com/encyclopedia/Legend_of_Licarayen.html (Notes: the old Indian was an old Machi and the cinnamon-coulored was a branch of Canelo).

Polytheism and Monotheism plus Paired, Androgynous, Names of Deity/Dieties

The LDS Doctrine and Covenants 121:25-31 states: 25 For there is a time appointed for every man, according as his works shall be. 26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now; 27 Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times,which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory; 28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. 29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ. 30 And also, if there be abounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars— 31 All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times— I don't find this scripture disturbing but view it as something we should all take time to ponder. Joseph Smith, in the King Follet sermon, said that "God never had the power to create Himself." This being the case, is it not logical, rational, and yet edifying to ponder on the origins of Heavenly Father and His Ancestors? Just as He (and His Beloved Son) grew, "line upon line and precept upon precept," wouldn't His Parents and Ancestors have grown and developed in the same way, albeit an infinite millenia and an infinite galaxy away from our current earth? Some people see a strong disconnect between Hindu, Buddhist, and Mormon views of Deity, citing that in Far Eastern religions/ philosophies, Deities of both genders exist and not in a monotheistic way. Since continual eternal progression and exaltation/nirvana/moksha, in Mormonism, depend upon a male and female's eternal union to each other and to God, I see yet another salient similarity rather than a difference. As to the 330,000 gods of Hinduism and the lack of a Supreme Being with a tangible body in Buddhism, the fact that "God Himself could not create Himself," alludes to the existence of more than 330,000 Gods, only one of which Mormons worship. Even if one excludes Heavenly Father's Ancestors, picture 100 million years from now, when, let's say, 1 out of every 13 Mormons reach the level of godhood. That alone would provide 1,000,000 gods, to say nothing of their posterity. Your thoughts?

This should be the picture behind the banner headline. Coming soon..............


Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shinto and Mormonism


World Religions (Non-Christian) and Mormonism [This entry consists of seven articles: Overview Buddhism Confucianism Hinduism Islam Judaism Shinto The articles gathered under this title generally explain the relationships between Latter-day Saints and persons of other faiths, and illustrate differences and similarities in belief between non-Christian religions and the LDS religion. On the former subject, see also Interfaith Relationships: Jewish and Interfaith Relationships: Other.] Overview Latter-day Saints believe that God has inspired not only people of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, but other people as well, to carry out his purposes. Today God inspires not only Latter-day Saints but also founders, teachers, philosophers, and reformers of other Christian and non-Christian religions. Since LDS belief is grounded in a theistic biblical faith, it has been relatively easy for scholars and believers to perceive parallels between it and traditional Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Now that the Church has become a global movement extending into Asia, comparisons between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the principal religions of India, China, Korea, and Japan are increasingly significant. The gospel does not hold an adversarial relationship with other religions. Leaders of the Church have said that intolerance is a sign of weakness (R. Lindsay, "A Mormon View of Religious Tolerance," Address to the Anti-defamation League of B´nai B´rith, San Francisco, February 6, 1984). The LDS perspective is that "we claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may" (A of F 11). The Church teaches that members must not only be kind and loving toward others but also respect their right to believe and worship as they choose. George Albert Smith, eighth President of the Church, publicly advocated the official Church policy of friendship and tolerance: "We have come not to take away from you the truth and virtue you possess. We have come not to find fault with you nor to criticize you…. We have come here as your brethren…. Keep all the good that you have, and let us bring to you more good, in order that you may be happier and in order that you may be prepared to enter into the presence of our Heavenly Father" (pp. 12–13). On February 15, 1978 the First Presidency of the Church issued the following declaration: "The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God´s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals…. Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal Welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father" (Palmer, 1978). In the words of Orson F. Whitney, an apostle, the gospel "embraces all truth, whether known or unknown. It incorporates all intelligence, both past and prospective. No righteous principle will ever be revealed, no truth can possibly be discovered, either in time or in eternity, that does not in some manner, directly or indirectly, pertain to the Gospel of Jesus Christ" (Elders´ Journal 4, no. 2 [Oct. 15, 1906]:26). "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things" (A of F 13). SPENCER J. PALMER Bibliography Palmer, Spencer J. The Expanding Church. Statement of the First Presidency, Feb. 15, 1978, frontispiece. Salt Lake City, 1978. Palmer, Spencer J., and Roger R. Keller. Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View. Provo, Utah, 1989. Smith, George Albert. Sharing the Gospel with Others, ed. Preston Nibley. Salt Lake City, 1948. Buddhism "Buddhism has been the most important religious force in Asia for nearly two thousand years. No other religion has affected the thought, culture, and politics of so many people. In aesthetics, architecture, dance, drama, handicrafts, literary arts, and music Buddhism has also been the single most important civilizing influence in the Eastern world" (Palmer and Keller, p. 49). Siddhartha Gautama (563–483 B.C.), the founder of Buddhism, acknowledged no God, no soul, and no future life; he taught of the bliss of nirvana, which involves the extinction of ego and lust. Caught in the legacy of karma, one´s life is bequeathed to another who falls heir to it—a continuation that is sometimes called "stream of consciousness," the "aggregates of character," or the "skandas." Consequently, the historical Buddha did not advocate worship or prayer, but practiced introspective meditation as a form of spiritual discipline. The philosophy of Gautama (Gotama, in Pali), sometimes called Theravada Buddhism, with its emphasis upon the worthlessness of the physical body, of individuality, of this phenomenal mortal life, of faith in God, and of judgment, disagrees with LDS doctrine. In the restored gospel, mankind is the literal, personal offspring of God. It is a privilege to be born into mortality to gain a physical body, so that one can become more like the Heavenly Father, who is a personal, tangible being (cf. D&C 130:22). Self-fulfillment, not self-negation, is the purpose of earth life. Latter-day Saints seek to emulate Christ and, through the power of his divine Atonement, to be personally exalted into the presence of God after death, and to become like him (see Godhood). This is not to say that the gospel and Buddhism contradict one another in every way. The LDS religion, like Buddhism, advocates meditation, reverence, inspiration, and moderation. Latter-day Saints embrace elements similar to those of the Eightfold Middle Path, which advocate freedom from ill will and cruelty, and abstinence from lying, talebearing, harsh and vain thought, violence, killing, stealing, and sexual immorality (see Commandments). Other dimensions of Buddhist doctrine and practice, in the schools of Mahayana Buddhism in northern Asia, are similar to LDS doctrine and practice. Both LDS belief and Mahayana Buddhism are theistic. The Bodhisattva ideal of benevolence and compassionate service, of helping others who cannot by themselves reach the highest realms of spirituality, is not only largely consistent with the vicarious sacrifice and redeeming love of Jesus Christ, but also is expressed in wide-ranging, loving service on behalf of the living and the dead carried out within Latter-day Saint temples (see Temple Ordinances). SPENCER J. PALMER Bibliography Palmer, Spencer J., and Roger R. Keller. Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View. Provo, Utah, 1989. Confucianism The Confucian focus upon moral example as the basis of harmony in society, government, and the universe is consistent with LDS views. However, Confucius was not interested in metaphysics or theology; he did not advocate belief in God, nor did he talk about life after death. He was concerned with humans in their social setting. Arguments that Confucianism is not a religion have often been answered by references to its sacred text. One could also point to the lives of millions who have sought to practice its teachings by honoring parents and deceased ancestors through acts of affection and piety in the home or through performances at tombs, shrines, and temples that convey spiritual belief as well as moral affirmations (Palmer, p. 16). For Latter-day Saints, morality is based upon the individual´s relationship with God as an expression of one´s faith in God and upon obedience to his will. Confucian morality is generally expressed in social and cultural ways. Values of loyalty, virtue, respect, courtesy, learning, and love are preserved primarily through outward courtesies and formalities, including traditional family ceremonies. Filial piety is the ultimate virtue. It includes honoring the spirits of one´s ancestors not only by observances at graves and family tombs but also by striving to achieve acclaim in learning, in the mastery of sacred texts, and in aesthetic arts such as music, poetry, and painting. The Confucian quest for sagehood, for refinement and cultivation of the ideal human, has its counterpart in the Latter-day Saint quest for eternal life. Both the sage and the true Latter-day Saint personify the transforming power of righteous behavior (see Righteousness). In LDS scripture it is sometimes referred to as putting off "the natural man" and becoming a saint, one characterized as being "submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict" (Mosiah 3:19). Latter-day Saints and Confucians share a mutual concern for the salvation of the extended family. Though the focus differs, both carry out devotional ceremonies in sacred places on behalf of departed ancestors. In this respect, both the LDS Church and Confucianism may be called family-centered religions. Both place importance upon genealogical research, the preservation of family records, and the performance of vicarious holy ordinances on behalf of their dead. In both instances, there exists a commitment to the idea that the living can serve the needs of departed loved ones (see Temple Ordinances). Church members believe that Elijah, the Old Testament prophet, personally appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple in 1836 and conferred priesthood keys, or authority, by means of which the hearts of children could turn to their ancestors and to the promises of salvation made to the fathers and the hearts of forebears could turn to their children (D&C 110:13–16), with the result that families and generations can be joined together "for time and for all eternity." Joseph Smith´s remark concerning the dead "that they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect" (D&C 128:15; cf. Heb. 11:40) also resonates in the Confucian world. SPENCER J. PALMER Bibliography Palmer, Spencer J. Confucian Rituals in Korea. Berkeley, Calif., 1984. Palmer, Spencer J., and Roger R. Keller. Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View. Provo, Utah, 1989. Hinduism Unlike the LDS Church, Hinduism has no founder, no central authority, no hierarchy, no uniformly explicated or applied moral standards. However, Hindus and Latter-day Saints share at least two fundamental beliefs—the continuing operation of irreversible cosmic law and the importance of pursuing ultimate union with the divine—though these principles may be understood differently (see Unity). Hinduism and the gospel of Jesus Christ differ in their perceptions of deity. In Hinduism there exist many gods, of thunder, drink, fire, sky, mountains, and the like, who are variously playful, capricious, vindictive, loving, and law-abiding. During the period of classical Hinduism, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva emerged to represent, respectively, the three primary functions of creation, preservation, and destruction. However, among the gods there is no generally recognized order. For Latter-day Saints, God the Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost form a tritheistic group of individuals of unified purpose and power, always systematic and ethical. The Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (D&C 130:22). The physical world was organized by the Father, through the instrumentality of the Son, who is the only Savior of the world, having willingly submitted to the suffering in Gethsemane and to crucifixion as an atoning sacrifice so that humankind could be delivered from death and sin. Several ordinances of the Church are similitudes of the life, death, and redemption of Christ. LDS belief and Hinduism both subscribe to a belief in an antemortal existence (see Premortal Life). Hindus believe that premortal experiences determine inequalities of earthly life, including the caste system. In LDS cosmology, eternal laws of cause and effect were applicable in the premortal existence, as they are for inhabitants of the current temporal world: "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated" (D&C 130:20–21). Valiant souls from the pre-earth life may be ordained to be leaders here (Abr. 3:23; cf. Jer. 1:4; see Foreordination). In Hindu terminology, the cosmic law of justice is called "karma." Hindus believe that individual spirits are reincarnated repeatedly on earth in accordance with the effects of karma. Those who have not yet merited release from this wheel of rebirth are in a state of negative karma. If they improve their deeds during the next incarnation, they can improve their karmic condition and may even gain freedom to reach Nirvana (see Reincarnation). To Latter-day Saints, mortality is considered an extension and continuation of premortal performance in proving and preparing persons for exaltation in life after death. Humans are born only once on earth, and all mortal beings at birth are candidates for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. Hindus believe that the accumulated prebirth experiences have more consequence in determining one´s future state than the actions of mortality. For Church members, birth is not an indication of failure to achieve release from the wheel of birth but rather a positive step forward along the path from premortal life to mortal life to immortality and eternal progression. In this connection, the Fall of Adam was no accident. It was an essential event in the plan of reunion with God (cf. 2 Ne. 2:25). At the philosophical level, Hinduism sees the phenomenal world as an illusion, but within the manifold appearances there is Brahman, the World Soul. Individual life is an invisible aspect of Universal Life. The ultimate object of all works, devotion, and knowledge is to gain release from egotistical lustful attachments to this physical world so as to achieve a state of peace that comes from identity with the impersonal Universal Soul, or Nirvana. Gaining a conscious union with God is also a prime objective of LDS belief, although it is perceived differently. Jesus not only declared that he and his Father were one but also prayed that his disciples would likewise become one with them (John 10:30; 17:11), both in mind and will, as well as in heightened states of celestial consciousness, that is, to develop thoroughly Christlike and godlike qualities (D&C 35:2; 76:58; 1 Cor. 6:17; Heb. 2:11; Rom. 12:2). In purpose, power, and personality, and even in the glorification of the body, humankind can become perfect (Matt. 5:48; 3 Ne. 12:48; see also Perfection). Unlike Hinduism, the LDS faith does not seek the relinquishment of individuality. Free agency and personal responsibility are not impaired but ultimately honored and enhanced. SPENCER J. PALMER Bibliography Palmer, Spencer J., and Roger R. Keller. Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View. Provo, Utah, 1989. Islam Interest in the Church´s associations with Islam has appeared in literary comparisons, within LDS teachings, and through historical contacts. The initial comparison was perhaps made in 1834, when the anti-Mormon Pastor E. D. Howe suggested that Joseph Smith matched Muhammad´s "ignorance and stupidity," thereby coining an analogy that experienced polemical and "scientific" phases. The polemical phase entailed American Protestants vilifying the Church and its prophet by likening them to Islam and Muhammad, long presumed fraudulent by Christians. This disputative tactic had been used against Protestants during the Counter-Reformation, and emphasized such allegations as sensuality, violence, and deception. These polemics yielded a literary corpus—for example, "The Yankee Mahomet" and books by Joseph Willing and Bruce Kinney. The scientific phase began when the explorer and Arabist Richard Francis Burton visited Utah in 1860 and rephrased in academic discourse the analogy, subsequently elaborated by David Margoliouth, Eduard Meyer, Hans Thimme, and Georges Bousquet. These Orientalists and sociologists of religion apparently felt they could study fully documented Mormonism as a proxy for underdocumented Islam. The Church´s doctrinal posture toward Islam has also gone through phases. Islam is not mentioned in either the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants. Yet articles in Times and Seasons suggest that some LDS spokesmen initially echoed medieval Christian views of Islam as fanatical heresy (Editorial, 3 [15 Apr. 1842]; "Last Hour of the False Prophet," 5 [Apr. 1, 1844]; "Mahometanism," 6 [Jan. 15, 1845]). But speeches by apostles George A. Smith and Parley P. Pratt in 1855 evoked more positive traditional interpretations: that Islam, fulfilling biblical promises made to Ishmael ("gen. 21:1Gen. 21), was divinely instigated to "scourge" apostate Christianity and to curb idolatry. Perhaps unknowingly paraphrasing Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792), George A. Smith applied historical judgment to Islam´s experience: "As they abode in the teachings which Mahomet gave them,…they were united and prospered; but when they ceased to do this, they lost their power and influence" (pp. 34–35). More recently, perhaps in the context of the Church´s growth to global dimensions, Muslim cultures have figured prominently in dicta—such as those by President Spencer W. Kimball and Elders Howard W. Hunter, Bruce R. McConkie, and Carlos E. Asay—stressing that God is no respecter of persons on grounds of race or color. In the "Easter Message" of February 15, 1978, the LDS First Presidency wrote that Muhammad and other nonbiblical religious leaders and philosophers "received a portion of God´s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations." On balance, Mormon teachings thus seem to have cast Islam in a positive historical role. Latter-day Saints´ historical contacts with Islam include missions in countries with Muslim populations. Some LDS proselytizers have expressed sentiments articulated earlier by such Catholic and Protestant missionaries as Cardinal Lavigerie and Samuel Zwemer: that Islam´s own doctrinal claims (e.g., God is one not three; Jesus was a prophet, not God´s son; apostates from Islam merit death), Islamic society´s holistic character, and the sad legacy of Muslim–Christian relations make difficult the converting of Muslims to Christianity. Since World War II many LDS professionals have lived in Muslim communities. Some have chronicled their experience in terms that are human (Marion Miller) or historical—theological (Arthur Wallace). At least one has engaged in radical syncretism (Ibn Yusuf/Lloyd Miller; see Green, 1983). Governments of Islamic countries, most of which ban proselytizing, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have allowed discreet worship by LDS families. In 1989 Jordan permitted the establishment of an LDS cultural center in Amman. ARNOLD H. GREEN Bibliography For general reviews of the literature, see A. H. Green, "Joseph Smith as an American Muhammad," Dialogue 6 (Spring 1971):46–58; and "The Muhammad-Joseph Smith Comparison: Subjective Metaphor or a Sociology of Prophethood," in Mormons and Muslims, ed. Spencer J. Palmer, Provo, Utah, 1983. This latter volume constitutes a collection of essays on the subject. For recent authoritative LDS statements, see Spencer W. Kimball, "The Uttermost Parts of the Earth," Ensign 9 (July 1979):2–9; and Howard W. Hunter, "All Are Alike Unto God," BYU Devotional Speeches, Provo, Utah, 1979, pp. 32–36. Judaism The views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members toward Jews and Judaism have been shaped chiefly by LDS teachings and by historical contacts with Jewish communities. These teachings include regarding the Jews as an ancient covenant people with a prophesied role in the contemporary gathering of Israel and in events of the last days, and the contacts include educational activities in Israel and LDS proselytizing efforts outside of Israel. Latter-day Saints share some traditional Christian positions toward Judaism, such as acknowledging debts for ethical foundations and religious terminology. Moreover, they have adopted stances expressed in Paul´s mildly universalistic writings: Bible-era Judaism, based on the Law of Moses and embodying the Old Testament or covenant, was essentially "fulfilled" in Jesus Christ (cf. 3 Ne. 15:4–8), so Christianity became the New Covenant and therefore spiritual "Israel." However, they have tended not to share the anti-Semitic postures of some Christian eras or groupings. Reflecting a more positive view, the Book of Mormon contains such passages as "Ye shall no longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews,…for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them" (3 Ne. 29:8), and President Heber J. Grant stated, "There should be no ill-will…in the heart of any true Latter-day Saint, toward the Jewish people" (GS, p. 147). Mormons consider themselves a latter-day covenant people, the divinely restored New Testament Church. In this light, they have interpreted literally the Lord´s mandate to them to regather Israel. While seeing historical judgment in Assyrian, Babylonian, and Roman treatment of biblical peoples, they have viewed the "scattering" as having beneficially diffused the "blood of Israel" worldwide. As a result, the Prophet Joseph Smith said that the Church believes in the "literal gathering of Israel" (A of F 10). This is done principally by missionary work searching for both biological and spiritual "Israelites" among the Gentile nations. In LDS eschatology, the first Israelite tribe thus being gathered is Ephraim, with which most Latter-day Saints are identified through patriarchal blessings. To this "Semitic identification" has been attributed the substitution of Judeophilia for anti-Semitism among Mormons (Mauss). Indeed, LDS doctrine has envisaged a partnership both in promulgating scripture—in Ezekiel 37:16, Latter-day Saints find allusions to the Bible and Book of Mormon—and in erecting millennial capitals: Ephraim will build the New Jerusalem in an American Zion, Jews ("Judah") will gather in "the land of their fathers" (3 Ne. 20:29) to rebuild (old) Jerusalem, a prominent theme in the Book of Mormon (see 2 Ne. 6, 9–10, 29; Ether 13) and the Doctrine and Covenants (sections 39, 42, 45, 110, 133). Like several post-Reformation evangelical groups, Latter-day Saints have anticipated a return of Jews to Palestine as part of Israel´s gathering. Indeed, the Prophet Joseph Smith sent Orson Hyde, an apostle, to Jerusalem, where in October 1841 he dedicated the land and prayed "for the gathering together of Judah´s scattered remnants" (HC 4:456). On grounds that "the first shall be last," Brigham Young said that the conversion of the Jews would not occur before Christ´s second coming (Green; cf. Ether 13:12). Yet Palestine was subsequently rededicated for the Jews´ return by several apostles in the Church: George A. Smith (1873), Francis M. Lyman (1902), James E. Talmage (1921), David O. McKay (1930), and John A. Widtsoe (1933). The creation by modern Zionism (secular Jewish nationalism) of a Jewish community and then a state in Palestine tested LDS doctrine´s equating the Jews´ "return" with Israel´s "gathering" (i.e., conversion, but in different locations). While Rabbi Abraham Kook´s disciples viewed Zionism´s success from Jewish eschatalogical perspectives, some Latter-day Saints began regarding it from LDS perspectives: a secular preparatory stage for the messianic era. A latter-day apostle, LeGrand Richards, and some others in effect identified Zionism and the State of Israel as the expected "return," the physical prelude to the spiritual "gathering." Others, such as Elder Bruce R. McConkie, wrote that the Zionist ingathering was not that "of which the scriptures speak…. It does not fulfill the ancient promises." He saw it as a "gathering of the unconverted" but "nonetheless part of the divine plan" (Millennial Messiah, Salt Lake City, 1982, p. 229). Pre–World War I contacts with Jewish communities were apparently influenced by Brigham Young´s dictum. Jews immigrated into Utah after 1864, aligning politically with non-LDS "Gentiles." Yet they related well to the LDS majority, which did not proselytize them. Indeed, to the earliest Jewish settlers in Utah, the LDS Church provided meeting places for services and donated land for a cemetery. Utahans have also elected several Jews to public office, including a judge, state legislators, and a governor (see Brooks, 1973). An LDS Near East mission (from 1884) was based temporarily at Haifa, where a cemetery contains graves of missionaries and German converts. Teaching mostly Armenians and German colonists, this mission ignored the longtime resident Jews of the Old Yishuv and had few contacts with new Zionist immigrants. After World War I some LDS leaders felt impressed to begin "gathering" Jews. New York Mission President (1922–1927) B. H. Roberts wrote pamphlets later consolidated into Rasha—The Jew, Mormonism´s first exposition directed at Jews. In this same vein, Elder LeGrand Richards composed Israel! Do You Know? and then received permission to launch experimental "Jewish missions," the largest being in Los Angeles. This and smaller Jewish missions (Salt Lake City; Ogden; San Francisco; Portland, Oreg.; New York; Washington D.C.) were disbanded in 1959, when the First Presidency directed that Jewish communities not be singled out for proselytizing. Noteworthy interaction has accompanied Brigham Young University´s foreign study program in Jerusalem (begun 1968), based first at a hotel and then at a kibbutz. Seeking a permanent facility, BYU leaders were granted a location on Mount Scopus by Jerusalem´s municipal authorities. Construction began in 1984 on the Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies and, because it was such a prominent facility on such a choice site, drew opposition; ultra-Orthodox Jews, suspecting a "missionary center" under academic cover, warned of "spiritual holocaust." However, anti-Mormon campaigns failed to halt construction of the center, partly because U.S. congressmen and Jewish leaders, as well as Israeli liberals, defended it. The controversy reached Israel´s Knesset, which obliged BYU to strengthen its nonproselytizing pledge. This contest was linked to the larger debate between Israel´s secularists, who valued pluralism, and its militant Orthodox, who feared a new alien presence. LDS contacts with Judaism have led to an exchange of converts. Salt Lake´s synagogue Kol Ami has been attended by some ex-Mormons. Perhaps a few hundred Jews have become Latter-day Saints. Like Evangelical Jews, most have continued to emphasize their Jewishness, and fellow Mormons have welcomed them and considered them "of Judah." Convert memoirs have appeared; for honesty and literary quality probably none surpasses Herbert Rona´s Peace to a Jew. Jewish Mormons formed B´nai Shalom in 1967 to function as a support group and to facilitate genealogical research. ARNOLD H. GREEN Bibliography For Mormon activities in Palestine/Israel, see Steven W. Baldridge and Marilyn Rona, Grafting In: A History of the Latter-day Saints in the Holy Land, Salt Lake City, 1989. On LDS attitudes and behavior toward Jews, see Herbert Rona, Peace to a Jew, New York, 1952; Armand L. Mauss, "Mormon Semitism and Anti-Semitism," Sociological Analysis, 29 (Spring 1968):11–27; Arnold H. Green, "A Survey of LDS Proselyting Efforts to the Jewish People," BYU Studies 8 (1968):427–43; and Juanita Brooks, History of the Jews in Utah and Idaho, Salt Lake City, 1973. For theological dimensions, see Truman G. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism: Judeo-Christian Parallels, Provo, Utah, 1978. Shinto Shinto, the earliest and largest native religion of Japan, has no known founder, no sacred scriptures, no systematized philosophy, no set of moral laws, no struggle between good and evil, no eschatology or life after death, no ecclesiastical organization. Shinto is "the way of the gods." It is folkways and spiritual feeling toward the awesomeness, the purity, the beauty of unspoiled nature. In the Japanese view, the ever-present powers and spirits within nature are the kami, or gods, but they are neither transcendent nor omnipotent. Shinto has a rich mythology. Its luxuriant polytheism is dominated by Amaterasu, the goddess of the Sun, and by her brother Susano, who is most often frivolous and rude. The LDS Church, on the other hand, has a founder, a set of sacred scriptures, a philosophical basis, a declared body of ethics and doctrine, and a structured church organization, and accepts a tritheistic Godhead through obedience to whom mankind can overcome the evils of this world. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the supreme Godhead, perfect, tangible beings whose light and love emanate from their presence "to fill the immensity of space" (D&C 88:12; cf. 130:22). Latter-day Saints believe that God´s work and glory are to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). But Shinto is concerned with the here and now. It expresses a "joyful acceptance of life and a feeling of closeness to nature" (Reischaur, in D.B. Picken, Shinto: Japan´s Spiritual Roots, Tokyo, 1980, pp. 6–7). No counterpart to the central tenet of LDS faith—the crucifixion and Atonement of Christ—exists in Shinto. While the LDS Church and many other world religions concentrate on the theology of death and sin, the importance of holy writ, and the responsibilities of parenting and church service, Shinto values and attitudes are transmitted through festive celebrations of the powers within mountains, waterfalls, trees, and other aspects of nature. SPENCER J. PALMER Bibliography Palmer, Spencer J., and Roger R. Keller. Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View. Provo, Utah, 1989.

Chris Smith's Carrel: Buddhist and Mormon Anthropologies


Buddhist and Mormon Anthropologies There are some interesting parallels between the Buddhist and Mormon conceptions of humanity's place in the cosmos. In particular, both Buddhism and Mormonism teach an infinite regress of worlds and an infinite regress of "the self". (Infinite regress here means that these things have existed for all eternity, and do not have a "beginning".) Both traditions also teach that all "selves"-- demonic, human, and divine-- are of fundamentally the same species. Yet from these anthropological starting points, the two traditions diverge in some highly interesting ways. A comparison of their differences may point adherents of each tradition toward some questions they never thought to ask, and some possible implications they never thought to consider. Let's begin with the concept of infinite regress. Buddhism posits a cycle in which the world is continually re-created and re-destroyed. The creator here is not a god, but an impersonal force or natural law called karma. "The self", meanwhile, is stuck in a cycle of continual reincarnation, and has passed through an infinite number of past lives. Thus history for a Buddhist goes like a never-ending sine wave, with alternating high points and low points. Mormonism's regress of worlds is rather different. It sees history as being like an infinitely branching tree on an ever-upward trajectory, with an infinite number of worlds being constantly created and glorified. As for the regress of selves, Mormonism, like Buddhism, sees "the self" as going through several lives or stages of existence. The difference here is that the stages are not cyclical. Once a stage is complete, it will never be repeated. Both traditions also see demons, humans, and gods as being fundamentally the same species. For both Mormons and Buddhists, the difference between the categories of being is a difference of merit and advancement rather than ontology. In both traditions it is fully possible to pass from one category to another, and in fact a host of divine beings who have reached a high level of development are standing by to help raise the lesser creatures to their level. (In Mormonism these are the Godhead and the angels; in Buddhism they are the Bodhisattvas.) Both Mormonism and Buddhism posit that this development is achieved through adherence to a self-existent and transcendent moral law to which even the gods themselves are subject. Mormonism refers to this as the moral law, whereas Buddhism calls it "karma". The main difference here is that Buddhism sees movement going in both directions, both up and down the chain of being. Even the gods often squander their time in heaven, and thus are reincarnated as lower beings. Mormonism, by contrast, sees movement going almost exclusively in an upward direction. Only those who utterly and deliberately reject the divine plan of salvation can regress to a lower stage of existence. The two movements' conceptions of the self are also somewhat parallel. Both movements have tended to see human souls not as unified, autonomous entities, but as aggregates constituted from some sort of substrate or matter. In fact, philosophers in both movements have proposed the idea of spiritual atomism-- that souls are actually composed of particles of matter! Yet each movement has drawn from this a very different implication. For Mormons, it is dignifying: humans are composed of eternal rather than contingent elements, and thus are free and self-existent beings. But for Buddhists, what it suggests is that the self is "empty" or non-real. The self is merely an aggregate of other things, and dependent on them for its existence. It is not a unified entity, so the appearance of autonomy is an illusion. In fact, Buddhist philosophers have argued that because everything that exists is dependent on something else for its existence, reality must have no independent grounding, and thus nothing is really real. For the good Buddhist, enlightenment is to recognize the self and the universe for what they really are: nothing at all. So while Mormonism and Buddhism have very similar anthropologies, they draw very different theological implications from them. We might summarize the difference by saying that Mormonism is optimistic, whereas Buddhism is pessimistic. In Buddhism, the cycle of reincarnation is seen as an endless and pointless existence filled with continual striving and suffering. The goal of a good Buddhist is to escape the cycle altogether by deconstructing and ultimately dissolving the self. In Mormonism, the endless striving and movement between stages is actually seen as a good thing. Far from escape, the eternal goal of a good Mormon is in fact perpetuation of the system, by creating new worlds and populating them with human souls! The similar ontological foundations of the two movements means that there's a great basis for interfaith dialogue here. Both movements might be able to learn from each other. For example, a Buddhist might ask a Mormon, "What's to stop a god from falling or sinning?" The Book of Mormon's own "proseperity cycle" seems more consistent with Buddhist expectations than with Mormon ones. When beings reach a high level of achievement, they tend to become proud, complacent, and self-satisfied. Why doesn't Mormonism make allowance for regression as well as progression? Alternatively, our Buddhist interlocutor might ask, "What is the point of the plan of salvation? Human life is full of misery and suffering. Am I really a son of perdition if I refuse to strive for its perpetuation?" To this a Mormon might pose an equally provocative counter-question. "Instead of 'striving' to escape the cycle of existence, why not just go with the flow? Why not just try to reduce the total amount of suffering in the world, so the endless continuation of human life won't be so bad?" Posted 10th July 2010 by Christopher Smith Labels: Mormonism 5 View comments ChrisJuly 10, 2010 at 5:24 AM I suppose I should insert a disclaimer here that the above post makes some gross generalizations about both Buddhist and Mormon teachings, many of which will not apply to one or another group of thinkers-- especially present-day revisionists-- within each movement. Reply Andrew SJuly 10, 2010 at 3:03 PM Interesting comparisons...actually, I guess what was more interesting was looking at the contrasts (and the questions that a person of one tradition might ask to the adherent of the other.) For example, even though I knew that nirvana was an "escape" from the cycle of death, reincarnation, suffering, etc., I still had an idea of it being a "high point" rather than the realization of "nothing" Reply ChrisJuly 10, 2010 at 9:09 PM I do think that many Buddhists would frame the idea of Nirvana in more positive ways. Some would describe it as perfect clarity, or an unleashing of awareness, or a realization of the true human being, or achieving a state of deathlessness. But there is also a strong and ancient vein of Buddhist thought that describes Nirvana as the cessation of identity and dissolution of the self. Or, at the very least, being perfectly at rest, and ceasing to think, desire, move, or act-- i.e.. functional if not ontological non-existence. Reply Tod RobbinsJuly 11, 2010 at 4:11 PM I like the analysis, though I am firmly in the Joseph Smith camp on uncreated spirits, which according to King Follett and Sermon in the Grove, were never created by God the Father, though Brigham and others have taught otherwise. In that sense, the Joseph sense (ha!), early Mormonism differs from Buddhist atomism of nothingness. Cheers. Reply ChrisJuly 11, 2010 at 5:10 PM Certainly neither movement is monolithic. One of the most popular schools of Buddhist thought in ancient China believed in a unified autonomous self, even though that pretty much directly contradicted what Gautama Buddha himself taught. And although most Buddhists would agree that the self is non-unified and non-autonomous, not all of them would talk about spiritual atomism. I was mostly just trying to find some suggestive touchpoints between the "mainline" or "traditional" teachings of each movement. But even if you reject spiritual atomism, Todd, I suspect you still wouldn't say that the human soul is internally undifferentiated (i.e. without any parts or divisions). And wouldn't you still agree with Joseph Smith that spirit is a kind of matter, as well? If so, then I think the Buddhists would assert that your beliefs still lead to the same implications: you are an aggregate rather than a unity, and you are dependent for your existence on your parts and substance. Thus your apparent self-existence as an autonomous unity is actually an illusion. Reply

By Common Consent: The Four-Fold Noble Truth of Mormonism


The Four-Fold Noble Truth of Mormonism MARCH 7, 2005 BY STEVE EVANS When I was in Vancouver getting laser eye surgery, I stole a copy of The Teaching of Buddha from my hotel room nightstand. Surprisingly, there is little in the book regarding theft. My previous exposure to buddhism was fairly limited: a comparative religions class at the Y, some buddhist friends growing up, and some literary references here and there. So, I plunged into my newly-pilfered book with gusto, and highly enjoyed it. It wasn’t long before my mormon-centric POV started to draw parallels and make associations between buddhism and mormonism. Most of the associations were banal; many were stupid and wrong. But there was one aspect of buddhism that particularly resisted correlation with mormonism: the Four-Fold Noble Truth. Let me explain (standard disclaimers of ignorance apply). The Four-Fold Noble Truth is one of the most central and primary teachings in buddhism, regardless of the branch of buddhist practice one follows. More fulsome discussion is available here, but The Teaching of Buddha expresses them as: The world is full of suffering. Birth is suffering, old age is suffering, sickness and death are sufferings. To meet a man whom one hates is suffering, to be separated from a beloved one is suffering, to be vainly struggling to satisfy one’s needs is suffering. In fact, life that is not free from desire and passion is always involved with distress. This is called the Truth of Suffering. The cause of human suffering is undoubtedly found in the thirsts of the physical body and in the illusions of worldly passion. If these thirsts and illusions are traced to their source, they are found to be rooted in the intense desires of physical instincts. Thus, desire, having a strong will-to-live as its basis, seeks that which it feels desirable, even if it is sometimes death. This is called the Truth of the Cause of Suffering. If desire, which lies at the root of all human passion, can be removed, then passion will die out and all human suffering will be ended. This is called the Truth of Cessation of Suffering. In order to enter into a state where there is no desire and no suffering, one must follow a certain Path. The stages of this Noble Eightfold Path are: Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Behavior, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. This is called the Truth of the Noble Path to the Cessation of the Cause of Suffering. My first inclination was to link these precepts to our own Articles of Faith: normative statements whose rhetorical purpose is to lead one to believe in the religion. It’s true that there is this goal, inherent in the Noble Truth; the only way out of the world it describes is through the path of enlightenment, as demonstrated by the Buddha. But I don’t think our own Articles of Faith establish a global understanding of the world on the same level of the Noble Truth. The closest we come in the A&F of a description of the world is the expression that we will be punished for our own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. By interpretation and deduction we can arrive at some conclusions about the world, but they’re not immediately evident in the A of F. Further, there is surprisingly little in the A of F about how to get saved; we explain that salvation comes via the Atonement, through obedience to the principles and ordinances of the Gospel, but the bulk of the A of F is about nuances of Christianity — it is a document designed to set forth the Church in a Christian context, not in a global context. So where then can we look for the Four-Fold Noble Truth of Mormonism? 2 Nephi 2 is a good reference, but it too is concerned with different subject matter, focussed on the nature of good vs. evil in the world. King Benjamin’s discourse also comes to mind; it is very good at detailing the fallen nature of man and the solution through Christ to the Fall. However, it is far from a succinct set of precepts. Ultimately, I’m led to believe that nowhere do we concisely but carefully describe the Mormon world-view in the vein of the Four-Fold Noble Truth. So, I turn to you — what is our Fourfold Noble Truth? Preach It: More « Our InternInternational Women’s Day » Comments Dallas Robbins says: March 7, 2005 at 4:13 pm Steve, I have also played with correlating the four noble truths to Mormon belief. I gave up, and simply believe in them now, for their own intrinsic value, which have played a big part of my life in the past two years. I am interested in how others interpret them. Steve Evans says: March 7, 2005 at 4:28 pm Dallas, like I said I’m a neophyte, but I think mormons could learn a great deal from these precepts. Clearly, the concept of universal suffering and the principal of global compassion could be more prominent in our minds. Dave says: March 7, 2005 at 7:58 pm Wow, deep topic Steve. Restating the four truths, it sounds like Buddhism identifies Suffering as a basic truth about the world, and our goal as the reduction or elimination of suffering by removing passion and desire from our lives. That’s probably an unfair summary of Buddhism, but it helps identify an approach to similarly summarize Mormonism or any other world view: (1) What is the basic (and non-obvious) truth about the world? (2) What does that imply for how we should live? For Mormonism, I think the basic (and non-obvious) truth about the world is that “man is, that he might have joy,” specifically exaltation, understood as a form of enhanced salvation offering personal growth approaching godhood and continued association with family members (parents, spouses, children). This seems quite different than Buddhism’s “life is suffering.” For Mormons, this implies obeying the principles and ordinances of the LDS gospel so as to acquire the priesthood-dispensed keys to exaltation: baptism, priesthood (for men), and temple ordinances, with the implicit understanding that one must endure faithful to the end. Obviously, there’s an institutional focus to Mormonism’s life ethic (formal membership in a hierarchical church with recognized leaders to whom obedience and loyalty are given) that is lacking in Buddhism. Awhile back I came across the four-word film review site, and I still have a lot of fun with the idea that you can say anything in four words. The four-word summary for Buddhism would be something like “Conquering desire prevents suffering.” For Mormonism, it would be something like “Mormon keys unlock exaltation.“ Eric Russell says: March 7, 2005 at 8:09 pm The closest we can get is perhaps John 15: 8-12. And I think these verses are a step above the four noble truths because they are purely altruistic in motive, as well as more wholly encompassing in behavior. They tell us what we ought to do (love one another) and why (for the glory of god). At the same time, the saints would do well to pay heed to the noble truths. Steve Evans says: March 7, 2005 at 9:41 pm Eric, interesting idea, but I don’t think that those verses really describe the world or its meaning… although they are interesting in terms of what they have to say about God. Bill says: March 7, 2005 at 10:08 pm At first I was thinking 2 Nephi chapter 9, but maybe section 88 is the best bet. Steve Evans says: March 7, 2005 at 10:30 pm Bill, what is it about Sec. 88 that is a succinct expression of the human condition and the gospel’s answers? J. Stapley says: March 7, 2005 at 11:35 pm I like 3rd Nephi 27 starting in vs. 13 for a brief Mormon summary of life. This does not have any reference to the fullness of the priesthood, but hey, I don’t know of a place that gives the whole spiel and Jesus rely gets at the essential aspects. And while 3 Nephi 27 does not really outline the state of the world, it states that men are essentially agents and that we are culpable for our misdeeds. As far as the 4 Buddhist precepts Steve outlines, I think they are incongruous with a Mormon world view. It seems that for a Mormon, suffering is to be overcome by desire not through its negation. Asceticism is not a valid solution to the fallen state of man. Its our active engagement in the world that subverts our fallen state. Bill says: March 8, 2005 at 1:24 am Perhaps it’s not really succinct, but it does address cosmological concerns in uniquely Mormon fashion. The atonement and the love of God are doctrines shared by all Christianity, after all, however the different subsets of that larger grouping may differ on the details. I’ve been reading the Moral Essays (1827) of Giacomo Leopardi, a poet whose first love was astronomy and who, like Pascal, emphasized the relative insignificance of mankind in the vastness of creation, but did not agree with the latter’s reasons for believing in God. Leopardi developed a theory of pleasure or happiness which reminds me a lot of the first two tenets of Buddhism listed above (although Leopardi was really more influenced by classical stoicism; it was his contemporary Schopenhauer whose pessimism had more affinity with Buddhism). From a brief synopsis in the introduction by Patrick Creagh, “All living creatures, though in a thousand different ways, long for pleasure, and not for this or that particular pleasure, which fades with familiarity or fails to match our hopes, but pleasure itself, infinite in vastness and duration. Man yearns for the infinite, and is equipped with an imagination that enables him to ‘conceive of things that do not exist, and in a way in which real things do not exist.’ Our greatest pleasures therefore are our hopes and our illusions, but insofar as we know them for what they are (since we know ‘the truth’) even they are stained with sorrow and disappointment. In short, as our infinite yearning for infinite happiness can of its very nature never be satisfied, it follows that true happiness is impossible, non-existent and ‘alien to the nature of the universe.’” For Leopardi, there was no avoiding desire, except in death. This made him wish to live as intensely as possible, not resulting in anything so vulgar as satisfying the appetites, but in banishing the banal and living without illusions but still in pursuit of rare and precious love in the midst of sterility and boredom. It seems like the Mormon and Christian attitude toward suffering is of two minds: on one hand, it is the result of sin, and to be avoided, and the Savior suffered that we might not. On the other hand, it is in the nature of things, the result of our fallen state, and to be earnestly desired, not only the better to learn pity and compassion, but to become partakers of Christ’s sufferings as a prelude or prerequisite to becoming his joint-heirs. J. Stapley says: March 8, 2005 at 2:00 am Bill: It seems like the Mormon and Christian attitude toward suffering is of two minds: on one hand, it is the result of sin, and to be avoided, and the Savior suffered that we might not. On the other hand, it is in the nature of things, the result of our fallen state, and to be earnestly desired, not only the better to learn pity and compassion, but to become partakers of Christ’s sufferings as a prelude or prerequisite to becoming his joint-heirs. I’ve been working through this dicotomy recently and never expected to find something so beatuful that crystallizes it. Thank you. Steve Evans says: March 8, 2005 at 9:39 am Thanks Bill — very thoughtful. Senor Stapley, I don’t think the buddhist ascetics are completely incompatible with mormon beliefs. I agree that we do not believe in the removal of desire, but we do insist upon self-mastery and keeping our appetites within certain bounds. So, to that end I think we can harmonize the two. And I think that we can agree with buddhism that most suffering comes from human desires. Pris says: March 8, 2005 at 10:11 am Steve, who wrote and/or translated the book you picked up? My understanding of Buddhism differs slightly from what you present. Again, I’m no expert, but I did take an entire class on Buddhism, though it’s been a while. First noble truth: If I remember right, the word suffering is translated from the Sanskrit/Hindi (I’m unsure of the language) “dukkah” (or something like that). Almost all western texts use the word “suffering” but, in some ways, the English word is too narrow–”dukkah”, sometimes, might be better translated as “discontentment”. So, it’s not always that active “suffering” but the general state of melancholy. Second noble truth: Perhaps some schools of Buddhist thought limit suffering to physical desires (I wonder what school the book you have is from?) but, generally, Buddhism believes that suffering is caused by desire. Period. Again, though, “desire” is perhaps not the best word, as it’s loaded in English. Another common translation is “attachment” (which I, personally, conveys the thought better). It’s easy to see how attachment would cause suffering: we get frustrated if we don’t get our work done because we are attached to our job, our definition of self-worth, praise, etc. The death of a loved one causes suffering because of our attachment to them. That sort of thing. Steve Evans says: March 8, 2005 at 10:19 am Good points Pris — I think the site I linked to makes that kind of distinction, but my book was definitely slanted in its translation towards ascetics. It was from a Japanese organization, the Buddhist Promoting Foundation (Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai). The leader of that foundation is a Shin buddhist, I believe. Charles says: March 8, 2005 at 10:48 am This is interesting. I studied a lot of Eastern philosophy when I was in college and younger, although I focused more on the Tao than Buddhism. One of my favorites was “The Great Tao” By Stephen Chang. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0942196015/qid=1110296652/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-5431694-5435843?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 The first few chapters illustrate the parallels in christianity and the Tao and later portions discuss the need for certain types of ballance, including diet, which seems to follow similarly to the WoW. A very interesting book. J. Stapley says: March 8, 2005 at 2:45 pm Steve, it seems that the harmonization that you speak of is more consistent with the Tao. True we believe in “managing” our appetites; however this is more a matter of perspective. We believe that there is a natural, beautiful, and godly way to indulge our appetites and the conversely unnatural, distorted, and devilish way to indulge. Either way, we are indulging and the ideal seems to be that we are not ridding ourselves of bad desires, but filling ourselves with good ones. If we are indulging the proper way, we are one with the Tao (or the way). Arwyn says: March 8, 2005 at 3:39 pm I don’t know much about Shin Buddhism, but in the Theravada/Mahayana traditions, the third of the noble truths has less to do with removing the desire as overcoming it. As Pris points out, “attachment” may be the better word, because the attachment has both to do with cravings (desires) and aversions (the opposite of desire), both of which arise out of attachment. In that interpretation, at least, I don’t think the Four-Fold Noble Truth is at all incongruous with Mormon belief. If suffering is, in fact, rooted in desire and attachment, then overcoming desire helps us to overcome suffering. The result of overcoming suffering isn’t just personal gain, either — it’s an increase in compassion for the suffering and misery of others. Really, it’s the development of Christ-like love. To bring this back to Steve’s initial question as to whether there’s a “Four-Fold Noble Trush of Mormonism”, I think it would have to be rooted in a fundamental element of the Gospel. “Men are that they might have joy,” as Dave suggests, is probably a good starting place. Steve Evans says: March 8, 2005 at 4:07 pm Thanks Arwyn. I think that you’re right that “Men are that they might have joy” is a good place to start. The fact of the matter is, though, that I believe Christianity and mormonism are fundamentally oriented towards the hereafter in ways that buddhism is not, and this explains why there may not be a Fourfold Noble Truth of mormonism. Buddhism is much more concerned with the state of the world than mormons are, I think, and this reflects in their emphasis on immediate behavior and practice. It seems weird to say, but Christianity can seem escapist at times in comparison to buddhism. Logan says: March 8, 2005 at 8:05 pm Finally — a free moment! I’ve been dying to make a comment on this one, sucker for Buddhism that I am. First, I’m glad some (particularly Pris and Arwyn) have pointed out that Steve’s simplification misses a good deal of the nuance and complexity involved in the Four Truths. We could probably explore those even further, but that’s not what I wanted to say here. What I did want to say is that the Four Noble Truths can be seen as a diagnosis and perscription for the human condition, much like a physician would do: Step one — diagnose the ‘illnes’: suffering Step two — determine the cause: attachment (I agree, Pris and Arwyn, a much better translation), wrong views, etc. Step three — can anything be done?: yes, suffering can be overcome Step four — how can we overcome suffering?: the Holy Eightfold Path In this light, I think there is a somewhat equivalent distillation of the human condition in our Church, taught in the missionary discussions: One — what is the human condition? We are subject to death, both physical and spiritual. Two — how did we get that way? Through the Fall of Adam (and Eve), which God allowed because it’s necessary for our spiritual progression. Three — Is it possible to overcome physical and spiritual death? Yes — Christ’s atonement makes it possible. Four — How? The first principles and ordinances of the gospel (Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, Endure to the End). This, I think, is what we might be able to call the “Four-fold Truth of Mormonism.” Ryan Bell says: March 9, 2005 at 10:52 am I understand that we’re simplifying for the sake of conversation, but if I’m reading these ‘truths’ right, they seem to say that suffering can be eliminated if we will shed ourselves of desires or attachments. Does anyone really buy that? Seems patently false to me. Further, I’m still trying to understand why the abandonment of desire or attachment would be a good thing. Explanations welcome. It’s interesting to see the connections in Buddhism to Huxley’s “Brave New World,” which was constructed around the priority of always allowing every human to instantly fulfill every single desire, thereby eliminating crime, etc. That book is a good explanation about how such a project is inherently doomed. Of course, the people in the book were seeking to control eliminate desire by constant fulfilment of desire, rather than self-abnegation, which I surmise is the method prescribed by the Buddha. Either way, the goal strikes me as fundamentally unattainable, and not certainly desirable. Steve Evans says: March 9, 2005 at 11:18 am Ryan, I don’t think you get it, which is probably because I am not setting forth the fulness of what Buddhism is about. Ryan Bell says: March 9, 2005 at 11:21 am Perhaps Logan or Pris can fill in the blanks. Steve has obviously been too morally compromised by his theft to be a credible exponent of these principles. Steve Evans says: March 9, 2005 at 11:23 am p.s. I really, really like what Logan said. And let’s not demean buddhism by putting their tenet in scare quotes. The fact of the matter is that a great deal of suffering in the world is caused by other people, and any efforts to eliminate it would be worthwhile. Ryan Bell says: March 9, 2005 at 11:30 am Steve, I’m not sure how I’m being demeaning. I’m trying to critically analyze what you’ve set forth here. There has been some clarification offered by others, but I don’t think it’s out of bounds to question some of the premises on which these principles are based. And I agree, some suffering could be eliminated if we got rid of desires, but 1)not all (or maybe even most) suffering, and 2)at what cost would we rid ourselves of desire? Pris says: March 9, 2005 at 11:32 am Ryan: I buy it, to some extent, but recognize some of the difficulties in it. I’m not sure how to explain why, because it seems patently true to me. For example, why do I suffer when my hours burns down? Because I’m attached to the objects, including the house itself. There might be a variety of reasons for my attachment–pride, status, nostalgia, etc.–but I’m still attached to those things. If I weren’t attached, I wouldn’t suffer. One of the difficulties with accepting this line of thinking is the implication for other things–like relationships. Non-attachment says that you shouldn’t ever be so attached to your wife that, if something were to happen, you would suffer. Clearly this isn’t something many people agree with (I don’t), but I can see the logic. As for why it’d be a good thing: perhaps those that know more about Buddhism would be better equipped to answer. That is to say, I don’t know the nuances of the Buddhist position to answer from a Buddhist perspective. I can say, however, from my own thoughts, that the reason to lessen one’s attachment is the decrease in suffering. I wouldn’t say that we should be completely non-attached, but I shouldn’t be so attached my stereo that if it broke I’d cry. It’s easier to “go with the flow” — to adapt, to change — if one isn’t attached to things. That said, I don’t think it’s all that different from Christianity – we shouldn’t be attached to the things of this world: we should only be attached to the Lord. Steve Evans says: March 9, 2005 at 11:38 am Pris, that’s exactly right. Ryan, “ridding ourselves of desire” is not like some sort of lobotomy that turns us into Vulcans. Rather, it’s indicative of an attitude of selflessness and a focus on helping others rather than helping ourselves. IMHO that’s entirely consonant with Christ’s teachings. That said, I’m not advocating total detachment from love, etc., and so I would likely make a poor buddhist in the traditional sense. I believe there are branches of buddhism that recognize the need for familial relationships and cherish them. What’s more, this thread really isn’t about buddhism — it’s about mormonism. I guess that’s why I am not interested in exploring the critical approach you’re endeavoring to provide. Ryan Bell says: March 9, 2005 at 11:55 am Thanks for these thoughts, guys. Steve, let me atone for my threadjack, then, with my own thoughts about your central question: Mormonism’s four-fold truths (combining Mormonism’s condensed, central message about the world with its normative prescriptions for overcoming it) 1. The world is fallen. This is not the fault of any person living in the world. Some evil and pain naturally result from this condition, including death,independent of the moral choices of mankind. 2. As a result of the fallen state of the world, mankind– though not inherently evil– is inherently able to do or become evil. Some suffering and pain results from this state, because of the moral choices of mankind. 3. Both of the above kinds of pain and suffering are permanent conditions of this life, but can be mitigated in part by the peace offered by the Savior. 4. Both of the above kinds of pain and suffering can be completely conquered in the long-term, by the grace and atonement of the Savior. Now I understand that composing that formulation is easier than finding where it’s neatly set forth in the scriptures. I believe, without checking that each of these points is basically addressed in 2 Nephi 2. Alternatively, if you add Articles of Faith 2 and 3, you get a stripped down version of this, without some of the bells and whistles. Steve Evans says: March 9, 2005 at 12:05 pm Ryan, is it correct to strip the fall of human fault, the way you do? I’m concerned that your formulation doesn’t adequately address the role each of us play in a fallen world. Yes, the world produces thorns and noxious weeds, and death is now a part of the equation, but you seem to be anxious to say that the world isn’t our fault…. and that isn’t quite right. Ryan Bell says: March 9, 2005 at 12:11 pm Steve, as I tried to state in truth number 2, there’s no doubt that the evil in the world is partly caused by our own choices. However, I think it’s good doctrine that the fact that evil is possible in this world is not our fault. Steve Evans says: March 9, 2005 at 1:48 pm Ryan, how can evil occur in the world if not through men? What other ways can evil manifest itself? Are natural disasters evil? Dog bites? I guess evil, and the suffering that results from evil, seems to me to manifest through mankind only. Now, mankind may not be the source of evil, but that’s a different problem. HL Rogers says: March 9, 2005 at 2:13 pm In certain respects the Bible points to spiritual manifestations of evil that are independent of mankind. For example, demonic possession of pigs. Although the deons do not use the pigs cause any evil acts besides the fact of demonic possession in intself being evil and of course the loss of pigs’ lives (the account only shows the possibility of animal possession as Christ casts the demons into the pigs and not the independent power of demons to inhabit animals). This leads to the possibility of demonic possession of a dog that in turn bites you out of evil intentions. Perhaps a stretch but I thought Steve’s query should be answered. Steve Evans says: March 9, 2005 at 2:24 pm Good intern! Tonight you can go home at 10:30 IF you finish that photocopying job Kristine gave you. Philosophically, the problem of evil’s source cannot be solved, I don’t think. People far more intelligent than ourselves scratch their heads. But for Mormons, we believe in external evil actors (such as Satan) that seek to destroy us. How do they do it? Occasionally, those sons of perdition/devils act directly (like the Death Grip described in the First Vision), but I think those are exceptions to the rule, which is: evil exists through men. Matt Evans says: March 9, 2005 at 2:38 pm The definition of suffering seems to be tautological. If the cause of my suffering is my desire to be free of suffering, and the solution for my toothache is to lose the desire for a toothache-free mouth, suffering has been defined as a refusal to embrace the status quo. The world is better because we do not accept suffering; we seek to end it. Steve Evans says: March 9, 2005 at 2:45 pm Matt, it’s not entirely circular, because people seek to cure their suffering in ways that are selfish and destructive. People think that by having food and nice clothes and an iPod that their sufferings will end. People think that by taking drugs or having abortions or getting a new job, their sufferings will end. Ultimately, suffering can’t end by conscious means on our part, because pain is a part of this world. Buddhism teaches that we become free of suffering only when we can master our selfish tendies to triumph over our own suffering. Accepting suffering as a universal problem is a mechanism to get us thinking about the other. Matt Evans says: March 9, 2005 at 2:59 pm I edited my comment too quickly. The definition of suffering is tautological because suffering is defined by our desires (if we desire it, it’s not suffering), and desires are defined as those things that cause suffering. Implicit in the model is the validity of the desire to be free of suffering — the desire to be free of suffering is the purpose for walking the path in the first place. But why is the desire to be free of *all* suffering legitimate, but not the desire to be free of particular forms of suffering, such as migraine headaches? Steve Evans says: March 9, 2005 at 3:13 pm Matt, the desire to get rid of just one source of suffering can be selfishly motivated and guided, and thus destructive. But otherwise, the cause-effect relationship of desire and suffering is I think a central buddhist teaching (some of the more informed out there can help us on this). It’s similar, IMHO, to reaping what we sow in mormonism. Matt Evans says: March 9, 2005 at 3:14 pm Steve, I didn’t refresh the page before writing my last comment, so our comments crossed. It seems obvious that people are frequently wrong about the way to alleviate their suffering (clothes and iPods do not make up for emotional losses), but they are frequently right, too. Dentists are good at alleviating toothaches, and maintaining our bodies alleviates much suffering. It seems that Buddhism, as presented here, teaches that the solution to a toothache isn’t a dentist and better hygiene, but to overcome my desire for a pain-free mouth in the first place. And if I have bed sores because I’m 800 pounds and never get out of bed, I should just rid myself of the desire for a bed-sore-free bottom, and hasta la vista suffering. If Buddhism teaches that we should not be selfish, count our blessings, and be mindful of and anxious to alleviate others’ suffering, I’m not sure how it differs from Christianity. Steve Evans says: March 9, 2005 at 3:24 pm Matt, I’ve seen some chubby Buddhas, but no bedsores! Ryan Bell says: March 9, 2005 at 6:45 pm Sorry for my absence, but I’ll now pick up the thread I abandoned earlier: It seems like a pretty simple thing to say that there are two preconditions for evil: a setting which allows evil to occur, and an agent that can do evil. The world, having fallen, is a setting in which evil may occur. I’m not sure what exactly happened in the fall, but something changed such that evil was now possible. Where Adam and Eve were concerned, this took place through the advent of knowledge of good and evil, ushering in moral agency. But where the rest of the world is concerned, I’m not sure. Something changed though, which introduced thistles and noxious weeds, and enmity between the creatures. Thus, regardless of whether anyone actually committed any evil, the world was now a place where evil could occur. The second step takes place when we use our moral agency to commit evil. But presumably, I could not sin if I lived in a pre-fall world. Thus, the setting in which evil may occur is crucial, and this is provided by the fallen world. Make sense? Peggy Snow Cahill says: September 15, 2005 at 5:49 pm Too many wonderful comments and too little time, so I must restrain my input to what is really stuck in my craw…. On suffering: it is part of the human condition, since it is merely that we cannot have exactly what we want when we want it all the time. (Try spending time around a two-year old sometime; they excel at it!) And as Saints, we recognize the value in suffering, as it leads us to put off the natural man. Christ suffered more than us all (the summation of all our suffering, plus his own!). It seems to me that the first three of the Buddhist Noble Truths are not so different in intent than telling us that we must overcome our carnal selves. One of the politically correct “truths” in the world that I think does much harm is the notion that “no one should have to suffer…” Joseph Fielding Smith said in answer to the question of why we must suffer is that the Lord allows it because it causes us to draw near to him, for his help. (If we try to remove all human suffering, we take away this natural inclination to turn to him for aid and comfort.) Colby says: January 8, 2007 at 3:50 pm I would have to interpret the four noble truths as a critique of Mormonism. Whereas Mormonism is basically a philosophy of a personal fulfillment which knows no bounds, Buddhism teaches that the ego must accept its own finitude in order to transcend itself and thus be truly free. A Buddhist would surely tell a Mormon to stop seeking his or her own self-satisfaction in some purported planetary after-life and instead seek to discover the meaning of the life we are actually given in acts of compassion and mercy. In fact from a Buddhist perspective Mormonism is probably a cautionary tale as to how religion sadly tends to propagate suffering instead of self-understanding. Is there a religious community anywhere that suffers more than the Mormons, and understands it less? Steve Evans says: January 8, 2007 at 3:52 pm Colby, I have to disagree with your characterization of Mormonism, though I do think there are risks that mormons themselves could neglect their duties in this life in favor of an afterlife. Colby says: January 10, 2007 at 12:27 pm Steve, thinking this through from a Buddhist perspective, what is the cause of suffering? It’s the fact that we think of ourselves as egos who must be satisfied, and therefore we always feel unsatisfied. There’s always something else out there that we use to explain our discontent rather than looking inside ourselves. But we aren’t egos, we’re part of nature. If we accept that then we accept the reality of change and of death. Mormonism on the other hand would seem to project the human condition infinitely. If we’re not satisifed in this life, it’s because we haven’t yet satisfied ourselves in the next. Suffering, or unfulfillment here is just the beginning of our troubles, which will extend to every possible universe. The ego which I am will survive my death and inherit all of my problems in the next life. If I’m a battered or unloved housewife who hates my husband, I can’t even expect to lose him when I die! Could anything be more hopeless? Surely Buddhism offers a deep consolation for such anxiety. Steve Evans says: January 10, 2007 at 12:50 pm Colby, again you’re deeply mischaracterizing the mormon perspective. Battered housewives remaining married to their abusers after death? If that is what you think Mormons believe, no wonder you think it’s hopeless. I can fully see the conflict between the two systems to the extent that Buddhist teaches the non-self and that individuality is an illusion, while for Mormons the unique nature of each soul is something precious. I am not sure the two faiths can be entirely reconciled on this point, though as a practical matter in terms of outward social behavior the two systems at their ideal would seem to me to be fairly similar. Colby says: January 10, 2007 at 2:14 pm Steve, I guess I’m pursuing too many lines of argument here but let me see if I can bring them together. I’ve frequently heard LDS inveigh against a “traditional” Christian concept of the afterlife by saying “Wouldn’t it get boring?” and “There’s still so much left to accomplish!” What I think this stands for is the belief that the ego-world, the state of affairs of our knowing and experiencing the world exactly as we do experience it here and now, will survive our deaths. Thus, it is not so much that great evils such as wife-battering will exist in the celestial kingdom as that we will continue to encounter the exact same types of problems which are particular to the ego-world as we do now. From a Buddhist perspective, that’s completely backwards. Salvation in Buddhism is deliverance from the anxiety and suffering of the ego-world. To extend that suffering indefinitely, throughout endless ages, would be something like a nightmare. Trackbacks explorations says: August 9, 2005 at 3:40 am Joseph Smith and Four Noble Truths The teacher framed the lesson in a way that provides an answer to Steve Evans’ question from a while back. According to her, here are four truths from the First Vision: