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