Mormonism not Christian...

[_MCB]

Labels are tricky. They quickly gain negative or superlative connotations. In school psychology, they see it all the time, that is why the labels are constantly changing. Stereotypes reign in the less sophisticated human mind. Even "gifted," to some, can mean God's gift to humanity. Same thing with the label "Christian."

[_Albion]

Samantabhadr, who were the effects of that baptism as you see it? What did it do to have an "effect"?

[_Samantabhadra]

Samantabhadr, who were the effects of that baptism as you see it? What did it do to have an "effect"?

One of the key ways I reconcile Buddhist and Christian doctrine is by making a firm distinction between the ego and the soul. The ego is the sum total of our self-centered tendencies, not just gross manifestations like negative actions and emotions but also very subtle cognitive habits like perceiving the world in terms of myself being at the center or zero-point of experience. The soul is utterly pure, as it was made in the image and likeness of God, but that purity is clouded and obstructed by sin, which is the name we give to the verbal, physical, and psychological manifestations of ego-clinging. So as I understand it, the purpose of Christian practice is to eliminate our egos so that our souls can achieve union with God.

In Buddhism, it is taught that there is no "self," but I identify this "self" with the ego, NOT the soul. In Buddhism, to say that there is no "self" is to say that our egos are just an illusion, something we grasp on to as though it were the most important thing in the world, but which does not have any existence of its own whatsoever. The idea that there is some kind of individual particularity that is not the ego, and which furthermore is fundamentally good, is rather controversial in Buddhism, but is an essential element of the type of Tibetan Buddhism that I practice. So the goal of this type of practice is to purify and eliminate all our ego-clinging, so that we can achieve a state of perfect goodness. I see this as being more or less equivalent to the goal of Christian practice outlined above.

So basically, as I see it, my baptism cleansed my entire being of sin, particularly and especially Original Sin or the innermost layer(s) of ego-clinging and the tendency to sin, and made it possible for me to fully receive the grace of God in a way that was impossible before I was baptized. I see this change as affecting every aspect of my being, by marking a permanent change in me. But because I am a flawed and sinful creature, it didn't completely eliminate my ego, so much as it gave me the tools (the "divine assistance") that are absolutely necessary on the path. It planted the seeds of future inner or spiritual growth. But it did not in and of itself confer spiritual accomplishment.

Does that help? And I'm rapidly heading into waters where I feel that someone like MCB or madeleine might be able to provide more detail and nuance. I am trying to stick as close as possible to the CCC.

[_MCB]

Are you familiar with Thomas Merton? Not just his "Mountain" book, but some of his more obscure writings?

[_Samantabhadra]

MCB, it's funny you should ask. When I read The Seven-Storey Mountain I was just starting to get over some of my own issues that made it impossible to appreciate his words. Later on I read Spiritual Direction and Meditation and found it as helpful as the most helpful things (and more helpful than most things) I've read in the Tibetan tradition regarding the student/teacher relationship. I also read No Man is an Island and would recommend it to anyone here.

Ironically I have yet to read Merton's Asian Journals, even though it has been glaring at me from the bookshelf for a while. But if you have any suggestions, I'd be grateful.

[_madeleine]

Samantabhadr, who were the effects of that baptism as you see it? What did it do to have an "effect"?

One of the key ways I reconcile Buddhist and Christian doctrine is by making a firm distinction between the ego and the soul. The ego is the sum total of our self-centered tendencies, not just gross manifestations like negative actions and emotions but also very subtle cognitive habits like perceiving the world in terms of myself being at the center or zero-point of experience. The soul is utterly pure, as it was made in the image and likeness of God, but that purity is clouded and obstructed by sin, which is the name we give to the verbal, physical, and psychological manifestations of ego-clinging. So as I understand it, the purpose of Christian practice is to eliminate our egos so that our souls can achieve union with God.

In Buddhism, it is taught that there is no "self," but I identify this "self" with the ego, NOT the soul. In Buddhism, to say that there is no "self" is to say that our egos are just an illusion, something we grasp on to as though it were the most important thing in the world, but which does not have any existence of its own whatsoever. The idea that there is some kind of individual particularity that is not the ego, and which furthermore is fundamentally good, is rather controversial in Buddhism, but is an essential element of the type of Tibetan Buddhism that I practice. So the goal of this type of practice is to purify and eliminate all our ego-clinging, so that we can achieve a state of perfect goodness. I see this as being more or less equivalent to the goal of Christian practice outlined above.

So basically, as I see it, my baptism cleansed my entire being of sin, particularly and especially Original Sin or the innermost layer(s) of ego-clinging and the tendency to sin, and made it possible for me to fully receive the grace of God in a way that was impossible before I was baptized. I see this change as affecting every aspect of my being, by marking a permanent change in me. But because I am a flawed and sinful creature, it didn't completely eliminate my ego, so much as it gave me the tools (the "divine assistance") that are absolutely necessary on the path. It planted the seeds of future inner or spiritual growth. But it did not in and of itself confer spiritual accomplishment.

Does that help? And I'm rapidly heading into waters where I feel that someone like MCB or madeleine might be able to provide more detail and nuance. I am trying to stick as close as possible to the CCC.

Interesting perspective. :)

I did a similar run at Eastern religions/philosophy for a few years, which coincided with my nihilism. I found the letting go of ego dovetailed nicely with nihilism. I came fairly close to becoming a more serious student of Patanjali, but could never get past the "divine in all of us".

When I "discovered" mainstream Christianity, I saw the middle way and the Way as similar, but over time my understanding and belief in this regard has changed. First would be, the idea of letting go of ego, I think is NOT what Christ called us to do, but rather, to let ourselves die and be reborn. To me this says the new person has a new "ego", just one that is formed to Christ. Freely giving ego over to Him. The final break for me was the realization that Hindu and Buddhist belief is that we save ourselves, and spend many, many lifetimes trying to get to that point. Where, the Christian message is clear, we cannot save ourselves, it is Jesus Christ who is our Salvation. The other aspect of Hindu culture, the caste system, is incredibly non-Christian.

[_lulu]

Unable to respond really, to what St. Basil said and how it fits into the context of Christian baptism. Instead sit in the mud and fling it.

Which no doubt can be fun.

Are you talking about me or you here?

[_madeleine]

Unable to respond really, to what St. Basil said and how it fits into the context of Christian baptism. Instead sit in the mud and fling it.

Which no doubt can be fun.

Are you talking about me or you here?

You darling.

[_Samantabhadra]

I did a similar run at Eastern religions/philosophy for a few years, which coincided with my nihilism. I found the letting go of ego dovetailed nicely with nihilism. I came fairly close to becoming a more serious student of Patanjali, but could never get past the "divine in all of us".

When I "discovered" mainstream Christianity, I saw the middle way and the Way as similar, but over time my understanding and belief in this regard has changed. First would be, the idea of letting go of ego, I think is NOT what Christ called us to do, but rather, to let ourselves die and be reborn. To me this says the new person has a new "ego", just one that is formed to Christ. Freely giving ego over to Him. The final break for me was the realization that Hindu and Buddhist belief is that we save ourselves, and spend many, many lifetimes trying to get to that point. Where, the Christian message is clear, we cannot save ourselves, it is Jesus Christ who is our Salvation. The other aspect of Hindu culture, the caste system, is incredibly non-Christian.

Thanks for sharing--I always love hearing about people's faith journeys.

It's interesting for me because, in my life, my contact with Buddhism was basically the way out of nihilism and atheism. I was so negatively disposed to the Church for various personal reasons, but once I had had my eyes opened a bit by spending time in Nepal I began to see my baptism in a new light. You also raise a very good point here:

The final break for me was the realization that Hindu and Buddhist belief is that we save ourselves, and spend many, many lifetimes trying to get to that point. Where, the Christian message is clear, we cannot save ourselves, it is Jesus Christ who is our Salvation.

There is definitely something to this, but I'm not sure that it's so clear-cut. To an extent it really depends on the kind of Buddhism you're talking about; in Tibet, for example, even though it is definitely stressed that we are responsible for our own decisions, at the same time there is a very heavy emphasis on the idea of the lama or teacher as someone who has the power to "save" or "rescue" you from the depths of cyclic existence. And even though, in Christianity, Pelagianism is and always was heretical, it is still very much the case that we have to decide to open ourselves up to the possibility of receiving God's grace--yes we couldn't make that decision on our own, yes we need to be baptised, but there is still some facet of our own agency required.

So as I mentioned, I'm not sure it's so cut-and-dried. On the other hand, in Buddhist Studies (and Religious Studies more generally) there is widespread and uncritical use of the term "soteriology" applied to things like achieving enlightenment. One of the subsidiary points I'm trying to make in my own scholarship is that we should probably reserve the term "soteriology" for religions with a soteros. I coined the term eleutheriology (from eleutheria, freedom) for the study of the goal of Buddhist praxis, the rhetoric surrounding which much more heavily emphasizes the idea of casting off or cutting through the chains that bind oneself to cyclic existence. I think the terminology nicely reflects the difference (such as it is), although your mileage may vary... I'm curious to hear what you think.

On a side note, and to reintegrate this detour back into the main discussion, I think Mormonism is much more individually-focused than Buddhism or Hinduism. One of the main problems I have with Mormonism, one of the key reasons I can't consider it Christian, is that it has basically no theology of grace; it makes Pelagianism look downright orthodox.

[_Tobin]

On a side note, and to reintegrate this detour back into the main discussion, I think Mormonism is much more individually-focused than Buddhism or Hinduism. One of the main problems I have with Mormonism, one of the key reasons I can't consider it Christian, is that it has basically no theology of grace; it makes Pelagianism look downright orthodox.

Well, that's completely inaccurate. The theology of grace is in the Bible and Book of Mormon and Mormons use both.