The Mormon Buddhist

In Buddhism there is a concept known as "buddhadhātu" in Sanskrit, which translates to "Buddha-Nature". This is the belief that all humans have the ability to recognize right from wrong. This is almost a universal believe among religions. The Muslims call it "Taqwa", the Chinese call it "Ren", the Quakers call it "Inner Light", the Freemasons represent it with the square and compass, Mormons call it "The Light of Christ", in everyday language we would simply call it "conscience". Some say that we were created by a god with this sense and some say we evolved it for better survival. Regardless of how we got it, we have it now, and that's what matters. Let's focus on this concept in the Buddhist context for now. Buddhists believe that we inherently have the ability to realize their enlightenment. There are many that believe we are naturally enlightened, and over time we lose sight of that. By following our Bud...

The first sutra that was mentioned in this week's reading was the Prajna Paramita, Hannya, or as we English speakers call it: the Heart Sutra. I have done some research and I found that Tich Nhat Hanh has created a translation of sorts this sutra. It is entitled The Heart of Understanding: Commentaries on the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra . The way Tich Nhat Hanh phrases everything just resonates very well with me. After this week's chapter I read a bit of it, and was very impressed by it. He gave 2 analogies that explainemptiness in a great way. The first being a piece of paper, and the second being a cup. These are in the first 2 chapters, which are known as "interbeing" and "Empty of What?". They're relatively short, and I was particularly impressed with how these chapters relate to each other, so I'd like to repeat them in their entirety: Interbeing If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper....

Koans are something I haven't looked too much into until I read about them in thi week's chapter. I decided to to a bit of reading about what they are. In short, koans are public and non-mystic stories, questions, or statements that make someone contemplative. The purpose of a koan is to meditate on them and come up with an answer to the question. It is meant to make you think about things, even if its in a way you wouldn't have thought to. You break down previous concepts and see things in new lights. They are not to be seen as rational, logical, and complex. They're meant to be seen as experiential, practical, and simple while often being symbolic. Koans are often used to test your progress in the Zen tradition. However, its not a right/wrong test because there's no one set meaning for a koan. There are hundreds of contradictory commentaries for each Koan (of which there are thousands). They were invented in China and then moved to Japan where many more were a...

EDIT:  After I posted this to my Bright Dawn peers and after our weekly call, I was given some feedback I wanted to include in this post. The original version of the post has been archived here  if you want to read it. Being a bodhisattva is a puzzling thing to me. There are 2 main concerns I have about the concept: The goal The vows/perfections I was raised LDS. From the time that we are able to read we are taught that "every member is a missionary". You were to preach to anyone and everyone who would listen to you in hopes of saving them and leading them towards Godhood. Because of this social pressure, I put myself in some very uncomfortable positions over the years. I almost certainly unknowingly strained friendships, and sometimes I knowingly did so. I could give dozens of examples, but I distinctly remember me telling a friend about how the Book of Mormon is far superior to the Bible because the Book of Mormon was supposed to have gone through less translatio...

There are special sunglasses that allows some colorblind people  the ability to see color . They get to understand something that to them was previously ineffable (extremely hard to express and definitively define). People describe it as breathtaking and life-changing. One video even  featured an artist  reading a book for toddlers that showed all the colors that he had never seen, and him crying from overwhelming happiness. However, for some colorblind people,  the glasses don't work  and colors will continue to be ineffable to them. In the same way, enlightenment is ineffable. Some people are able to come to understand it and its breathtaking and life-changing, and others simply aren't. There is a lot of attachment to the words "enlightenment" and "nirvana/nibbana". These are just words used to convey something that is ineffable, and not something that is ethereal or unobtainable. The two concepts are very often confused, even among Buddhists. In additio...

Imagine you were walking through a barn and you see something coiled and its right near your foot. Your first instinct is that it is a snake, and that you should run. However, when you stop and look at it more closely, you find out that its just some rope. From this scenario, we learn there are 2 types of truths: relative and absolute. Once I discover that the snake was actually a rope, I had a choice: I could cling to my wrong understanding and keep beleiving it was a snake, or I could face the music and admit I was wrong and that it was a rope. This, I think leads right into "suchness" very easily. By no longer clinging to my wrong view, I am able to enjoy things as they are. However, letting things be as they are can be difficult. You may see a flower, but you start to see everything that makes the flower, like water, fertilizer, sunshine, and proper cultivation. You start to see that everything has a reason why its there. In this way, nothing has a definitive self, a...

This week's reading was a lot about history and how some sects and schools of thought came to be. It was difficult for me to understand, much like the history section of our last book. However, I was really struck by the differences of Hinayana (Theravada) and Mahayana in the reading this week. Specifically the pages of 31-33 (in my edition of "Mahayana Buddhism" by Beatrice Lane Suzuki). It was a bit confusing to read in the form of a book, so I made a chart to highlight the differences. I think I take a little from each side. I enjoy the realistic outlook of Hinayana, but I like the altruism of Mahayana. I like the belief that Buddha was just a guy in Hinayana, but I like that his teachings can be implemented outside of monasticism in Mahayana. I like viewing Buddhism as more of a code of ethics as Hinayana does, but I also like the concept of helping others achieving the ideal state as Mahayana supports. I think much can be learned from both sides. It would be...