So you are saying that no one was ever compassionate, except by compulsion, until Buddhism came along?
No, but from as far as I have studied with other religions which I remind you is not all religions, do not focus on this issue as specifically as buddhism does. This once again is my own personal experience. I never said that buddhism had dibs on it or has the only method of practicing it. Why you think that I have said that, I am not sure.
Bullshit . . . not to put too fine a point on it. If it is done by compulsion, it's not compassion--it's fear and selfishness.
The development of compassion in buddhism is not sought for. It is not something that gets pounded out. It is something that will arise naturally as a byproduct of practicing it. This is what makes it authentic compassion. I agree anything less is not compassion at all but instead bent on some kind of selfish motivation for some other purpose. Once again you don't have to accept my perspective but at the same time I don't think I am alone with that opinion.
This discussion cannot proceed in a practical manner unless someone can provide a scale against which to measure the religion in question. Before you attempt a dodge about it, Buddhism is a religion for purposes of such a discussion. None of your claims are (so far) demonstrated, and without evidence, you are just expecting people to take it on faith.
Nope, I am not expecting you to accept them, even on faith. They are purely opinion and statements from me. You do not have to accept them at all, not one bit. I don't expect you to accept them because I say them. I am only expressing the experience I have had which has led me to those conclusions. They could very well be wrong, never claimed they are absolute nor what everyone else claims to be true. Take it for what you will. If that is not enough then I invite you to do your own research and practice for yourself.
Do you assert that christian mysticism never provided its adherents with the emotional control you allege?
It might have but as it currently sits it doesn't. Well not at the extent that buddhism does any way. Would there be objections to this, maybe.
Do you assert that christians are never compassionate except through compulsion?
Some are, a majority have motivations for empathy or compassion yes. But they are also not alone with that. There are buddhist as well who mistake the lessons and develop compassion for selfish motivations thinking it is the proper method. There are even secular individuals who also develop compassion for less than ideal reasons for selfish gain. I am also not exempt from this problem.
Do you think christian mysticism does not provide a motive for compassion for other reasons than fear and compulsion?
It could but I have not seen it very often. Perhaps I am sheltered from observing it or not in the right place to witness it. From my knowledge it is not a primal importance of the doctrine. Correct me if I am wrong.
How about Sufism? Do you assert that Sufis cannot be compassionate, except by compulsion?
No, never made any such claim. I claimed buddism is superior in that regard, but said nothing that other systems couldn't also address the issue in their own ways.
What about the Jains? They claim to have preceded Buddhism, and that Gautama took his doctrine and meditative practices from them.
He took from many different teachings from many different teachers during his time. He also found some of them not complete or they missed the mark he was attempting to hit. He gave them up to find another solution. Did he barrow from them? If he did, they had relevance to his own conclusion. Some truths are universal within opposing systems, just because they might share the concept it doesn't mean one is stealing the idea.
I'm not here beating up on anyone's religioius preference. I do strongly object to claims of superiority. Before any such claim can plausibly be made, you're going to need to establish an objective standard by which that can be measured.
There is no such method. As I stated, my whole write up was my own opinion and I even went as far as to say it is pointless to mention because of that fact. I went through it anyway because it was the conclusion from my own experience. I never claimed it was defacto truth. In fact many buddhists would scold me for even doing so.
Assertions about the spiritual nature of any practice are meaningless in such a discussion because they still don't provide a basis for comparing the spirituality of one religion to the other.
The only thing I was pointing out was the fact that buddhism focuses on this one aspect far more than others do from my perspective. From my understanding of what I have studied this is my conclusion alone.
Igm obviated that problem by inferentially claiming that there was no spiritual aspect to christianity, which, of course, is bullshit. So how will you measure this? How will you demonstrate it?
I don't care. You might but I don't. Should I be concerned? Some might find it extremely spiritual and others will not. In fact I would go as far as to say I have no idea what spiritual even is. I was only stating that Buddhism sees a problem with the human condition and has a method of dealing with it. I said absolutely NOTHING about spirituality for that matter. Measure what I actually said and don't impose a premise I never included.