Buddhisms similary to Christianity.

...I think he meant they believe in the moral superiority of Buddhism, although he poorly expressed that with his bright English...nevertheless his claim is not particularly informative on the nature of Buddhism since the problem is not even exclusive related with religions, less alone with one of them...
(I guess probably he is fed up with the damn war evangelists and the like are doing on science in the United States and he got caught up in it...I understand him on that regard...)

(re-read my previous post, it was edited)

you're assuming they've read the comment/attempted argument.

You need to be extremely cautious about making such assumptions. People are not hanging on the words of the aspiring philosophers.

oh Beth...I don´t know you and I have nothing against you so far...but read carefully and you will see you friend lost this argument long time...
(often he is right in many remarks he makes but he should be more considerate before dismissing a close analysis on many good stuff around even when sometimes it is not properly wrapped up...his arrogance makes him blind !)

I know it was to goad setanta... I'd like to see his reply ... but he will just say he is not arguing that and his 'superiority' angle is all he is interested in.

Are you saying Krumple's arguement is not an arguement?

Krumple´s argument it is an argument, and it could be said an interesting reply, it just is not addressed to Set criticism...

I agree. That's what I said to ehbeth above. But he might fancy having a go at Krumple? .... probably not.

How did you manage to get a forum (see up top by the title) of 'Any Bids on Fil'?

...Krumple will not engage him directly...the job by now is done...it is not needed for him to get conflictive with a volatile personality at this point...

I know but setanta won't reply anyway... he's got his flimsy angle and he'll stick to it or point out grammar mistakes etc...

...I guess some brave souls around thought I might have a chance of 1 /10 on bringing is entire argument down even with my shitty English...someone must be making money by now...

(...either that, or they like to throw money on the river...)

lol!

...his "superiority" angle does n´t have a chance...it is totally destroyed by now...

I disagree.

You should be ashamed of your opening remarks in this topic:


You are entitled to your opinion and you state the obvious i.e. if something is not the same then it is different.



This is a problem for Buddhism if the Buddha taught its followers to act in this way but he didn’t. So you are just saying people do these things … of course they do. Again you state the obvious.

Next you get personal about a famous Buddhist leader who is a winner of ‘The Nobel Peace Prize’ and who is known for his stance for a peaceful stance against Tibet’s occupation by China where many 10,000 of peaceful Tibetans were killed by the Chinese. It almost sounds like you are defending these Chinese actions?


The Tibetans have an affection and respect for the Dalai Lama and no one is calling for him to stop his political rule. He has said soon after fleeing Tibet that he has would step down and embrace democracy but Tibetans wouldn’t let him. He eventually recently stepped down anyway. This will lead to democratic elections in the future. His ‘group of exiled monks’ you mention are superfluous to your argument because it really can only be directed towards the Dalia Lama as he was the unelected leader of the Tibetans and told these monks what duties they should fulfil.


Tibet is a harsh place and poverty is likely just because of its harshness. The Tibetans did what they could with what they had. They lived in the most part peacefully and the Monasteries acted as local government, supplying: education, advice, healthcare, etc. The monks came from families so the families would have had to support that family member either at their home or at the monastery and the services such as education etc would not have been efficiently centralised. In these harsh conditions there are only so many that can work in farming. So families supported their family members. A benevolent feudal system is not necessarily a bad thing in the harsh conditions of Tibet. No excuse in the largest economies over here in the West.


Again the rulers of Sri Lanka are Buddhist and do not represent what the Buddha taught. So they have made a secular choice about how to deal with…. and let’s make this clear… a terrorist war waged by the Tamils on a democratically elected government and their people. Are you saying that governments should accept terrorist attacks from ethnic minorities who are not democratically elected and have no majority mandate to wage war on a sovereign country?


This conclusion is your personal opinion which shows your hatred for Buddists but the Buddha did not teach how to set up a system which can remove poverty or malnutrition or starvation or disease so if Buddhists can’t help in this respect then they didn’t say they could. Buddhist people do help but as people not Buddhists. The Buddha taught that if you remove the root cause of suffering then you can end suffering not that if you feed all the poor that will fix things because soon they will be hungry again and unless the West shares its abundant resources with everyone some will be left starving and thirsty it is obvious and not something Buddhism says it can tackle.

Your final conclusion is obviously not true but if you can convince me then go ahead. I’d say it is actually laughable and designed to get a quick emotional response from those who disagree with your post so that they will not put forward their strongest case.


You accused me (twice I think) of ‘running away’ from debating your chosen angle on this topic. Well I’ve posted since and so have you at other topics. So who is running away? It looks like you. That would make you a hypocrite (so I’ll just say you haven’t responded yet but you were going to thus you are not a hypocrite).

Let’s have a debate on your topic put your case in your next post as clearly as possible. This is required because you have not stated it clearly but it has grown over many of your posts. You have stated however that is was in response to max’s clarification of her motive for creating the topic in the first place which remained hidden to us all for quite some time (in my view this showed Max to be disingenuous in respect of her posts prior to this, or she was suddenly converted to atheism from starting out in this topic as a fundamentalist Christian – but let’s put that point to one side).

I would like to address this issue of "superiority" if anyone cares. I wasn't going to say anything about it but I changed my mind. I also know that some might not like what I have to say about this but then again that happens with just about everything I have to say, so I shouldn't let that stop me from saying something.

First of all, do I personally think buddhism is superior to other religions? Well that depends on what specifically you are talking about when you say superior. I can answer in some ways it is and in other ways it isn't. However; I feel an actual practioner of buddhism would never actually say that it is superior to other religions or philosophies. They (actual buddhists) generally see no point in making that claim because it puts them at odds with others and that should be avoided if you want to maintain equanimity. Am I contradicting myself here? No because I am not a buddhist nor practicing buddhism, but I can still point out the ways in which it is superior or inferrior with regards to other religions or philosophies.

Once again, it is still meaningless to talk about though because it doesn't actually do any good to make the claim. So what if it is superior or inferior? I don't think there are very many people who decide which philosophy to practice solely based on someone saying "this is a superior philosophy." If anything it will have just the opposite effect since it sounds a little arrogant. I have to also include myself with that since I have already stated that there are ways in which buddhism is superior in my opinion. Don't forget I also said it is also inferior in other ways, as well.

My personal perspective comes from experience and observations from study and practicing buddhism. These observations could simply be my own skewed perspective and completely wrong or jaded. I would be surprised if someone were persuaded by my opinion of buddhism to adopt the same perspective without actually going through their own experiences with it themselves. This should make my opinion hold very little value or worth and I would rather just invite others to examine it for themselves and ignore my opinions all together.

With that said I will touch on my few opinions of how buddhism is superior to other philosophies or religions. I am not going to mention them all since it would make this post incredibly long.

As far as I am aware buddhism is the only religion/philosophy that directly handles the human emotions. It gives a precise method of how to deal with them to either prevent, weaken or control them from causing yourself or others problems. Some might scoff at that statement and mistake it to mean that buddhist strive to eliminate emotions but that I not what I am implying.

I'll explain what I mean. The emotions can be a very strong motivational force which lead us to do or act on them. Sometimes these actions bring us to situations that ultimately end up causing us harm or suffering. When you understand this then you can take steps to gain power over them from causing the motivation to arise in the first place, that way you are less likely to follow a path that will end in harm or problems. But let me reiterate, buddhists don't try to eliminate emotions, instead they are meant to gain wisdom into the causes that following the emotions results in. (ie problems or suffering.)

When you use awareness you can uproot the seed cause for the arising of the emotions so they never actually come about. Such as anger, jealousy, hatred, ect. The odd thing is this includes what some would call the positive emotions such as love, joy or happiness. There are many who object to this, they are all for gaining control over the "negative" emotions but see absolutely no reason in gaining control over the "positive" ones. Actually more just as many problems arise from chasing after the positive emotions than arise from chasing the negative ones. (chasing here means allowing them to lead you into reacting, or acting upon them.)

These methods taught by buddhism are so effective that many psychologists and therapists barrow them when providing methods for their patients to over come their strong impulses towards destructive behavior or issues coping with their problems.

This alone makes buddhism superior to other religions since none of them (as far as I am aware) teach these methods. The only objection is that some do not see nor care to see that the emotions are a problem to begin with. If you don't see them as being a problem then you wouldn't agree that this is a superior aspect to buddhism.

I am not expecting anyone to actually accept this as a buddhist teaching but invite them to examine it for themselves. The point isn't to become an emotionless robot, it is to weaken the bond we have towards our self interests because this is what causes ALL our problems. If you don't see this as a problem then you of course won't see the importance of it. But those who understand this point will find it very useful.

Just to clear up any possible misinterpretations of what I said above. You can't eliminate the emotions, but you can gain power or control over how they arise and at the same time you can obtain an opportunity to decide how to react to them when they do arise. This usually doesn't happen for most people because their influence is so strong they just react without thinking and that is the beginning to the road of potential disaster. However; those who like and or love their emotions will object to all that I have said here and see no relevance nor need to investigate further.

If anyone has any questions or wants me to clear up some of the things I have said, feel free to ask. What I have said shouldn't be taken as strict fact of what buddhism is about, since there is far more to in than just this one perspective.

I would suggest to you that as modern chemists and physiologists learn more about our metabolisms, your contention about control becomes more irrelevant--contemporary research strongly suggests that nothing we do controls the effects of metabolic chemistry, short of starving ourselves or the ingestion of massive amounts of drugs.

Your post completely fails to address the practical value of any religious mumbo-jumbo. People in Buddhist counties who profess Buddhism still starve, commit horrible crimes or are the victims of horrible crimes, and suffer diseases. None of the silly talk about spirituality, meditation or mind control changes that basic human condition. The failure of all religions is that the religions don't end human misery. Only individuals acting on their own, or in concert though the efforts of individuals who organize, mitigate human suffering. No religion has right to claim that they are more effectie at this than any other religion, because it wouldn't happen simply because of the dogma--it happens because of the basic human compassion of the individuals who take action.

How many starving children has you emotional control fed today?

"No religion has right to claim that they are more effectie at this than any other religion, because it wouldn't happen simply because of the dogma--it happens because of the basic human compassion of the individuals who take action.

How many starving children has you emotional control fed today?"

The whole point is to get the individual to a point where they see themselves in all things including others. They call that compassion. The problem is you can't just decide to be compassionate, it makes it hallow and if there is a motivation behind it then it is less than compassion and more about self gain. Buddhism attempts to achieve that in a natural way instead of by forced dictation or threat of punishment for failure.

I am not here to defend it and yes you can obtain these methods in a secular way because they are natural to the human condition. That is why the Buddha pointed them out to begin with. The problem is any time there is a good system someone with a motive can easily slip in their own idealistic goals which pollute the message. Over time these things become hard to distinguish from the authentic message. Some things work and some things don't. The buddha just noticed the problem with the human condition and sought a way to fix it. Some claim he achieved that and others don't think he has.

At one point I thought he had and now I am not so sure. But it doesn't matter what I actually think because I am part of the problem. You might not see the problem nor care there there is one. Perhaps there really is no problem at all.

I won't argue against your statements about having compassion or empathy for humanity. These qualities are good to have regardless of your religious affiliation or bias. They don't even require you to adopt a religion or faith to develop them. But not everyone is so inclined towards them and others need a precise method spelled out to them because they see their importance but they can't figure out how to get there. Not everyone has the same ability or capacity to be self taught or the ambition enough to dig through all the non-sense to weed out the false to find the diamond prize. Some need help to get there so methods come by offering that help but at the same time they can be tainted by other motivations leaving later practitioners at the mercy of facing the same problem as before.

Secular means have their own problems, although I do support them, there is no real focus on how to develope these "good" traits. They only praise them and honor them but give no method of how to acquire them. So what can you expect from people if they are left with nothing more than that?

So you are saying that no one was ever compassionate, except by compulsion, until Buddhism came along? 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.

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.

Do you assert that christian mysticism never provided its adherents with the emotional control you allege? Do you assert that christians are never compassionate except through compulsion? Do you think christian mysticism does not provide a motive for compassion for other reasons than fear and compulsion?

How about Sufism? Do you assert that Sufis cannot be compassionate, except by compulsion? What about the Jains? They claim to have preceded Buddhism, and that Gautama took his doctrine and meditative practices from them.

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. 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. 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?

By the way, i don't buy what i consider the bullshit that religion is needed to provide "guidance" to good behavior. All my adult life, i have believed that religion never made a bad man good, nor has the lack of it ever made a good man bad. If you believe differently, you'll need to be prepared to demonstrate it. Christians are just obsessed with the notion that their spirituality directs them to compassion--no compulsion involved. How would you establish that Buddhism is superior in "teaching" compassion?

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Once again I never claimed that buddhism was superior in that aspect. Why are you imposing a premise that I never made and expect me to answer it? I was only talking about the focus buddhism has on dealing with human emotions. You brought up compassion, but I never said that buddhism had the sole claim on it's development. You implied that I did.