Buddhisms similary to Christianity.

Buddhism attempts to achieve that in a natural way instead of by forced dictation or threat of punishment for failure.

You wrote:

Buddhism attempts to achieve that in a natural way instead of by forced dictation or threat of punishment for failure.

This implies, with its use of "natural," that other religions which inculcate compassion do so by "unnatural" means. That it is achieved by "forced dictation or threat of punishment." If that is not an assertion of the superiority of Buddhism, then what would you call it?

It might have but as it currently sits it doesn't [i.e., that christian mysticism does not provide its adherents with the emotional control that you allege Buddhism provides]. Well not at the extent that buddhism does any way. Would there be objections to this, maybe.

I claimed buddism is superior in that regard, but said nothing that other systems couldn't also address the issue in their own ways.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

I seriously doubt that you can show that i "misperceived" your statements--such as that Buddhism is superior.

Setanta wrote:

I seriously doubt that you can show that i "misperceived" your statements--such as that Buddhism is superior.

The owness is on you to prove the meaning of what I said was correctly perceived by you... if I in fact said what you are reporting I've said.

Straw man, i said nothing of the kind, nor is that a valid inference from what i did say. What i have repeatedly said is that were any religious confession spiritually superior, then there ought to be evidence that this is so in its effect on adherents. I'm saying that there is no such evidence.

I disagree. I'll get back to you later... if I can see a way forward in a debate with... Setanta.

The word you wanted was onus.

So I accept that there is a ‘how to live your life as a good person’, superficial similarity but the deepest teachings i.e. the heart of what the Buddha wanted to teach is for those who can spend time hearing, reflecting and meditating on those ‘hard to understand teachings’ this is what removes the root cause of suffering not just lessening the effects.

So I accept that there is a ‘how to live your life as a good person’, superficial similarity but the deepest teachings i.e. the heart of what the Buddha wanted to teach is for those who can spend time hearing, reflecting and meditating on those ‘hard to understand teachings’ this is what removes the root cause of suffering not just lessening the effects. (emphasis added, of course)

I think it because of things you have said in previous posts (as for example that other religions inculcate compassion by dictation or fear of punishment--an absurdity on the face of it), and even what you say in this post.

So, indeed spiritualism and compassion are "of primal importance" to the doctrine. Consider yourself corrected.

Your allegations about what Guatama took or found are only that, allegation. As with all religions, there are no surviving contemporary documents. I strongly object to your characterization of "stealing." That is an emotive and pejorative term. I didn't use it, and only reported what the Jains claim. If you have a beef with it, take it up with the Jains.

I suggest to you that you are very poorly informed.

This is so obviously false that i'm bemused. What you see as a problem with the human condition appears to be that they don't view consciousness as you do. Leaving aside that this is undemonstrated, as you yourself admit, it is not measurable, so no comparisons can reasonably be made between one religion and the other.

As i've already pointed out, the point of departure for this portion of the discussion is the assertion by people who are, or claim to be, Buddhists that their religion is spiritually superior. This was an overt claim, for example, made by igm. So, if you are going to use a discussion which i initiated as the point of departure, you accept the terms of discussion, and those were that Buddhists claim to be superior on a spiritual basis.

So please note that you are saying that in your opinion Buddhism is superior.

How very convenient for your rhetorical position. Perhaps you could explain the contradiction.

If you are not asserting the superiority of Buddhism (which, apparently, you do and do not practice), and your remarks are not about spirituality, you really have no business in this discussion.

...Which attempts by implication to assert at the outset that christianity does not have any "deepest teachings" such as those you allege to be a part of Buddhism, which remove the root causes of suffering, not simply lessening them.

Not only did you fail to demonstrate that Buddhist teaching removes the root causes of suffering, you failed to demonstrate that there is a valid distinction between christianity and buddhism in this regard. This was the essential dishonesty which i said i suspected you would employ.

Furthermore, you then demanded that i demonstrate that "In a Non-Superficial Way Buddhism is Similar to Christianity." That was changing horses in the middle of the stream--you were attempting to change the terms of debate after having proposed them, which is also dishonesty.

You've been peeing in your panties and flinging snide insults ever since. Can you really be so callow as to think that you are morally superior to someone who refuses to defend a position he has never taken? What a Loon.

You are the one who brought it up. I couldn't care any less. It does not matter to me where a truth might originate or who fosters it.

I was not aware that YOU get to dictate the grounds by which one were to explain superiority.

I never made promises that you have already claimed I have made.

Christianity's sole premise is not one of developing compassion for all beings equally.

Buddhism's sole purpose is to develop compassion for ALL beings equally and salvation arises not from striving for it but from getting rid of all the things that hinder it's experience.

Setanta wrote:

So please note that you are saying that in your opinion Buddhism is superior.

Nope I never made that claim. You can continue to insist that I have but all you are doing is applying a red herring fallacy to the discussion.

With that said I will touch on my few opinions of how buddhism is superior to other philosophies or religions.

Once again I was not aware that YOU get to dictate who gets to join and what gets to be said. The OP was about the similarity of buddhism to christianity. An aspect you never responded to which is the topic. If you wanted to change the topic perhaps you should have started a new thread under your new topic of discussion. Allowing people to actually participate. Also I never accepted that I must ONLY discuss superiority in general terms.

I don't think Buddhism and Christianity as two specific religions out of all religions have much in common.

I think you're describing the similarities between ALL religions. (Truth. Usually a prophet/ deity. Prescriptions on how to live a good life. Etc.)

Word.

Oh now, that is just bald absurdity. If you are saying that buddhism does not use dictation or the fear of punishment, then clearly you are contrasting it someone or something else that does. If you didn't mean other religions, then to whom or what were you referring? The Odd Fellows Lodge?

It's a bit thick to complain that i didn't use mind reading (or something) to understand what you meant in a post which you did not return to in time to edit. I was, peforce, obliged to rely upon what you originally wrote. It's not as those i had employed some cheap trick against you. It's a bit thick to suggest that i took unfair advantage.

Will you point to me the injunctions in christianity for which the failure to comply will be met by banishment or death? Are you perhaps confusing christianity with Judaic law?

By the time the putative Jesus is alleged to have live, the only authority competent to banish or execute anyone was the Roman Empire, and i consider it not unreasonable to assert that they weren't in the business of enforcing the injunctions of cults.

You are the one who brought it up. I couldn't care any less. It does not matter to me where a truth might originate or who fosters it.

You cared enough to respond. Upon what basis do you allege that it is "a truth?"

What "premises" have i placed on you that you never made? Remember, you can't hold me responsible if you claimed that buddhism is superior in any regard, but didn't mean to, and did not get back in time to edit it ( ). I can only respond to what i read that you have posted.

I have never claimed that you had ever "said christianity does not teach compassion"--you're being dishonest. I pointed out that the implication of mentioning dictation and fear of punishment when saying buddhism does not employ them implies that other religions do. That was the burden of my remarks. You seem to be attempting to escape the implications of what you have written by using straw man arguments to accuse me of writing what i have indeed never written. Pot, kettle sort of thing going on here.

So you are now asserting that not all religions are concerned with the human condition? That's a rather strange assertion to make, but while acknowledging that in gross it may be true, it is hardly applicable to christianity, which is what the thread's author proposed to compare to buddhism.

You multiply your straw men:

I was not aware that YOU get to dictate the grounds by which one were to explain superiority.

I haven't offered to dictate the grounds by which one were to explain superiority. What did assert that is that if one uses my remarks as a point of departure, it is reasonble to object to anyone distorting them. Next . . .

Christianity's sole premise is not one of developing compassion for all beings equally.

This is a straw man if you are asserting that i made any such claim.

Your math and art analogy is, frankly, not analogous. It looks to me to be an attempt to assert that buddhism is to the point about compassion and the human condition, especially in light of this remark:

Buddhism's sole purpose is to develop compassion for ALL beings equally and salvation arises not from striving for it but from getting rid of all the things that hinder it's experience.

I don't purport to be sufficiently knowledgeable about buddhism to deny that assertion, but i strongly suspect that not all buddhists would either allege that that is the sole purpose of buddhism, nor that it can be distinguished from all other religions on that basis. I'd have to have better evidence than your ipse dixit to accept that.

So please note that you are saying that in your opinion Buddhism is superior.

Then perhaps you could explain this statement which you made earlier in the thread:

With that said I will touch on my few opinions of how buddhism is superior to other philosophies or religions.

Don't tell me about it being an opinionl. I know it's an opinion. That's why i wrote: ". . . you are saying that in your opinion . . ." Don't accuse me of employing a red herring when i am able to quote what you actually wrote. Do you want me to provide a link to the post in which you wrote it? Is this the case in which you are going to allege that you didn't mean what you wrote, but that you lost the opportunity to edit it? Is this the case in which i was expected to read your mind?

I though you might mean that you once practiced buddhism, but no longer do. However, you are touchy enough as it is. I'm not going to assume things you don't make explicity, unless it is a case in which i allege a reasonable inference. There was no basis from what you wrote to infer that.

Once again I was not aware that YOU get to dictate who gets to join and what gets to be said. The OP was about the similarity of buddhism to christianity. An aspect you never responded to which is the topic. If you wanted to change the topic perhaps you should have started a new thread under your new topic of discussion. Allowing people to actually participate. Also I never accepted that I must ONLY discuss superiority in general terms.

You are either slow on the uptake, or you are being willfully disingenuous. I have pointed out more than once that i object to people who take my remarks as a point of departure, and then falsely characterize what i've written. It was the author and i who stated that many buddhists seem to think that their belief set is superior, but it was not a part of the initial post. I'm not dictating anything to you. However, the point of departure for the discussion of whether or not buddhism is superior was in a later post of the author, to which i responded. So you don't get to hide behind the thread topic on this one.

That is just the thing, I was not comparing it to another religion. I was only stating what it does not use as a method.

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.

Now I understand that the word "hell" is a poor translation and the actual word should be "gehenna" which was a place that existed outside the city of Jerusalem where garbage, dead corpses and other undesirable things were tossed out and burned. In other words, if you call someone who is a practitioner (disciple) of christ a fool, you will be tossed out with the garbage. This basically means if you fail to be compassionate towards these followers of christianity then you will be removed, placed where garbage and corpses are burned, cast out.

There is a group of christians who teach that those who do not accept jesus as their savior will be left in a place devoid of god's presence. This is a direct threat of punishment for not developing it's precepts.

Nope, I was generally speaking. I was not referring to what I had said to be the truth, but instead that it did not matter to me where truth originates or by whom fosters it. In other words it does not matter to me if the Buddha took lessons from other religions or teachers and taught them as if they were his own or that he had sole custody of these lessons. It doesn't matter to me where they originate or who first spoke them. A very general statement not directed at any specific teaching.

I do not hold to the premise that buddhism is superior with regards to the teachings of compassion. You made the statement before I had made the error with my follow up post. I couldn't have made the error had you not first brought up the concept of compassion. My post starting with my opening statement about explaining superiority never mentions compassion. You did however bring it into the discussion making the false straw man that I had claimed buddhism was superior with regards to compassion.

Are you sure about that? From my perspective you sliped in a line into my statement to explain that I was comparing buddhism with christianity in terms of superiority. That was your error and I was attempting to correct it by saying that I never claimed it does not teach compassion.

Once again you are adding in something I never said. I never said that other religions don't or are not concerned with the human condition. I only stated that buddhism is. You keep adding in something for which I never stated.

I would like to address this issue of "superiority" if anyone cares.

I don't think you understand the analogy.

If you are not knowledgeable about buddhism than how can you defend the premise that it is not superior in terms of how concerns the emotions? Doesn't this leave your knowledge lacking the ability to make a proper assessment? You claim that all religions are equal yet how can you state that if you don't have sufficient knowledge of buddhism?

I disagree… but I’m not surprised by your reply… it shows all your essential qualities and your skill in debate.