If you want to come at the issue that way, you'll have to admit/concede/accept that the Buddha was clinically depressed and obsessed as it were with suffering i.e. the Buddha was non compos mentis. Wisdom of Buddhism should be the — TheMadFool

I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. Ive never it said that the Buddha was depressed, he May have had moments of unhappiness but that's irrelevant because his teaching has inspired a whole tradition of Wisdom for thousands of years and is one of the main world religions as well as a major world philosophy.

As for the link between Buddhism and psychology, all I can say is the latter reduces humans to things, objectifies them, — TheMadFool

What kind of psychology have you been studying. Are you seriously saying that Victor Frankls book Man's Search for meaning and Carl Jung's notions of The Shadow and Individuation are reducing humans to things. Those two very famous psychologists in fact are against the kind of empirical reductionist materialistic description of the human condition that you find in the logical positivists or Analytic philosophy .

I don't think the Torah can be reduced to one quote, but I think these two dictoms are extremely fundamental to the moral systems the two books lay out, and that they are in direct contradiction to each other.

For example, the contradiction in the dictom "An eye for an eye" versus "Turn the other cheek" is such a fundamental one I don't see how the two could ever be reconciled. — Tzeentch

An eye for an eye comes from Exodus 21:24. The paragraph begins, "If people are fighting ...". An eye for an eye means that under the law punishment and compensation should be proportional, that no more than an eye should be taken for the loss of an eye.

Turn the other cheek can be interpreted to mean, do not fight and do not seek punishment or compensation for wrong done to you. There is no contradiction here.

You seem to have traveled some distance from carefully reviewing texts that reveal a number of very different responses to Jesus to assigning parts of Christianity you like to the "good Jesus" while condemning the parts you don't to other groups. What a nifty device to simplify anything.

The limits of that technique set to the side, to imagine that Jesus was not a Jew wrestling with other Jews about was of supreme importance to them turns the whole enterprise into a Philip K Dick novel. I love Philip K Dick but he is not my go to guy for trying to understand what was happening in the small numbers of AD.

Pali metta is the equivalent of Sanskrit maitri which seems to be more like friendliness, goodwill, or benevolence, the opposite being ill-will.

In the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali, maitri is supposed to be practiced together with other attitudes like compassion (karuna), happiness (mudita), and indifference (upeksanam). — Apollodorus

In Early Buddhism, there are four Brahamaviharas (or four sublime attitudes, or four divine abodes) (see here in the index for links at the entry Brahmaviharas. [/quote]

It is debatable how to best apply this in practice, though. For example, when coming across a tiger in the forest. I think the idea is that when practiced properly, the object of your metta, in this case the tiger, will be moved to respond in kind and be nice to you instead of having you for breakfast or lunch. But I don't know how many Buddhists have developed their metta to the degree that it would work out as intended.

Universal metta is supposed to be univeral goodwill, meaning one would have goodwill for everyone, ie. for the tiger, for oneself, and for everyone else. Note: for oneself. Sacrificing oneself to the tiger would not be an act of goodwill for oneself.

In the Buddhist traditions that don't rely closely on the Pali suttas, the emphasis is usually on one brahmavihara (at the expense of others); so, for example, in general in Mahayana, there is an overwhelming focus on karuna/compassion, while Zen focuses on upekkha/equanimity.

Buddhist traditions that rely more closely on the Pali suttas have a more systematic approach (such as some traditions within Theravada) and practice all four brahmaviharas.

So in the example with the tiger, a Thai Forest Tradition Buddhist teacher Thanissaro Bhikkhu would advise to practice the four brahmaviharas in the order starting with metta, goodwill. This means, to first have goodwill for the tiger and for oneself, meaning, one wishes oneself and the tiger to be happy; then, observe as the situation develops, wish that neither oneself nor the tiger would suffer (karuna, compassion, is a wish for living beings not to suffer), and that includes not acting with hostility toward the tiger; then appreciate the good things about the tiger and oneself (mudita, sympathetic joy); and at the end, if the tiger should be the rare man-eating kind, reflect on kamma (upekkha, equanimity, is not simply indifference; the reflection on kamma is crucial for it).

This just in brief, there's a lot more to this. The issue is not as debatable as mainstream Buddhism likes to portray it.

On the other hand, if the ultimate objective of metta is to eradicate selfishness, then perhaps offering yourself as food to the tiger may be the quickest way to achieve it.

In the Jataka Stories, the Buddha in a previous life met a starving tigress that was about to eat her own cubs, and offered himself to her as food out of metta and karuna (Āryaśūra's Jātakamālā, Vyāghrī-jātaka).

The salient point of the Jataka tales is that they are accounts of the actions of an _un_enlightened being. Some Theravadans see them as cautionary tales about what not to do.

Neither religion is "about morality" IMO. Christianity is mainly concerned with eschatology and Buddhism is mainly concerned with soteriology. And yes, Christianity consecrates suffering like Jesus and Buddhism practices ways to reduce suffering. 'Moralities' have been derived from these premises, respectively, but that is not their functions (re: the first few centuries of each religion, respectively). — 180 Proof

Morality, sila, is central to Buddhist practice.


Sila (virtue, moral conduct) is the cornerstone upon which the entire Noble Eightfold Path is built. The practice of sila is defined by the middle three factors of the Eightfold Path: Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/index.html

The salient difference between the Christian conception of morality and the Buddhist conception of morality is that in Christianity, the moral commandments are supposed to be followed by everyone, under threat of immediate human punishment and eternal divine punishment, whereas in Buddhism, moral precepts are seen as optional, and undertaken and adhered to as a means to an end (ultimately, nirvana). Which is one of the main reasons why Buddhist morality doesn't seem like morality (it lacks the coercive feature typical for Christianiry), and why Buddhism seems more like a philosophy than a religion.

a Jew wrestling with other Jews — Valentinus

To elaborate:

The story of Jacob wrestling with God is emblematic for Judaism:

Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” (Genesis 32:28)

There are various aspects of Judaism with which one wrestles or struggles, including struggling to understand what is required of you. Jesus speaks from within this tradition and not in opposition to it. When he says things that appear to be in opposition or contradictory it may be that it is this opposition that we must struggle with if we are to understand.

If you want to come at the issue that way, you'll have to admit/concede/accept that the Buddha was clinically depressed and obsessed as it were with suffering i.e. the Buddha was non compos mentis. Wisdom of Buddhism should be the last thing we should be discussing, no? — TheMadFool

Yes, absolutely.

- - -

I agree Buddhism is a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering. And that's why I believe it contains wisdom which if practiced in ones life seems to me to be in line with modern psychologists description of a happy life. — Ross

The Buddha's happiness couldn't be further away from what psychologists consider happiness.

By the way what's wrong with feeling better about yourself. That's the consequence of happiness. People normally feel better when they are living a better life.

What is your source for Buddhism? Jack Kornfield?

True. Buddhism does seem to be closer to psychology than other traditions. — Apollodorus

Only superficially.
We'd need a whole thread for this.

Could this be why it is less popular? In India, at least, after some initial successes it got nearly wiped out by Hinduism (and to some extent by Islam) and it has never recovered.

Buddhism (the kind that strives for the complete cessation of suffering), is, essentially, a death project. It can't possibly be popular in the world that is interested in the perpetuation of life.

The Buddha's happiness couldn't be further away from what psychologists consider happiness. — baker

Why do you say that. So compassion, love, kindness which the Buddha teaches you think psychologists don't think that those values improve happiness. Well what kind of psychology are you thinking about.

Unfortunatly the more she explained the deeper the puzzeled expression grew on the poor fellows face.
— praxis

I would say that's a good outcome for both the interlocutors, buddhist and christian. It's the WTF? moment every buddhist aspires to and wishes to elicit from would-be converts though it is a fact that buddhist sanghas lack an evangelical wing. — TheMadFool

On principle, Dharmic religions (notably, Buddhism and Hinduism) are not expansive, evangelical religions, the notion of religious conversion is foreign to them.

The Buddha's happiness couldn't be further away from what psychologists consider happiness.
— baker

Why do you say that. — Ross

Because the happiness of an enlightened being is not about having agreeable food to eat, good family relationships and friends, satisfaction at one's job, and so on, all the things that ordinary people find happiness in and psychologists promote as "normal".
An enlightened being has no desire for sex, for example.

The Buddha's happiness is nothing like the happiness of ordinary people.

So compassion, love, kindness which the Buddha teaches you think psychologists don't think that those values improve happiness. — Ross

You need to be more precise here and source your claims about Buddhism.

Provide a canonical reference that says things to the effect that "compassion, love, kindness improve happiness".

You need to be more precise here and source your claims about Buddhism. — baker

Ok here you go.
Buddha's teachings are known as “dharma.” He taught that wisdom, kindness, patience, generosity and compassion were important virtues.
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/buddhism
Now if these are not values which promote happiness tell me what are.

Unlike you, I don't conflate, or confuse, "about" with "central to" – Jesus' "Love thy neighbor as thyself" plus his "Beatitudes" are just as morally central to Christianity as the sila of the "Noble Eightfold Path" is to Buddhism, yet these 'codes of conduct' are only means and not the ends, or goals (i.e. what about), of these religions.

There are various aspects of Judaism with which one wrestles or struggles, including struggling to understand what is required of you. Jesus speaks from within this tradition and not in opposition to it. When he says things that appear to be in opposition or contradictory it may be that it is this opposition that we must struggle with if we are to understand. — Fooloso4

:fire:

I asked you for a canonical reference, ie. an actual Buddhist source.

I don't conflate, or confuse, "about" with "central to" – Jesus' "Love thy neighbor as thyself" plus his "Beatitudes" are just as morally central to Christianity as the sila of the "Noble Eightfold Path" is to Buddhism, yet these 'codes of conduct' are only means and not the ends, or goals (i.e. what about), of these religions. — 180 Proof

Granted.
It depends on how much there is to a religion, in one's opinion. In my opinion, there isn't much more to either of the two religions than morality, so to me, they are about morality. That's an interesting assumption I have been making but wasn't aware of until now.

There is the problem of sourgraping, presenting socioeconomic success as less relevant than it is.

I asked you for a canonical reference, ie. an actual Buddhist source. — baker

Here's it from the mouth of the Buddha himself:-

Rise above your anger through forgiveness and compassion, for yourself, and others.

“Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.”

— Buddha

“Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.”

— Buddha

Those are not canonical references. They are just some quotes that someone attributed to the Buddha.

They are just some quotes that someone attributed to the Buddha. — baker

Nonsense.

They are just some quotes that someone attributed to the Buddha.
— baker

Nonsense. — Ross

Oh dear. This is the standard problem with Buddhism: the pitifully low standard of quotation.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10232/the-motivation-for-false-buddha-quotes

Unfortunatly the more she explained the deeper the puzzeled expression grew on the poor fellows face.
— praxis

I would say that's a good outcome for both the interlocutors, buddhist and christian. It's the WTF? moment every buddhist aspires to and wishes to elicit from would-be converts though it is a fact that buddhist sanghas lack an evangelical wing.
— TheMadFool

On principle, Dharmic religions (notably, Buddhism and Hinduism) are not expansive, evangelical religions, the notion of religious conversion is foreign to them — baker

Yes, I wonder why that is. However, I've heard of buddhist kings like Ashoka dispatching missionaries to Sri Lanka.

See Buddhist Missionaries

As for the link between Buddhism and psychology, all I can say is the latter reduces humans to things, objectifies them,
— TheMadFool

What kind of psychology have you been studying. Are you seriously saying that Victor Frankls book Man's Search for meaning and Carl Jung's notions of The Shadow and Individuation are reducing humans to things. Those two very famous psychologists in fact are against the kind of empirical reductionist materialistic description of the human condition that you find in the logical positivists or Analytic philosophy — Ross

I don't like the fact that we're being studied like we study animals. There's something alien about it. Sends a chill down my spine.

f you want to come at the issue that way, you'll have to admit/concede/accept that the Buddha was clinically depressed and obsessed as it were with suffering i.e. the Buddha was non compos mentis. Wisdom of Buddhism should be the
— TheMadFool

I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. Ive never it said that the Buddha was depressed, he May have had moments of unhappiness but that's irrelevant because his teaching has inspired a whole tradition of Wisdom for thousands of years and is one of the main world religions as well as a major world philosophy. — Ross

If the buddha lived in our time, what I said would appear in a psychiatrist's diagnosis of Siddhartha Gautama's "condition".

I don't know. Maybe you think I am arguing something that I am not. I never said Jesus was not a Jew, for example.

Oh dear. This is the standard problem with Buddhism: the pitifully low standard of quotation — baker

Look we,ll have to agree to disagree . I agree with the content of the quotes I sent that it is genuinely from Buddhism. I'm not going to change my opinion on that.

The video you linked to has Grimes arguing that the true message of Jesus was not Jewish. He did not talk about his being a Jew or not.

He did not talk about his being a Jew or not. — Valentinus

And neither did I. Are we just completely talking past each other?

There is the problem of sourgraping, presenting socioeconomic success as less relevant than it is. — baker

There is, but there is a difference between presenting socioeconomic success as less relevant than it is and first hand experience that it is not all that there is. There is a point at which more is not better, despite how it may appear.