Abrahamic Religions are Relatively Inferior

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=187379

so they can go back to discussing the relative inferiority of Abrahamic Religions.

Prism, I generally do not take that much pain to explain atheists because they are not ready to listen the other side. But, my assumption is that you are not one those thus I am trying.

Because, there was no such need for Buddha or Mahavira to address those kinds of questions. That brings us again to the point that i made in the last post.

[b]Religions are not isolated texts. Each and every religion has a particular context and its propagator tried to address that context only. The purpose of Buddhism and Jainism was merely to make people aware of those unnecessary social practices, which was forced by the Brahmans as an interpretation of Vedas. That is all. They did not go beyond this. That is why they are free from violence.

Buddhism and Jainism are merely complementary religions to Hinduism, not fully fledged ones. The same is for the Christianity too. They do not address all verticals of the life[/b].

One may also conclude in his wisdom that Buddha was not against homosexuality because he did not say that. But, that is not the case because Buddha did not say a word about sex. But, offering a complete life style, both of Hinduism and Islam has to address sex and marriage too.

Are you aware that the famous Kamsutra was written by a sage and was taught to the students besides with other streams of the knowledge! Does that make Vedanta a vulgar religion and Buddhism a sacred one?

Secondly, are you aware that both Hinduism and Islam too, laid down the guidelines even for how one should sit on the toilet seat, which hand should be where and which hand should be used to wash the excreta? Does that make them obscene religions in the comparison of Buddhism and Christianity, as they are free of such things?

The same is in the case of violence too. Hinduism and Islam talked about the violence because that is also an inevitable part of the human behavior too. It does not make any religion violent. Our present social system also lay down the guidelines for war like which weapons should be used and how one country should behave with prisoners of war. Does that mean that our present system is violent?

Unlike Muhammad , Moses and lord Krisha, Buddha did not have to face a war. So, he needs not to set the guidelines for a war. His focus was only the uncalled rituals in the name of Vedas like sacrificing the animals and other unnecessary ones. His only purpose was telling the people that these Brahmans are fooling you. These rituals are not the ultimate purpose and you can know and be like them by doing meditation on your own.

See, that is the problem.

When it comes to Hinduism, its shortcomings (so called) become minor disputable points for you. But, as soon as you find something such in Abrahamic religions, you present those as evil laden texts. Those are not misinterpretations for you! How you concluded that distinction?

Did Lord Krishna not force Arjuna to fight a war against his own cousin brothers, even when he was not ready and wanted that to let go? That war killed millions of innocents from both sides. Lord Krishna said many occasions in Mahabharata that it is okay to cheat a cheater and kill a killer. But, when Muhammad did the same to save his community, he becomes violent for you! Why?

Secondly, how Christianity, who does not propagate violence at any cost, looks evil laden to you?

There is some worth in that argument but already gave the answer to that question in the last post. That was not the fault of the Abrahamic religions but the shortcoming of the people who were being addressed. They were just not mature enough to comprehend subtleties. That is why the most of the Abrahamic prophets restrict themselves to simple day to day issues.

Only Moses and Muhammad addressed that. You may not be aware that there is a very subtle concept of Yetzer Hara in Judaism.

This notion that This, in itself, is not bad, nor is it an abnormality was misused by the Jews as an excuse to justify vested interests after Moses. Jesus tried his best to rectify that and his whole life consumed by this only. That is the only reason why most of the Jesus teachings were about morality not metaphysics.

This very Yetzer Hara is called Nafs in Islam and Man/Chitta in different sects of Hinduism.

Prism, you certainly know more about religions than an average intellectual but you are still far far behind from being an expert. Do not take it as an undermining statement. That is not my purpose at all. I am just trying to give you the actual picture. Religions are very vast and subtle concepts. It takes too much time and commitment to be an expert, sometimes a life time is not enough.

If you remember that in other thread you said that you studied Kant for three years yet that seems not to be enough. If understanding the work of a single person is taking so much time, how much time it will take to understand that collective work of so many scholars?

That is precisely the problem with intellectuals now. They think that reading some articles here and there on the net can make them an expert of anything. And, they start judging everything. It is not that simple.

You are again taking a wrong route without investigating enough.

How you concluded that Sufism is a special class of people and a Sufi is 90% mystic and only 10% conventional. I do not think that you know enough about Sufism to conclude that.

The bombing on Sufi shrines does not proof anything. Infighting within the different sects of a religion is a common amongst all religions. Shias and Sunnis have been involved in fighting and killing each other all over the world since long. That does not make any of them non-Muslim. So, how does the attack of Sufi shrines make Sufism non-Muslim religion?

It is only Wahabi and Salafi community of Islam that does not accept Sufism as a sect of Islam. Unfortunately, they belong to rich Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and west takes only Arabs as true flag bearers of Islam, while they are only 20% of the total Muslim population!

They also forget that more than half of the Muslim population lives in the countries like India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Russia etc. Do you know that Indonesia has the largest Muslim population, followed by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

If you ever go to the countries of Indian subcontinent, you will be able to realize what the place of Sufism among Muslims is in these three countries, which collectively accounts roughly 1/3 of the world Muslim population. There is no special class of people here who follow Sufism. They are very much common Muslims. The fact of the matter is that you will not able to distinguish between the two here. They offer prayer in the Mosks in the day and visit to Sufi shrines in the evening.

Have a look at this-

But, unfortunately, no western intellectual pays attention to all this. In their opinion, only people like Osama can interpret Islam wisely and no other.

The western premise is that anyone who does not prorogate violence cannot be a Muslim. They all are non-Muslims. It is as simple as that.

Now, let us come to your theory of of 90% Sufi and 10% Muslim.

Sufism accepts Muhammad and Allah in the same way as other sects of Islam. To be a Sufi, a person has to be Muslim in the first place. There is no direct entry to Sufism. One has to follow the Quran before entering into Sufism.

There is no merit in that argument. Explain me the process of your conlusion and i will tell you how it is wrong. Let us go to the details of the brain as it is one of my favourite subject.

You are again back to square one.

The only difference between the Sufism and Conventional Islam is that of interpretation of the text. Otherwise, they share the belief both in Muhammad and Allah. So, how can you say that Islam did not evolve? Existence of the Sufism is the enough evidence that Islam is flexible.

By the way, Buddhism was never pushed out of India. It is still very much there. It spread outside India, not pushed.

Let me also tell you that I am not a Muslim but a Hindu, and a religious one too. But, I have to say right to right and wrong to wrong.

with love,
sanjay

Those people who say that they are „not religious“ are often more religious than the other people.

[size=150]Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?[/size]

Whilst I am not a Hindu, not from India, I was involved in Vedanta quite seriously in one phase. In any case, not all non-theists , e.g. Buddhists [preferred but not one officially] and others, are militant atheists

IMO, your above views off target from the core philosophy of religion.

There is a proximate root cause of religion. This is the substance.
The variations are the forms that support the substance.
These forms vary with the local conditions, the individual’s conditions and other factors.

Buddha was a prince of a kingdom and in those days wars are very common. There are good reasons why Guatama steer clear of wars and his birth duty to fight.

Btw, imo, the story of Moses and lord Krishna, Buddha are myths/allegories to convey the substance or core principles of the philosophy of religion. Whilst Lord Krishna and Guatama’s arrows hit the 9 and 10, Moses hit 5 of the target.

In the case of Muhammad, I would take into consideration his psychosis (I mentioned somewhere the experienced of God by the mentally sick re Ramanchandran) and his plagiarism of Christianity and Judaism.

I did mention Hinduism is a bit problematic because it comprised and is represented of hundreds of religions and cults. This is why I always refer to Buddhism and Jainism to represent the peaceful religion with no evil laden verses.

When I charged that the Abrahamic religions are in part inherently evil I was referring to the total ethos and ALL the evil laden verses [have you read them] there in their holy texts plus the substantiation of the real evidence of evils acts SOME of their believers [Islam the worst at present, Christianity minimal] are committing.

I mentioned the story of Krishna and Arjuna is a myth and an allegory [not historical nor literally] to represent the substance of religion within the human system. Arjuna is the atman [the self] and his enemies represent his animal and primal instincts and impulses. Therefore Arjuna [the higher self] was advised to ‘kill’ his own animal impulses. In that contexts and logically, all the subsequent chapters in the Gita present the various methods (meditation, etc.) and philosophy of how to deal with and modulate one’s lower impulses spiritually.
It is very unfortunate that the Gita used the ‘war’ allegory to explain the substance of religion and spirituality. This enable evil prone people to cherry pick some verses literally for their evil purposes and that was what the Nazis did to motivate their soldiers to kill anyone even their kin, relative, race, etc.

As my earlier point I do not agree with your interpretation which focus on merely the forms but missed the substance of what is the core of religion.

I have never claimed to be an expert but I dare claim I know a lot and make the attempt to cover as much as possible. The point is the difficulty to assess how much a person knows in a forum like this is limited, but an assessment can be made based on one’s understanding of the principles and philosophy of religion generically.

At present I can read the most complex books on religion, i.e. those related to Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, etc within a day or two but it will take me a year to fully comprehend one of Kant’s main book.
The complexity of Kant thoroughness is way beyond anyone I have came across {which is many} within the sphere of philosophy and spirituality.

I am confident [based on extensive work done] to know enough [not expert] of the principles and substance to judge the various forms.

As I said it is not easy to go into details. I was making a very general statement in this case.
Sufism is basically Islam but it is influenced and intermixed with some aspects of ‘Hinduism.’
I assess that Sufism is veering towards ‘mysticism’ in general.
In practice, I agree there are many who follow Sufism, but its essence is mysticism.

It is the same for Christian mysticism.
There are many Christians who respect or follow the mystics teaching.
But if one were do a serious peeling away of the forms, they will find there are variations in the substance.

In practice, most Muslims do not give a damn about the OIC views. Note the killing of Shias, Ahamadiyas and other Muslims by Sunnis.

This need a debate on this on what is the true Muslim who obey Islam literally and the not-so-true-Muslim who subscribe to higher human values, compromise and ignore the evil laden verses of God in the Quran, Hadiths and Sira. Btw, I am not from the West.

Agree, but Sufism filters off the evil laden verses and add elements of Hindu thoughts to Islam. This is why most ‘true’ Muslims regard the Sufis as blasphemous like the Ahmadiyas and others regardless of what the toothless OIC recommends.

Don’t be too quick to brush this off.
You will need to understand the core and substance of religion first.
Frankly the core of religion is reflected in the story of the Buddha and Lord Krishna & Arjuna.
It has to do with the subliminal fear of death and what happen after death.
This issue is dealt critically within the Abrahamic holy texts. (Salvation is primary)
Fear is an emotion which is dealt with by the middle limbic system and the amgydala [google this].
However the primal fear is beyond emotion and dealt with within the primal brain.
Is there merit is my argument?
(There is more to it but a sufficient clue for the moment)

Whilst you think I am ignorant, it could like be the other way round.
The point is Sufism impute other elements from Hinduism (and others?) to combine with Conventional Islam.
Islam did not evolve as God’s word by default cannot be edited nor changed, thus evolution of Islam is an impossibility.
What evolved was the brain of SOME Muslims.

OK, that is just a matter of semantics. By ‘pushed’, I meant it was not popular anymore but obviously it was not totally eliminated or got rid off in such a big place like ancient India.

Noted you are luckily not a Muslim. I’ll appreciate if you point out anything I stated which is wrong. I only wish you dig deeper so we do not have to discuss much and waste so much time in our responses. Such lengthy replies eat into my full time attention for Kant’s third Critique of Judgment.

Very conspicuously antisemitic. And arrogantly bigoted, having no rational support for opinions, merely ultimate confidence in the absolute truth of them - fanatically religious.

The term “Abrahamic Religions” is not a well chosen one. It is as well a crutch as the term “Monotheistic Religions”.

[size=150]Christianity on the one side and Judaism and Islam on the other side are much different.[/size]

For example: Christianity is not as much abrahamic and not as much monotheistic as Judaism and Islam are. In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That’s not really monotheistic. And the New Testament is very much different from the Old Testament.

You’re arguing and differentiating the obvious forms.
You do not seem to appreciate effectiveness in linguistics and communication.
If I do not use the term “Abrahamic Religions,” then I will use the phrase ‘the common features of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as detailed in this wiki article.’ I will have to repeat this burdensome phrase all the time I make reference to it.

Your opposition to the term “Abrahamic Religion” is something like I should not use the term ‘fruits’ to represent the common fruits because they all look different and different people have different preference for certain fruits.

I suggest this very detailed and lengthy article and explain why they are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions#Common_aspects

Contents
1 Etymology
2 Origins and history
3 Common aspects
3.1 Monotheism
3.2 Theological continuity
3.3 Scripture
3.4 Ethical orientation
3.5 Eschatological world view
3.6 Importance of Jerusalem

4 The significance of Abraham
4.1 For Jews
4.2 For Christians
4.3 For Muslims

5 The religions
5.1 Judaism
5.2 Christianity
5.3 Islam

6 God
6.1 Judaism
6.2 Christianity
6.3 Islam

7 Religious scriptures
7.1 Judaism
7.2 Christian
7.3 Islam

8 End times and afterlife
8.1 Judaism
8.2 Christianity
8.3 Islam

9 Worship and religious rites
9.1 Judaism
9.2 Christianity
9.3 Islam
9.4 Circumcision
9.5 Food restrictions
9.6 Sabbath observance

10 Proselytism
10.1 Judaism
10.2 Christianity
10.3 Islam

11 Violent conflicts
11.1 Between Abrahamic religions
11.2 Between branches of the same Abrahamic religion
11.3 Between Abrahamic religions and non-adherents

12 Other Abrahamic religions
12.1 Bahá’í Faith
12.2 Ethnographic Abrahamic religions

They seem to be “obvious” only to you but not to others.

I said it just BECAUSE of linguistics and communication. I have studied linguistics.

So what is your intention? Ad hominem again?

There are not many common features of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That’s the problem that you do not want to see because you want more a short-sighted presentation or view - full of cognitive blindness!

What “opposition”? Stop being so much sensitive!

I merely said:

What is your problem, boy?

|=>#

Prism, Buddhism got almost completely whipped out in a single generation by your Secular-Communism while Christianity is holding and Islam and Judaism are growing. How can you imagine it to be superior?

By their fruits … Watson!
Note the amount of evils that had been committed by SOME believers of the Abrahamic religions ever since they emerged and traceable to their respective holy texts, in comparison, its negligible from Buddhism in this context.
I have also given some reasons in the OP why Buddhism is more effective.

Popularity has nothing to do with being more efficient [superior] now and in the future. I don’t think I need to explain this principle.

In other words, entirely by your personal preference in belief of “the good” … nothing scientific or logical about it at all … just a fanatic lust on your part (what you called “psychosis”).

You have no idea, because you don’t know anything about Christianity and the fact that it is much different from Judaism and Islam. Nietzsche said that (for example) there are “ja-sagende” (“yes-saying”) and “nein-sagende” (“no-saying”) religions in both the Aryan (Indogerman) and the Semitic societies: Brahmanism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Judaism or Islam as a Semitic religion are “ja-sagende Religionen” (“yes-saying religions”) whereas Buddhism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Christianity as a Semitic religion are “nein-sagende Religionen” (“no-saying religions”). Cp. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, “Der Wille zur Macht” (“The Will to Power”), S. 110-111. If that what Nietzsche said is right, then Christianity is even more similar to Buddhism than to Judaism or Islam. Again: There are no “three Abrahamic religions” because Christianity is too much different from Judaism and Islam.

Buddhism and Christianity are actually very similar but the anti-Christians want to focus on merely the material concerns (being entirely ignorant of the spiritual concerns). In spirit, they are nearly identical.

Christianity is a social religion with peace reinforcing ethics.
Buddhism is a personal philosophy with peace reinforcing ethics.

Thus many social events are not addressed at all in Buddhism yet are inherently relevant in Christianity. Arguing the difference is like arguing that because one wears a sash on the right shoulder and the other wears his sash on the left, they are entirely different religions.

…not that any of them do a very good job of any of it.

I guess you are in agreement with me, if I put this post in one of my threads.

A link to Wikipedia is your evidence? Very detailed and lengthy? Did you even read this? Many of the subtopics are only one or two sentences long. This is pathetically NOT detailed and short, and therefore leaves out many important details. Many of the points actually highlight differences between the three even though the topic is Common Aspects. How about you look at a source that goes over both the common aspects and the differences in some detail. This would require at least what’s called a book length treatment of the subject.

Just a few excerpts from your source that contradict your opinion:

Excerpts from the subtopic of proselytism:
“Jewish scholars have traditionally maintained that it is better to be a good non-Jew than a bad Jew, thus discouraging conversion

"Christianity encourages evangelism." “Forced conversions are condemned as sinful by major denominations

“Da‘wah produces converts to Islam, which in turn grows the size of the Muslim Ummah, or community of Muslims.” What the section on Islam doesn’t mention, is that it is the doctrine of Islam that if a person does not convert or at least submit to the rule of Islam, then the Muslim is to conquer by the sword and force submission.

On Monotheism:
“All Abrahamic religions claim to be monotheistic, worshiping an exclusive God, though known by different names.[17] All of these religions believe that God creates, is one, rules, reveals, loves, judges, punishes, and forgives.[14][need quotation to verify] However, although Christianity does not profess to believe in three gods — but rather three persons, or hypostases, united in one essence — the Trinitarian doctrine, which is a fundamental of faith for the vast majority of Christian denominations, conflicts with Jewish and Muslim concepts of monotheism. Since the conception of divine Trinity is not amenable to tawhid, the Islamic doctrine of monotheism, Islam considers Christianity to be variously polytheistic or idolatrous.
Jesus (Arabic: Isa or Yasu among Muslims and Arab Christians respectively) is revered by Christianity and Islam but with vastly differing conceptions, viewed as the saviour by Christians (and God incarnate by most Christians as well), and as a Prophet of Islam[23] by Muslims. However, the worship of Jesus, or the ascribing of partners to God (known as shirk in Islam and shituf in Judaism), is typically viewed as the heresy of idolatry by Islam and Judaism. The incarnation of God into human form is also seen as a heresy by Judaism as well as Islam.”

Worship and Religious rites:
“Worship, ceremonies and religion-related customs differ substantially among the Abrahamic religions.”

There are more but I think this is sufficient to make my point.

This is like,

  1. you insist blacks are different from whites,
  2. I understand your point in 1 but I insist they are the ‘same’ as human in general based on their DNA, etc.

I pointed out there is the ‘substance’ and the ‘forms’ of any religion.
If you focus on the ‘forms,’ it is obvious there are difference.
However, if we analyze the ‘substance’ there are commonalities.

There should not be an issue if we qualify the context and I have done so. The counter points raised to highlight the obvious differences [which I agree] are irrelevant for the OP.

Note I have highlighted the critical common elements* that made the Abrahamic religions less effective than the Eastern religions as listed in the OP.

  • These are the common root in the story of Abraham, the reliance on the malignant [note this] use of the primal “us versus them” impulse, the focus on the lower part of the brain, …

The substance of any religion is their doctrine. Their doctrine explains what THEY “think” and why. What you’re calling substance is what YOU “think” based on some completely unproven psychological theory.

These “obvious differences” that YOU brought up as evidence that the Abrahamic religions are the “same”, are now irrelevant for the OP? If they are obvious differences, why did you bring them up as evidence that they are the same?

I responded directly to 4 of the 12 categories that you brought up as evidence that they are same. Of these 4 only “Worship and religious rites” is an outward form of the religions, the other three are doctrine and therefore substance. And now all of sudden because the evidence you presented as proof that they are the same, turns out to prove that they are not the same, you declare that the evidence you brought up is irrelevant for the OP.

How about you present evidence to prove this statement.

Discussing things with you is like trying to discuss something with a talking doll with a pull string. When someone presents evidence contrary to your pet theory, you either ignore it, or dismiss it, by continually repeating your pet theory over and over…just like pulling the string on a doll.

Philosophically, the ‘substance’ [or matter, essence, ouisa] of common forms is the most ultimate concept that common forms can be reduced to. Conventionally, those concepts which are nearest and next to the ultimate concept can also be regarded as ‘substance’ within context.
For example, the ‘substance’ of the physical world is ‘quark.’
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
However, conventionally the atom, its nucleus & electrons can also be considered as ‘substance’.

All religions are reducible to their doctrines or main texts which represent the substance [not ultimate] of religions. The doctrines cannot be the ultimate substance of religions. Analogically to the physical world, they are at most molecules.

The penultimate substance of theistic religions is God.
Within theistic religions we have the main categories, i.e.

  1. Abrahamic theistic Religions - common root to Abraham
  2. Non-Abrahamic theistic
    As such, ‘Abraham’ is the sub-substance of the Abrahamic Religions.

Meanwhile, the sub-ultimate substance of the non-theistic religions are their founders.
However, the ultimate substance of the non-theistic religions is the existential dilemma, a psychological theory.

My theory is, the ultimate substance of the theistic religions is also the existential dilemma.

Therefore the ultimate substance of all religions is the existential dilemma (ED).

I am very confident my psychology theory of ED as the ultimate substance of all religions is sound and can be justified.
Btw, ED is not only the substance of all religions, but the ultimate substance of all human behaviors and its resultants of good and evil.
I have not presented the full arguments for my theory and I do not intent to do it here [no imperative at all to do so], but I have left various clues that those interested can follow up with.

You missed my points.
I did not highlight the difference, it was you who dig out the irrelevant differences.
There are common aspects in the points I presented, but you deliberately and blindly ignore them and instead focus on the differences.
My evidence is based on the sameness and ignoring the difference which are irrelevant.

Analogically it is like, I say all humans are the same, while you insist they are different.
Both claims by you and me can be correct if we take into account the context.
I see all humans the same in terms of the DNA and common physical features [the substance], while you look at them in terms of external colors, height, voice, etc. [the forms].
The point is, substance overrides and is more critical than form in this case of the OP.

Note my explanations above that you deliberately ignored the sameness in those points.
Doctrines are not the main substance.

For the sake of his own selfish soteriological and salvation, Abraham has the odious impulse to the extent of killing his own son. This is inherent in all Abrahamic believers.
The malignant use of the “us versus them” impulse plus the evil laden verses in the Abrahamic Religion texts has contributed to all the terrible evils the Abrahamic believers had committed in the past to the present (e.g. ISIS).
The evil laden verses together the abuse of the “us versus them” impulse dehumanized non-believers as pieces of sh:t and SOME evil prone fundamentalists exploited that to kill with intents to exterminate non-believers. Examples, the inquisitions, killing of natives during missionary projects all over the world, genocides by ISIS, mass rapes, Boko Haram killing to hinder educations, etc.

You are the one experiencing a jammed string and pulling the strings frantically instead of understanding the mechanics and relation between the strings and the actions of the doll.

The point is, let say we are like Democritus in his time [hopefully you know him?],

We are like Democritus chasing after the ‘holy grail’ of the physical world and there is the idea then of the ‘atom’ as the ultimate substance of the physical world.
Now in this quest, why should be bothered about the outer forms of the physical world, i.e. the Earth, water, air Sun, stars, planet, etc. This forms are irrelevant to the issue of finding the ‘atom.’ The path is to did deeper instead of outward to the external forms. The proof of the pudding, note we have dug out the atom, electrons, nucleus, various sub-atomic particles to quarks and now speculating on strings and Higgs’ particle.
This is why I deliberately brushed you off when you veer towards the form instead of the substance. It is wasting mine and your time to deal with the irrelevant.

I think you may not get it even after this detailed explanation, … :question: :question: whatever will be will be.

Prismatic does not seem to understand that the subatomic particles do not determine whether something is good or bad for life. Water molecules sustain life and cyanide molecules end it - both are made of protons, neutrons and electrons.

He has lost the essential features of the various religions by reducing to an abstract root.

You are off tangent again and you are totally ignorant of my main point of contention.

The subatomic particles example was an analogy to highlight the principle of unity within diversity.
I used another analogical example, i.e. the unity of humans in terms of DNA within its diverse forms.

My main point was to justify there was unity of the same root of ‘Abraham’ within the diversity of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, which collective are often termed ‘Abrahamic Religions’.

The story of Abraham indicate that the essence of the Abrahamic religions that follow the same root focus more on the animal or ‘lowest’ part of the brain. In addition, the Abrahamic religions also exploited the inherent primal “us versus them” impulse malignantly. The resultant is the existence of SOME evil laden verses in their holy texts being abused by SOME evil prone believers committing terrible evils upon humanity in the past and present with a greater threat in the future.

In contrast, the Eastern Religions [as listed in the OP] focused away and progressively on the ‘higher’ cortical brain. These religions do not rely on the common “us versus them” malignantly. There are no ‘significant’ evil laden verses in their religious texts which focus more on personal development to deal with the existential dilemma.

Based on the above central criteria as qualified, the Abrahamic Religions are Relatively inferior to these main Eastern Religions [as listed].

Your point has no relevance to the above at all.
Btw, I do not deny the Abrahamic Religions may be relatively superior if we use other criteria[s].
For example, the Abrahamic Religions are very effective [almost immediately] in relieving the angst of the existential dilemma [its a pseudo solution and a placebo]. This sort of quickie however results in SOME committing terrible religious-based evils.
For the Abrahamic believers all they need is just believe and viola! the passport to heaven and eternal life is given to them.
In contrast, the believers of Eastern Religions has to work at it by developing their brain or the lay believers has to do sufficient merits and other necessaries.