Eastern Comparative Philosophies
Eastern Comparative Philosophies
- Text–practice fidelity: Is the applied guidance faithful to the source tradition’s intent, constraints, and internal logic?
- Concept translation integrity: Are key terms translated without distortion (e.g., “detachment,” “non-attachment,” “desire,” “duty,” “self,” “suffering”)?
- Scope of claim clarity: Distinguish spiritual/metaphysical claims from psychological practices and ethical guidance.
- Practice definition & method: What exactly is the practice (steps, frequency, conditions), not just the idea?
- Mechanism of benefit: How the practice is supposed to work (attention, cognition, emotion regulation, community norms).
- Boundary conditions: For whom, when, and under what conditions the practice helps vs harms.
- Psychological risk screening: Risks of suppression, dissociation, guilt, or spiritual bypassing.
- Ethical misuse risk: How teachings can justify passivity, harm tolerance, domination, or avoidance of responsibility.
- Authority & lineage claims: Whether authority is asserted responsibly (no “appeal to ancientness” as proof).
- Contextual fit: Compatibility with modern roles (leaders, parents, clinicians, citizens) and constraints.
- Integration discipline: How practices integrate with daily life without creating contradiction or identity fragmentation.
- Evidence and validation stance: What is claimed as experiential truth vs empirically testable benefit.
- Comparative fairness: If comparing traditions, avoid cherry-picking and false equivalence; preserve distinct aims.