[Buddha-l] Different criticisms for different folks (was: aseemingly endless thread on veganism)

[Joy Vriens]

>While I fully agree that a critical attitude is important, if only because  
>good Buddhist practice requires it, I would also point out that the kinds of  
>criticism that are needed are very different for different traditions.  
>Buddhism makes few historical claims of the sort that, if challenged, would  
>in any way undermine the most important elements of theory and practice.

I am not sure I can make my point, because there are many aspects, but I will try. A critical attitude can be directed towards various points of a religion. It can be directed towards religion(s) in general, its being and behaving like a "religion". Religion as a phenomenon. We can question whether a specific "religion" needs to behave as a religion or if spirituality will do, as some Buddhist teachers and even the Buddha himself repeated say themselves. We may question the idea that a teacher-to-be has a revelation, or discovers a truth, that only needs to be taught or transmitted as such and that will be recognised as such by others. The myth of the clean start and the "boxability" of a religion. Absolutely nothing revolutionary here and most people would agree I think. Yet when it comes to writing a history or an overview of a religion, Buddhism in this case, one always seems to have to rely heavily on existing frameworks, hagiographic and triumphalistic propaganda and th!
 e latest systematised version of theories and practices. 

I don't know why. Is it because one wants one's book to sell well and the majority of the potential buyers are believers and practitioners? Is it out of respect towards some members of the religion one personnally knows and has worked with and doesn't want to hurt? Is it because even though one may be right, one would could be called as a fraud by the members of that religion, who know better because they are a majority and their teachers 
told them what it is really about? Are there any clean slate / tabula rasa books on Buddhism, built from scratch?

And even in the case of pertinent criticism, does it real need to have an impact on one's theory and practice of a religion? Instead of believing in a past one-time revelation by a genius one could trust the latest version of a religion because of its long development and experience and in its further development.  

>Some studies suggest that it may be impossible to override this tendency of  
>the central nervous system to immunize itself against reacting to the pain of  
>beings considered others or outsiders. If it were to turn out that it really  
>IS impossible to care for outsiders, foreigners, insects and aliens from  
>other galaxies who land in Roswell as a mother cares for her only child, then  
>the implications for Buddhist practices aimed at cultivating Great Compassion  
>would be rather dire. And this might lead some Buddhists to reject the  
>findings of science as vehemently as some Christians have rejected the  
>findings of textual and historical criticism.  

We can imagine and believe we are more than our hardwire. Therefore we can be more than our hardware, regardless of what science will prove. I believe it was Dostoievski who said that it were proven that Jesus was wrong and science was right, he would prefer to stick with Jesus. Sorry if I mess up his intent, I don't have the quote by hand. I feel the same about it. Some (Sloterdijk?) say that Humanism has had its best time and that something more rational is needed for humanity to progress further (with eugenism and what more). Well, I will stick with humanism and with Dostoievski and other good folks. And I don't think that whatever I find through critical thinking will undermine my theory or practice.   

Joy