[Buddha-l] Enlightenment as dogma

[Stefan Detrez]

>... I do think that the difference is that Christians do not think
critically

>
> Give me a break! Some Christians, and some Buddhists, think
> critically, and some don't. (And I'd be inclined to say that goes for
> some Christian groups and Buddhist groups as well)
>
>
Yes, Christians think critically when it's not related to the core tenets of
their own beliefs, yet they do about other people's beliefs. I guess that
goes for Buddhists too. Unless we speak of a postmodern, stripped-down
version where miracles, belief in angels and Satan is frowned upon or
questioned in ideologically pluralistic milieus and therefore dropped, maybe
because it's too intellectually demanding to defend them. A customized
version which serves from day to day and doesn't need extraordinary
explaining, for instance. I think I observe the same thing too with regard
to Buddhists: some 'believe' in transmigration, others don't, some take the
Buddha's 32 Marks as literal, others as metaphor. On what basis beliefs are
adopted is an interesting question. Would one be charged with apostasy if
one expressed doubt about the Buddha's nirvana, or  Maya's being touched in
the side by an elephant and getting pregnant, which is miraculously similar
to Mary's immaculate conception.


> Nor does being a Christian nor being a Buddhist imply being a
> literalist. Again, some are and some aren't.
>
> When it comes to Christianity, there ARE some basics which are to be
believed literally by literally all Christians. The Resurrection, for
instance. Jesus being the literal son of his god. Immaculate conception. I'm
not sure to what extent Christian or Buddhist you can call yourself if you
may choose what you'll see as part of your religious identity. Some Muslims,
for instance, say they 'have to believe in (the existence of) jinns.' In the
choice of words you already see a discomfort about that particular belief
they have.


> And while it may be true that you can't find out what works for you
> spiritually without trying it out, that doesn't mean checking your
> brains at the door. Nor trying out just any old thing you come
> across. Use your head! (I've found that that is just about always good
> advice.)
>
> The hard part is maintaining respect for those on the opposite side
> of the critical thinking diviide. Even if they don't have anything I
> want. And especially even if I'm sure my way is the better way. Oh
> what trouble that gets me in. Respect for other views - I guess that
> was actually taught to me by the Hindus I used to hang out with but
> whatever, it's a tall order. And I think a very important one.
>
>
You are very wrong. The Buddha engaged in plenty of debating with other
sects, trashing their theories. I also think of the elaborate and intricate
polemics between Madhyamika and Cittamatra-schools. Tsongkhapa's minute
analyses of opposing opinions and their subsequent destruction. I don't see
much respect there for other peoples' views. It's hypocritical to leave
someone in an erroneous view, even if caution is warranted. Today, where we
already deal with Islam's en Evangelical Christianity's presence, wanted and
unwanted, we should for the sake of our future engage in discussion and not
resort to culturally relativist rhetoric, aborting any thorough discussion
about beliefs with which people shape their lives, but also the lives of
others, and maybe one day yours too. People who say they respect other
people's view show cowardice to differ in opinion, don't care about other
views or are not sure of the validity of their own views. Engaging in
discussion has always lead to favorable progress, even if harsh critique for
religious beliefs is involved. µ

Stefan