Rev Greg Made some interesting comments:
Yet, I think what makes Critical Buddhism critical is this effort to make the distinction. What is the example of the Buddha? Where is Buddhism clearly distinguished from the Hindu substrate it originated in? The only real core of Buddhism is the principle that the goal of the practitioner is enlightenment, and that the obstacles to enlightenment need to be identified and defined and that the practitioner has to find his path to reach that goal.
Therefore learning from all teachers, following the path, being "critical" in seeking enlightenment and distinguishing what is "not enlightenment" from what is "enlightened" in a loving and attentive manner is what defines Buddhism.
The rest is local "upaya". Maybe the Sun is male God, maybe it is a female god, maybe it is no god. Maybe monks should wear orange, maybe gray, and maybe sweatsuits.
Maybe the Japanese have the right idea with their hierarchical collective all bound to their vision of a "Sensei" -- maybe not. It is the job of the Buddhist to point out the "maybe not" when folks are sure that such a thing "definately is" -- when it isn't. It is also the duty of the Buddhist to say "Okay that path is a fine path, but doesn't it lead to a chasm over there?"
There is a joke going around about a modern publicicist seeking to retrace an explorer's footsteps who climed Mt. Kilamanjaro. Everyone says "oh that is a fine idea!" But one wag who knows better says 'that's not for me' that fellow died a horrible death falling into a chasm.
Chris
Posted by cholte at March 17, 2007 05:11 PMI was reading a piece about "hive mind" versus "collective consciousness." I can't find it now, but it was interesting. The Japanese seem to be stuck in a hive mind sort of unity; where the individual loses its identity to the collective.
Posted by: robek at March 25, 2007 02:09 PM