Another topic I've been feeling indignation over was Buddhism. Specifically, the behaviour of saying "Buddhism is such and such", or "Buddhists are like this". Some guy (Buddha) said something, some people heard him say that something, had their own interpretations of what he said, repeated something which was a mixture of what Buddha actually said, and their own interpretation of what he had said to other people, and these other people repeated that process to yet other people, and so on. This happens in most religions, and even happens in other disciplines (philosophy, science, art, economics, etc.) where precise, formal semantics and terminology isn't followed (and so therefore I believe this "reinterpretation" stuff doesn't happen very often in mathematics, but it does happen in computer science!).

This in itself is not bad: Reinterpretation is generally "healthy" within a body of knowledge, as it allows for new ideas to be created, evaluated, and either adopted or disposed of. The problem comes up when someone has one particular interpretation of an an old idea, and that anyone who has heard of this old idea must have the same interpretation as he does, and that his interpretation is the interpretation intended by the person who originally espoused the idea. I see this a lot in in American Christianity, for example, perhaps not due to any fault in Christianity itself, but perhaps because it is fashionable to depict Americans as being stupid or uneducated, and Christianity is the most populous religion of the states. It's not uncommon for me to see stories of Christian Americans who have never considered the possibility that they do not know the exact words of Jesus, because they've only ever read a bible written in English, and Jesus did not speak English, so any words they read must be a translation, and thus a (re)interpretation of what was actually, originally said. They may believe that their religious texts clearly and unambiguously state that good Christians must hate and harass homosexuals, and that anyone who self-identifies as Christian would share their view in this matter, or else they are not really Christian.

Just as there are multiple variants of English (American English, British English, Canadian English, Australian English, Hong Kong English, etc.), there are multiple variants of Christianity. I took language-variance to an extreme and theorized that (under my definition for the term "language"), everybody speaks their own personal language, which is slightly different than everyone else's language. (In fact, I've taken the idea even beyond that, and espoused that within a single person, they may speak different variants of their own personal language, depending on the person they speak to -- I may assigned a different meaning to a given phrase, depending on who I am speaking to, for example). It is attractive to apply this concept to religions as well: Everybody has their own variant of their religion, which is slightly different from everybody else's. In fact, if you accepted my theory that everybody speaks a different language, you're pretty much forced to accept my idea that everyone has a different religion, because they tend to come to that religion via language (e.g. in the form of reading a bible).

So some people may self-identify as "Christian", but be of the particular variant of Christianity in which you should love everyone, and seek to make everybody's life better. Another person may be of the variant of Christianity where you should love everyone, except for Satan. Yet another might believe that you should hate Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, etc., in addition to Satan. Yet another might believe that homosexuals too, should be hated. One person might believe in the variant of Christianity where you should stone your children to death every time they disobey you (apparently, there is a passage in the Christian bible which supports this belief). Another might choose to go against the Christian bible, and choose to NOT stone their children to death, and yet still self-label themselves as being Christian. Who is right? Who is more Christian?

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I ran over and yelled "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said "There's so much to live for!"

He replied "No, there isn't. Life is pointless."

Quickly trying to find some common ground, I asked "Are you religious or atheist?"

He said "Religious."

I said "So am I! Are you Christian or Buddhist or something?"

He said "Christian."

I said "So am I! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said "Protestant."

I said "So am I! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said "Baptist."

I said "So am I! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said "Baptist Church of God."

I said "So am I! Are you original Baptist Church of God or Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

He said "Reformed Baptist Church of God."

I said "So am I! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915."

I said "Die heathen scum!" and pushed him off the bridge.

Should we base our definition of the term "Christian" around the bible, and thus people who do not stone their children to death cannot possibly be considered Christian, because the bible says we should stone our children? Do we base our definition of the term "Christian" around the idea that anyone who self-identifies as "Christian" is a Christian? We may attempt to cop out and say that a Christian is a person who follows Christian beliefs, but since everybody seems to have different opinions about what is or is not a Christian belief, not only have we demonstrated that everybody has their own variant of religion, we have also demonstrated that everybody has their own variant of language, since the term "Christian" means different things to these different people.

The fact that everyone speaks a slightly different language did not cause all of communication to break down. In my variant of English, certain words have certain nuances or connotations that they don't have in your variant of English. And yet, we can communicate, because those nuances aren't of great importance for the particular set of ideas and messages that I am trying to convey to you. You don't need to know all the non-verbal, emotional cues I associate with the words "fact", "everyone", "down", etc. to understand what I mean when I write "The fact that everyone speaks a slightly different language did not cause all of communication to break down". The coarse-level meanings, which most of us so-called "English-speakers" share is sufficient for our interactions to be meaningful, and for us to be grouped together under this label of "English-speakers". Similarly, the coarse-level beliefs of all so-called "Christians", "Buddhists", etc. may be similar enough so that it is meaningful to create these labels and apply them to people.

So again, the variance is not the problem. The problem is thinking that there is no variance. Buddhism is constantly changing, willing to admit it was wrong in the past, and correct itself. That is one of the things I admire most about Buddhism as a religion (if you know of any other religion which is willing to admit to being wrong, please let me know). The Dalai Lama said:

At one point I became particularly intrigued by an old telescope, with which I would study the heavens. One night while looking at the moon I realized that there were shadows on its surface. I corralled my two main tutors to show them, because this was contrary to the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught, which held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light.

But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently.

If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

I personally believe that if you want to get the most out of Buddhism (or any form of knowledge, whether true or false), you have to actually think for yourself about what it is trying to say to you. People don't like that, because they are lazy and/or ignorant. They want to be told exactly what they need to do or not do, so that they may follow these orders unquestioningly. If you're one of those people, then you are what I refer to as "religious", when I'm using the denigratory sense of the word. (In case you're curious, when I use "religious" in the praising sense, one of the meanings I may be referring to is a sense of awe of the beauty of the universe) which allows you to feel compassion not just to those people who are immediately around you, but to all sentience throughout reality).

So when someone tells me that being Buddhist means you have to be a vegetarian, and you must not harm any form of life, and you must not support any professions which involve harming life, such as being a butcher, I can't help but think "You're an idiot." You cannot "not" harm life. As a living human being, you have an immune system which is constantly harming life. Your body is constantly killing bacteria, and there is nothing you can do to stop it, short of killing yourself, in which case, you are once again harming life (your own). Even being a vegetarian, you are still harming life, because plants are a form of life, and you kill the plant when you eat it. Refrain from eating (even plants), and once again, you are harming life. Not only are you harming your own life, but you are also harming all the bacterium which live in your gut which are expecting nutrients.

I don't know if Buddha actually said to not harm life, or to be a vegetarian, or whatever. But in fact, it really doesn't matter whether he said it or not. If he had said it, it would have to have been at least 100 years BC, before anyone had any concept of molecular biology. The Dalai Lama very clearly said "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.", and science has shown that yes, human beings really do have an immune system that is constantly killing bacterium. Buddha was wrong. That he didn't know he was wrong, because science had not advanced to that point yet, doesn't change the fact that he was wrong, and that Buddhism now must update its beliefs to be in accordance with science.

Clearly, harming certain forms of life is okay, because Buddha did it, and yet harming other forms of life is not okay, because I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Buddhists agree that murder is a bad thing. So what forms of life is it okay to harm, and what forms of life is it not okay to harm? Figure it out for yourself! Maybe the Dalai Lama said something with respect to this, and maybe he listed the forms of life which you can harm, and the ones you can't. Who cares? Maybe he's wrong too! If you believe in Buddhism, then you probably believe that Buddha was connected (whether with God, or Karma, or Everything, or Truth, it doesn't matter -- everyone has a different belief of what he was connected to) and has access to some sort of divine insight that us mere mortals don't have. But he got stuff wrong. So if Buddha himself got stuff wrong, why would you believe the Dalai Lama, a mere mortal like you and I, is infallible? Hear what he has to say, because maybe the Dalai Lama is a pretty insightful guy, but don't follow it blindly. Think for yourself. Stop being so religious (in the bad sense), and start being more religious (in the good sense).

There are no rules for you to follow. You know the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you)? It's wrong. It doesn't work. I tried the golden rule once: it was my mom's birthday, and I was something like 7 or 8 years old. This was back in the Windows 3.1 days. My dad and I were in this computer shop, and I saw this shareware program which allowed you to edit the icons of your applications. I was floored. This was absolutely the best thing I had ever seen, and I would dearly love to have someone buy this program for me. So, as commanded by the golden rule, I convinced my dad to buy this for my mom. She didn't like the gift at all.

That's not all. If you study game theory, you'll probably run over the tit-for-tat strategy. TfT is a lot more effective than the golden rule in real life. Let's say someone in life fucks you over. You would wish for them to not fuck you over, and instead be nice to you, right? Well, using the golden rule, that means you should be nice to them, because you're supposed to do to them what you want them to do to you. Guess what? It doesn't work. They'll keep fucking you over. TfT says after you've gotten fucked over by someone, stop being so goddamn trustful towards that person.

But you know what? There are some situations where TfT doesn't work either. There are no rules for you to follow. Buddhism isn't about being a vegetarian. You're missing the point.