If, as I understand Mahayana-based Buddhisms to teach, we are all really one big monistic/unified Mind/Being, which is supposedly happier as Itself than as a suffering human, why doesn’t one person’s becoming enlightened cause everyone to become enlightened? When the Mind learns of its delusion from one person (e.g., Gautama Buddha), why doesn’t It correct Itself and stop manifesting this world?
In the name of “critical thinking,” I have noticed a tendency in the West for intellectuals to become not only reflective and deconstructive, but to frequently live in mentally aggressive/hostile, cynical, pessimistic, etc. states of mind. Although I would agree that being overly positive can bias one in various ways (e.g., to see only what you want to see and miss/ignore challenges, obstacles, etc.), being overly negative can bias one in opposite ways (e.g., to see only obstacles or challenges and miss/ignore what might be possible). So I think it is important to turn critical thinking against itself, and to be critical of becoming too negative of a person. To me, the main value of critical thinking is to acknowledge and let go of biases and assumptions, to become mentally detached and aware, to try to see and think clearly. Mental detachment is perhaps the primary activity/aspect of mindfulness meditation, as is awareness of vipassana meditation.
In my experience, every large group, nation, etc. contains the full range of people, from terrible to wonderful. “They” are not all bad, and “we” are not all good. Please stop seeing the world in terms of simplistic categories, and start seeing the incredible complexity of life.
When I watch documentaries like these, I see beings who have cultures, languages, families, communities with both internal and external social structures and conflicts, technologies/tools, educational techniques, personal desires and attachments, who mourn their losses, and who have substantively the same body configurations as we do. There are a few key things they haven’t developed yet (e.g., preserving knowledge using artifacts, and using cooking to increase their calorie intake (hence brain neuron density) and to give them more free time), but those developments seem quite minor, and probably just a matter of time and opportunity, to me.
“…since Freud, the most extravagant fancies in the realm of love are considered to be perfectly normal (a person without them is regarded as a case for treatment), in the realm of death (the other great pole of human life) any strange fancies are still classed as ‘morbid’. The Suttas reverse the situation: sensual thoughts are the thoughts of a sick man (sick with ignorance and craving), and the way to health is through thoughts of foulness and the diseases of the body, and of its death and decomposition” (Ñāṇavīra Thera, “Clearing the Path”).
Unlike in one-life-only creationist religions (e.g., the Abrahamic religions), in religions that have concepts of rebirth or reincarnation (e.g., the Dharmic religions), babies often are not seen as completely innocent or heavenly, but as a possibly millions of years old mindstream or soul, with all of the baggage that implies, taking a new body. As the new body develops, more and more of the complexity of its mind/heart/soul is able to manifest.
“First you make the mistake, then you cry about it” (Siddharth), said by a policewoman to a poor man who had sent his child alone to a distant relative’s factory for weeks or months at a time to work, and who was then surprised when the child went missing or was abducted.