Buddhism, making judgments and not judging
Jeroen
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlands Veteran
It seems to me that Buddhism contains a lot of judgments. A right view, right speech, right livelihood... when things are beneficial, when things are skilfull... precepts to adhere to... wholesome and unwholesome mental states. It seems to encourage you to continually monitor yourself, to find and squash those unwholesome mental states, perhaps even to judge yourself, omg I'm having not sticking to right speech so often, I must be a very bad Buddhist!
Compare that to for example the opening of the Xinxin Ming, the famous poem by the Third Patriarch of Chan Sengcan:
The Great Way is not difficult
for those not attached to preferences.
When not attached to love or hate,
all is clear and undisguised.
Separate by the smallest amount, however,
and heaven and earth are set infinitely far apart.
It seems to indicate that a great deal of peace of mind, and perhaps a large part of the cessation of suffering, is to be found in non judgment - not attaching to love or hate. Intuitively I feel this must be true, that a lot of the trouble is in the mind's attempts to categorise things as good-bad, loved-hated.
How to square this with the inherently judgmental nature of the teaching? The sangha's wisdom on this point would be much appreciated.
Comments
I don't think the teachings are judgmental, but our perception can make them seem so. Our world is dualistic by nature. It is pretty hard to explain things without using dualism to do so. But we can sense that that is not the only way, and we can work to be in that place more often. But try to have any conversations about anything that doesn't imply opposites and thus comparison and judgement of sorts as to which is "better." But I also think it is possible to share our thoughts without being attached to them. Not easy to do for sure. We are pretty attached to our thoughts and defending them if they are challenged. But I think we know it doesn't have to be that way. Operating from that place all the time is the hard part.
@Kerome you will find that some Dharma teachers tend to use an alternative to the term "Right" Thus have I heard "Complete" or "Perfected" being used, ie, to see things from "all" angles and finding a balance, so to speak...Oops did "I" just attempt "Right" speech ????
Having to be "Right" in a sense sound somewhat self "righteous" ....
The Eight-Fold Path
Yes, @Shoshin, I have heard this also. Just as the word 'dukkha' has been narrowed to extreme, to mean 'suffering' so other terms in Buddhism have been translated too loosely. I too have seen 'Right' as 'Appropriate' 'Skillful', 'correct' and 'Deliberated'.
The word Noble also, has undergone a translation that could be misunderstood. Noble, in this sense, means indisputable, Understood accepted and acknowledged to be accurate by the Enlightened ones.
But back to judgement.
@karasti speaks a lot of sense, but if I might be permitted to do so, I would personally say that the stance of being Judgemental is a particularly tricky one for me. I don't need to really elaborate as to why, I'm sure.
I often find myself placed in some awkward and challenging situations, and I often have to 'take 5' to evaluate my own reactions, and consider my responses, in the hope of Doing the Right Thing.
(See above for different definitions of 'Right....
)
@Kerome, the extract you quote is known to me, and it goes on to say:
"Don't keep searching for the Truth;
Just let go of your opinions."
(see here).
I think that's extremely difficult, given that we are conditioned from an early age to make decisions based on what we see and hear....
Even Neo had to choose between red and blue, after hearing two sides....
But in the end, we have to let go of everything, which is what we strive to do.
We have to ensure that we do so with Wisdom and discernment.
Letting go of opinions, evaluations and judgement, should not turn us into passive yes-men.....
@federica Indeed, and I think we should all be doing that. Sometimes I do well, sometimes not. I assume, at least in part, you are speaking as being a moderator here? It is hard. I moderate a few local FB selling pages (and have moderated other places in the past) and judgement is definitely difficult. Especially in a small town when you know all the wrongdoings of everyone and have to decide how to be fair knowing what you know about their history etc. It's complicated managing that kind of stuff, for sure. Crap hits the fan fast sometimes!
I do think judgement, generally speaking, does have a place. We have to judge if a person or place is safe for us, for example. It plays a part in every decision we make. But it's different when you are playing judge, jury and executioner in your mind with every person you encounter and using it to hold yourself up in the process.
Maybe that's the middle path here. To not judge in the negative and harmful way but to judge to ensure your own path is not compromised and that you make the right choices and stay safe, among other things.
To my mind making judgments involves a relative understanding of the world, this is different than that. But can still understand and prefer certain things to others (ice cream tastes better than boiled celery, happy is better than sad) I think I prefer the word discernment.
Judging things takes an absolutist stance of the world. This is right/correct/best, that is wrong/incorrect/worst. I'd say that it involves more selfing, seeing things from one point of view.
IMHO Exactly so.
'You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.'
Dr Who
Seems pertinent now that powerful Trumpe (tm) ignorance is altering facts ... or trying to ...
There are facts as well as we can know them and our opinions. We can always find an opinion contradicting ours, implying duality. Discernment is knowing when a stated opinion is an appropriate/skilful impact and when an ingrained karmic pattern ...
It's interesting also in the light of @JaySon's thread here where he talks about Ajahn Chah's approach basically being the same as Sengcan's, and simplifying the whole Path down to just one principle.
I've found the Noble Eightfold path really helpful from a perspective of taming the mind, pruning some impulses which I really don't need, insight into various things. But I also find there is a certain pressure that comes from adhering to the different parts of it... some of it comes naturally, like not killing, and some of it still feels like self-monitoring.
I like the freedom of Sengcan's / Ajahn Chah's approach but I suspect it only works once you are past a certain point in working on yourself.
Do you not think that the right choices are the natural choices, once someone explains to you how the world works? I have found so many cases where with the right insight the urge to do something that would be wrong vanishes, and suddenly the natural choice reveals itself...
I absolutely think so @Kerome. Doing the right thing usually feels more natural to me and just feels right from the get go. The more right choices I make, the easier it is to identify them and continue to make them. It's when I am not properly following my path that life gets harder and the path darker.
It depends whether they tell you THE truth, or THEIR truth....
But that is down to your discernment and perception, not necessarily down to what influences you.
Initially this conforms to ethical, moral and value based behavour, based on upbringing or choosen ideals. That for most of us involves kindness, forgiving, compassionate behavour. 'Tough love' comes later. So we can to a degree show the stages:
@Kerome Yes, that is my experience as well. That you can find the best response for the situation if you know how to do it. That doesn't, however, mean another person involved is going to be happy with your response. I think when we can operate from a heart center (for lack of better term) rather than only mind/logic/ego that is where the better answers come and our ability to see reality or the truth for what it is is better as well.
The former, right view, right speech, right livelihood for example, are the contra to wrong view, wrong speech, wrong livelihood and both are ways of karma, of generating karma.
The latter is, in the language of the way of karma, an exposition of the cessation of karma and therefore inherently flawed by reason of its exposition in the language of the way of karma.
Treat all with loving-kindness and not judgement.
From MN21: Kakacupama Sutta:
Monks, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate toward them would not be carrying out my teaching. Herein, monks, you should train thus: 'Our minds will remain unaffected, and we shall utter no bitter words, we shall abide compassionate for their welfare, with a mind of loving-kindness, never in a mood of hate... Monks, if you keep this advice on the simile of the saw constantly in mind, do you see any course of speech, trivial or gross, that you could not endure?
[Lobster faints]
Our uniformed branch put the Seals, Special Raft Service, Special Air Service, First Earth Battalion and other Sangha to shame ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Earth_Battalion
... mind you the Seeks [sic] have the Khalsa as a military force
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalsa
Could mention axe carrying dervishes, Hindus with tridents and the 'Comedy Christian' in the White Housing, Kalachakra cult recruits etc ...
and now back to ... judgemental, moi? ...
That has been a lot of my journey with Buddhism... finding answers to a series of internal questions which eventually lead to letting go of things and an unfolding of love. Finding suffering was an important milestone, the Three Poisons were another. Posing the questions is about insight, finding the answers is about wisdom, and then your understanding changes and some of your hindrances vanish.
Hi, I'm new here. This is a Most important distinction right now, from this perspective. Thank you all for your wisdom. I thought I was certain about the distinction, then I began to wonder.
Still - it seems to me that Discernment differs from Judgment by use of adjective.
"The horse is a Palomino." Ideally, without inference, vs "The horse is a powerful, young, beautiful Palomino." With lots of inference.
When it comes to Buddhism, I agree that semantics gets in the way of clarity.
However, isn't it true that "Right View" is not so much right rather than wrong - it's a clearly defined title, defined by the Buddha, as are all other usages of the word "Right." As is the term "Skillful", complete with examples and definitive instructions.
Am I right? I think it's all in the Eight-fold Path -
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html
I guess I'd say instead of judgement, I'd replace it with discernment. Instead of "right", I'd say wise discernment.
So, if you are discerning what speech is beneficial to your awakening and what is not, by definition of what is enlightenment and what is not, there is some form of duality. If not, we all would be enlightened or not enlightened but not have the advantage or disadvantage to practice or not to practice because there is no choice in what is beneficial and what is not. So there needs to be discernment or beneficial judgement to find whether The Buddha's teachings are appropriate for one person and not for another.
Discernment of speech that is beneficial towards our enlightenment would be X. Deciding what is beneficial for our enlightenment in regards to livelihood is Y.
We would not be following The Buddha's teachings if we did not think there is something benefitial (or right?) about what The Buddha taught compared to another religious teacher with whom could teach something we are completely opposed to.
I was born, raised, and most likely will die a westerner and proud of my western culture. So, duality is a part of it. In a good note, it is healthy because you need to define what is beneficial for you and what is not. If you can't decern which it is because you want to say all or nothing, then how would one follow any religious thought if one feels they are in one place. Kind of like being enlightened sitting on your cushion but if someone yelled at you or you see a beautiful jewel you want to steal from the store, since there is no duality, you can yell or steal it without harm and with harm at the same time.
Beneficial and discernment is probably a better word.
It's all in context too.
By realizing that the Xinxin Ming is referring to your own personal preferences and judgments, preferences that have kept you stuck in suffering. For example, I prefer to be young and not get old. I prefer to be healthy and not get sick, I prefer to continue living and not die. I prefer to get pleasure and avoid pain. None of which is realistic or actually possible.
The second half of the 2nd stanza shows the context.
It's not contrary to standard Buddhist practicing because it's not saying don't live in
accordance with what the Dharma demands. It's saying don't live in accordance with what our likes and dislikes demand.
“Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well I have others.”
Groucho Marx
Without the sun, the lily is closed. We have to open.
I am grateful to my harder certainties (dukkha holdings) as they are not in accordance with the free unfolding that @seeker242 reminds us of.
I can present ignorance as confessions of limited consciousness (impediments) and this is where the companionship of the wise, the three jewels and the casual Bodhisattva illuminate our dank, dark obscurations.
In many ways we do not let our opinions, judgements and choice discernment's define us. What defines us is the rippling singing sun ... the dance that @IronRabbit mentions in the next post ...
Buddhism; Making judgments and not judging.....Yes. That's it!
Not possible to be non judgemental or judgemental all the time, so it is a dance - in and out, back and forth. Practice until such time....
I was speaking to a Pali speaking Sri Lankan Buddhist last weekend who did comment on how much we lose in the translation from Pali to English.
And how it makes the path seem so much more serious and dour than it is (or words to those affect).
More of the 'lost in translation' problem....?
(And it's 'Effect'....)
You might be interested in this: http://content.dhamma.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-Path-to-Enlightenment-I.pdf
There is also a second volume.
It is sort of a how-to book (although not written at a childish level) which claims that many of us make Buddhism more difficult than it needs to be.
Good point @vinlyn
At heart simplicity. We need a complete and comprehensive rather than complex range of teachings.
Most of us have that readily ...
True...I put it down to one's conditioning
In many Asian countries where people are born into Buddhism ie, a Buddhist culture/way of life, Dharma practice (for the most part) is woven into the very fabric of their daily life, whereas in the West we are not conditioned in the ways of the Dharma, most of us have had to learn it from scratch ...and as adults
Much of the Dharma practice tends to go against the (Western mindset ) grain ...
I reckon that equanimity is a result of insight, not something you can decide to do. But insight seems to involve a high degree of discernment, initially the ability to recognise the reactions of craving and aversion as they arise.
For my own practice I try to make a distinction between judgment and discernment. Discernment is me evaluating my actions and judgment is me evaluating yours.
The Buddhism I know values the former but not so much the latter.
Also, as @Shoshin points out there are other words some may find more harmonious than "right" such as "harmonious". Harmonious effort goes easily in concert with harmonious mindfulness and so on so that the logic of all eight spokes of the wheel can be seen in any of the spokes.
Now Buddha may not have attached to any outcomes of his love but he sure did show it, no?
He could have kept the secret to himself but he set out to free us from this illusion that we are separate.
That was his point I think. Us Westerners take it on like a project we need to complete at work! We miss the joy and fun.
Exactly. Not a lot of non westerners give westerners credit for what we practice. A Muslim born into his religion told me converts understand islam more than many Muslims do. Its not that one way is correct and other is not. It is difficult to practice buddhism in the west becauze of how our society is set up not individual people. Its that muslims are conditioned into their religion that its hard to question it to see it more deeply that simple practice. They take their practice for granted, he says.
Its not that we are practicing the "wrong" Dhamma foundation (outside cultural differences) but we have more opposition to our practice as westerns than others.
Plus, it is only westerners in the city. The south and less rural areas do not mirror the kind of insults against westerners than what non westerners presume all americans are like.
.in both sides its a total generalizations. Dhamma is Dhamma regardless the culture, time, place on the planet, and who pratices it.
I wasn't quite sure how to rightly respond to that part before but isn't that paragraph a bit contradictory? Not be a pain but the label "trouble" seems to be an indicator that an attachment has been made already but is sort of hidden or at least obscured.
This to me is like asking how Metta can make sense in light of equanimity but revering things equally doesn't mean we don't care about them.
It means we don't value anything over anything else or have any expectations on how things turn out.
If we love everything as we would love our own child is that not equanimity?
I mean, is compassion just a nice way to live or is it the logical way in light of truth? Is existence just an illusion or is the illusion being separate and/or permanent?
Buddha could have went in any direction when he woke up in Sidhartha but where did he go first?
Sorry about all the questions, lol. Just things your post made me wonder.
...Er.... Whut....?
I just meant to question the why of Buddha retracing Sidharthas journey back to the people he knew instead of any other direction towards any other community or kingdom.
He went home first. In light of equanimity, why would he show that preference?
Perhaps "inclination" is a better word than "preference" but either way, I think it was probably because he was familiar with their suffering and still obviously had love for them in his heart.
But then, that's just subjective judgment on my part.
If separation is illusion then so is opposition. Love and hate are not opposites, they are complimentaries. The only real opposite of something is its own lack.
Thus, Metta is love without opposition.
The opposite of man is not woman because they are really complimentary aspects of human and the only opposite of human is no human. Just as the opposite of woman is no woman.
Sorry, I have a migraine right now and mixed with my tinnitus it's making me a bit nutty.
This may be completely off topic so if it is, I'm not going to whine if it's deleted.
As a fellow tinnitus sufferer, who's had the odd migraine herself, I had no thought of deletion, to be honest....
I often have to remind myself that going on about that which the topic puts me to mind is not always staying on topic.
Digression is one thing. I would classify going O/T as talking about something entirely unrelated to the thread matter.
Interesting what you say about Hate not being the opposite of Love.
I am of the same mind.
Both emotions are highly charged, irrational and focused on the evaluation of something outside ourselves. Anatomically/cerebrally speaking, the locations where love and hate are experienced in the Brain (as completely distinct from Mind) are right next to one another.
They are in fact, 'bosom-buddies'.
I have come to learn that the opposite to Love, is Indifference.
Even that is a judgement, though, or a decision to not permit something to affect us, but to keep it at arm's length.
Coco Chanel was attending a fashion exhibition at which her new creations were being shown. Every other designer and couturier there, was both established, and male, and she knew she was being held to scrutiny and judgement.
Upon entering a room, it fell silent, and she enquired, "Sirs, why the sudden silence?"
One bold chap replied "we were just discussing your creations and what we think of you."
"How very pointless, " she commented. "that you consider thinking of me. Why, I don't think of you at all."
With that, she sat down in an armchair, took a newspaper, and began to read it.
If ever a put-down worked as a sharpened rapier, that was it.
I think we have to judge - or evaluate - any given situation, before resorting to skillful means and appraising first and foremost, our own stance on the matter.... and then proceeding skilfully....
I think that Buddhism ultimately encourages us to be non-judgmental rather judgmental in the pursuit of happiness, just as I think Jesus does in Mt 7:1-5. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use our discernment when trying to achieve that goal in the course of living our lives. The faculty of mindfulness, for example, doesn't judge, but it does make being judicious possible. We certainly don't want to be judgmental in our practice, of ourselves or others, but we do want to make careful observation and judicious decisions. Being judgmental means that we basically make judgments and decisions out of ignorance (i.e., conscious and unconscious biases bubbling up from our likes and dislikes, past conditionings, ect.), whereas being judicious means that we really make an informed decision based upon all the facts and with an eye to what's skillful, i.e., what's conducive to long-term welfare and happiness. To use mindfulness properly, we have to frame our experience within the framework of the four noble truths. Not only do we have to pay attention to our experience, but we also have to use what we learn skillfully, for the purpose of ending suffering.