To what extent does criticism serve to end
criticism, or intolerance serve to end intolerance, or
exclusiveness serve to end exclusiveness, or hatred serve to end
hatred, or ignorance serve to end ignorance?
Is it true that one acting in good faith
and manner of intention may read and recite the words of the
Dhamma, the Dhamapada, the Yammakavagga, and yet not act and live
and speak accordingly?
To what end does such criticism serve
another? For when one is so judged and leaves our sight, will the
earth fall away from beneath their feet? Will the sun, shining on
all else, withhold light and warmth from them? Will water turn
bitter upon their tongues? Is it the Dhamma, the Dhamapada,
the Yammakavagga that defers judgment neither upon man, or earth,
or sun, nor upon the waters of life, but rather instructs quietly,
gently and demurely the compassionate heart in the nourishment of
those caught in the flows of ignorance so that they may
one day ebb?
Is it perhaps in this way the dire
pleadings of ignorance will fall deafly upon the ears of the
self-righteous, and yet held unfaltering to the compassionate heart
they will be? Is it perhaps this way that none amongst us is the
greater or wiser, for perhaps if we all have the wisdom to learn
then all may teach us their virtues?
Hi, I fully agree with your post.
However I might add, what I am talking about is constructive
criticism.
Constructive criticism can become a cause for improvement. It
can also bring awareness of these issues to others.
For example, ck posted his/her negative experience with a
particular church after going there for a period of time.
If he/she did not make this known, then others will 'fall
victim' or rather go through the same unpleasant experiences.
Therefore I suggest that people should write reviews, whether
they are criticism or commendations of that church/temple/monastery
so that people who are interested to go there can be made aware of
the choices they have.
Also, if something they teach is not right or not agreeable it
should be open to scrutiny.
An example is Pastor Rony in Singapore, he was putting down
other religions like Buddhism and making false statements about
Buddhism. This caused an uproar in the internet and got the
attention of the Internal Security Department of Singapore, and
after a meeting with him he formally apologised for his
misbehavior.
This is good because otherwise, he will continue to spread false
information about Buddhism and create bad karma (from a Buddhist
perspective), not to mention sowing discord in our multi racial and
religious society.
Nowadays people use Amazon.com to buy books, electronics, or
whatever... there is a comments section and a ratings section which
is very useful for potential customers to choose and select their
products.
I don't see why we shouldn't and couldn't do this for
institutions of Religion as well.
Of course, it should be noted that any particular institution
does not represent the whole of the religion, and we should not use
an institution as an example to denigrate the entire religion.
In fact I have written in the Christan forum just recently,
saying that I see no point in trying to argue against other
people's faith. If people already chose their path and their faith,
they have already put faith ahead of logic, and therefore no amount
of logic will likely move their faith. They may be offended, or
they may try to defend their faith, but it is unlikely that any
amount of logic is going to change anything. Therefore those
non-Christians criticizing Christianity are actually criticizing it
to the wrong audience, much like the Chinese idiom of playing the
lute to a cow. The cow cannot appreciate anything, to the cow it is
just more noise.
If people have not yet chosen their path, or are willing to find
out the truth for themselves, they will do so regardless of whether
his faith is being criticized.
Furthermore it is not like the other religions are not improving
and transforming the lives of their followers in a positive way, as
many find positive changes in their lives through following their
religions, so there is no reason to try to convert them
Since Buddhists don't consider non-believers as 'destined for
hell', the compulsion to convert others deep into their own belief
isn't strong: instead time is better spent if we focus our efforts
to bring 'potential people' to Buddhism, potential as in those who
have the interest and conditions to explore and seek to find out
the Dharma.
If the dharma is being made more accessible and well known,
people can make a better decision for themselves by comparing the
different religions and seeing what is more suitable or agreeable
for themselves. This, I believe, is much more constructive than
criticising the faith of others.
