Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by TRobinson465 »

I think its probably "okay" to criticize monks if there are legitimate grounds, as long as you are not purposely going around looking for faults like some kind of hatred-filled maniac. Although it is probably better not to do so at all, especially to other people (thus the Sappurisa Sutta) and online. Theres two reasons I think this.

1. The problem with criticizing monks to other people is it gives a bad name to the Sangha, even if you had legitimate grounds for the criticism. Just look at all the people who criticize Christianity and call all religion a scam because of some legitimately bad pastors. It damages the whole group. If you criticize monks it makes Buddhism look bad and turns people away from the Dhamma. People today have a lot of defilements and see the bad apples more than the good. If there are legitimate grounds for criticism it should be in a private to someone who can constructively correct this. If your intent is just to "spread the word" about this so-called bad monk rather than any kind of constructive or compassionate intention it is probably bad kamma.

2. You may not know the true reason behind the monks misbehavior if you see it in person. And if you just hear about the monk's actions online or on the news you may not know if its actually true or not. If the news or random people on online forums were misleading you or distorting the truth about this monk, you would end up criticizing a monk that may actually be a practicing ascetic or even a noble one. Most commonly people say that bad monks aren't true monks, which is the worst accusation if they actually are. Which is certainly bad and fairly heavy kamma.

As stated in the vissudhimagga.
82. Revilers of Noble Ones: being desirous of harm for Noble Ones consisting of
Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas, and disciples, and also of householders who are
stream-enterers, they revile them with the worst accusations or with denial of
their special qualities (see Ud 44 and MN 12); they abuse and upbraid them, is
what is meant.
83. Herein, it should be understood that when they say, “They have no
asceticism, they are not ascetics,” they revile them with the worst accusation;
and when they say, “They have no jhána or liberation or path of fruition, etc.,”
they revile them with denial of their special qualities. And whether done
knowingly or unknowingly it is in either case reviling of Noble Ones; it is weighty
kamma resembling that of immediate result, and it is an obstacle both to heaven
and to the path. But it is remediable
Considering that this is bad, even if you didn't know they were actually a good monk, i would argue its best to restrain yourself from criticizing any monks to another person.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
User avatar
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by Volo »

Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?
This question actually presupposes another one: What is critique? Would any disagreement with the monk's opinion or behavior be a critique?

My answer is that our intention is what matters here. If we have intention to find the truth, then it's okay to "criticize" explaining why we disagree with the monk's view. But if our intention is to prove "my way is right, your way is wrong", "I know better than he", than it's better to leave it. The same is if we genuinely want to warn people about some monk's misbehavior and report what we actually saw, without repeating rumors, then it's probably okay.

Any other ideas on how to decide what critique would be "allowable"?
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by binocular »

Volovsky wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 12:58 pmThis question actually presupposes another one: What is critique? Would any disagreement with the monk's opinion or behavior be a critique?
In some cultures, both East and West: yes. In some cultures, any disagreement, or even just the assumption that one can have a conversation about or even with someone who is above one in the hierarchy, is considered offensive.
My answer is that our intention is what matters here. If we have intention to find the truth, then it's okay to "criticize" explaining why we disagree with the monk's view. But if our intention is to prove "my way is right, your way is wrong", "I know better than he", than it's better to leave it. The same is if we genuinely want to warn people about some monk's misbehavior and report what we actually saw, without repeating rumors, then it's probably okay.

Any other ideas on how to decide what critique would be "allowable"?
I think that the underlying issue when it comes to critique are the implicit assumptions that the members of a religious group hold about what it means to have faith in their religion. Generally, the lower the epistemic standards for faith, the more emphasis there seems to be on maintaining an appearance of social harmony and order, at all costs.

So, generally, whether something will be considered critique or not, depends on the particular religious group or individual religious person and their assumptions about what it means to have faith. The same statement could be taken as critical and offensive by one religious person, and by another as an innocent cue for discussion.

Generally, it seems that people who are strongly philosophically inclined are less likely to feel criticized or offended than people who don't have such a philosophical inclination.

People tend to project/assume that other people basically think in the same way as they do, and that as such what is offensive for them will be offensive to others as well. And while this projection/assumption is often adequate, it sometimes also isn't. I think this is actually the most important and the most difficult aspect of criticizing and criticism.

It would be prudent to first figure out how the other person thinks, before saying anything to them; but this is not possible, unless one has special siddhis. So probably the best one can do is proceed carefully, politely, superficially, with a lot of small talk, in an effort to obtain as much information about the other person indirectly.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by binocular »

Here's a contrasting formulation:
"We have asked Master Gotama about safeguarding the truth, and Master Gotama has answered about safeguarding the truth. We like that & agree with that,[1] and so we are gratified. We have asked Master Gotama about awakening to the truth, and Master Gotama has answered about awakening to the truth. We like that & agree with that, and so we are gratified. We have asked Master Gotama about finally attaining the truth, and Master Gotama has answered about finally attaining the truth. We like that & agree with that, and so we are gratified. We have asked Master Gotama about the quality most helpful for finally attaining the truth, and Master Gotama has answered about the quality most helpful for finally attaining the truth. We like that & agree with that, and so we are gratified. Whatever we have asked Master Gotama, Master Gotama has answered it. We like that & agree with that, and so we are gratified.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm
Location: Germany, Nong Bua Lamphu (Thailand)

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by AgarikaJ »

Volovsky wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 12:58 pm
Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?
This question actually presupposes another one: What is critique? Would any disagreement with the monk's opinion or behavior be a critique?

My answer is that our intention is what matters here. If we have intention to find the truth, then it's okay to "criticize" explaining why we disagree with the monk's view. But if our intention is to prove "my way is right, your way is wrong", "I know better than he", than it's better to leave it. The same is if we genuinely want to warn people about some monk's misbehavior and report what we actually saw, without repeating rumors, then it's probably okay.

Any other ideas on how to decide what critique would be "allowable"?
I would offer that it is not only the 'what?' but also the 'how?' in which the criticism is offered.

Has Right Speech been observed or is the criticism formulated in a disparaging way so it will be hurtful to the recipient? Is the criticism brought forward in an applicable way in regard to the size of the problem it should address? Is it brought forward publicly or in private to the person criticized? Is this criticism likely to be answered in a correction of behavior or a recognition that the criticism was justified?

And as you touch upon in your aspect about the intention, maybe the most important point of them all: has there been a thought about why one would feel the personal motivation to offer a criticism in the first place?

These points I believe important regardless of to whom any criticism might be directed at, be he a layman, a monk or even the Buddha himself, see:

“Monks, if anyone should speak in disparagement of me, of the Dhamma [the Buddha’s teaching] or of the Sangha [the community of which they were members], you should not be angry, resentful or upset on that account. If you were to be angry or displeased at such disparagement, that would only be a hindrance to you. For if others disparage me, the Dhamma or the Sangha, then you must explain what is incorrect as being incorrect, saying: ‘That is incorrect, that is false, that is not our way, that is not found among us.’
But, monks, if others should speak in praise of me, of the Dhamma or of the Sangha, you should not on that account be pleased, happy or elated. If you were to be pleased, happy or elated at such praise that would only be a hindrance to you. If others praise me the Dharma or the Sangha, you should acknowledge the truth of what is true, saying: “That is correct, that is right, that is our way, that is found among us.””

The full sutta (the Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views) here:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html

and a short discussion here:
http://www.wiseattention.org/blog/2012/ ... and-blame/
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]
User avatar
StormBorn
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:31 pm

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by StormBorn »

SarathW wrote: Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:24 am Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?
In Vinaya, when people criticised monks (for valid reasons), Buddha never said anything directly or indirectly to shut the laity. This sutta even encourages investigated and scrutinized criticism.
“Bhikkhus, possessing four qualities, the foolish, incompetent, bad person maintains himself in a maimed and injured condition; he is blameworthy and subject to reproach by the wise; and he generates much demerit. What four?

(1) “Without investigating and scrutinizing, he speaks praise of one who deserves dispraise. (2) Without investigating and scrutinizing, he speaks dispraise of one who deserves praise. (3) Without investigating and scrutinizing, he believes a matter that merits suspicion. (4) Without investigating and scrutinizing, he is suspicious about a matter that merits belief. Possessing these four qualities, the foolish, incompetent, bad person maintains himself in a maimed and injured condition; he is blameworthy and subject to reproach by the wise; and he generates much demerit.

“Bhikkhus, possessing four qualities, the wise, competent, good person preserves himself unmaimed and uninjured; he is blameless and beyond reproach by the wise; and he generates much merit. What four?

(1) “Having investigated and scrutinized, he speaks dispraise of one who deserves dispraise. (2) Having investigated and scrutinized, he speaks praise of one who deserves praise. (3) Having investigated and scrutinized, he is suspicious about a matter that merits suspicion. (4) Having investigated and scrutinized, he believes a matter that merits belief. Possessing these four qualities, the wise, competent, good person preserves himself unmaimed and uninjured; he is blameless and beyond reproach by the wise; and he generates much merit.”

He who praises one deserving blame,
or blames one deserving praise,
casts with his mouth an unlucky throw
by which he finds no happiness.

Slight is the unlucky throw at dice
that results in the loss of one’s wealth,
the loss of all, oneself included;
much worse is this unlucky throw
of harboring hate against the fortunate ones.

For a hundred thousand and thirty-six
nirabbudas, plus five abbudas,
the slanderer of noble ones goes to hell,
having defamed them with evil speech and mind.
In my experience, some monks who think they are ariyas or some powerful bodhisattvas tend to use this kind of remarks often to silence criticism. Once, I questioned an obvious commentarial contradiction, and a Burmese monk warned me not to do so as it's very bad karma for me. :smile:
“Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one—himself.”
User avatar
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by Volo »

StormBorn wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:59 am This sutta even encourages investigated and scrutinized criticism.
I'm not sure if taking this sutta to refer to a person (e.g. "one who deserves dispraise") is the only translation. I think it can also be translated as referring to something impersonal, e.g. action (i.e. "he speaks dispraise of that which deserves dispraise).
katamehi catūhi? anuvicca pariyogāhetvā avaṇṇārahassa avaṇṇaṃ bhāsati , anuvicca pariyogāhetvā vaṇṇārahassa vaṇṇaṃ bhāsati, anuvicca pariyogāhetvā appasādanīye ṭhāne appasādaṃ upadaṃseti, anuvicca pariyogāhetvā pasādanīye ṭhāne pasādaṃ upadaṃseti -- imehi kho, bhikkhave, catūhi dhammehi
As I cited before (viewtopic.php?f=13&t=32686&start=15#p485616) it seems the Buddha would recommend impersonal critique.
User avatar
StormBorn
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:31 pm

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by StormBorn »

From 1st parajika rule:
“Is it true, Sudinna, that you had sexual intercourse with your former wife?”

“It is true, Master.”

The Buddha, the Master, rebuked him: “Foolish man, it is not
suitable it is not becoming, it is not proper, it is unworthy of a recluse,
it is not allowable, it is not to be done.”
Criticism occurs because there are actions to be criticized. Can we always, or is it even skillful, to totally disregard the wrongdoer? For example, if someone intentionally misrepresents the Words of the Buddha, then we have to bring to light both the culprit and his actions for the benefit of others rather than just saying, “Misrepresenting the Words of the Buddha is bad.”
“Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one—himself.”
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by TRobinson465 »

StormBorn wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:39 pm Criticism occurs because there are actions to be criticized. Can we always, or is it even skillful, to totally disregard the wrongdoer? For example, if someone intentionally misrepresents the Words of the Buddha, then we have to bring to light both the culprit and his actions for the benefit of others rather than just saying, “Misrepresenting the Words of the Buddha is bad.”
Yes, i agree you cant totally disregard a wrongdoer. criticizing ppl who intentionally defames or misrepresent the Buddha or the truth in any scenario is certainly valid, especially if misrepresenting the truth is something they do often as opposed to just minorly, in which case you should just criticise that one deed. But the intent should be to stop the person from misleading innocent people into believing ridiculous things or outright falsehoods, not out of hatred for the person. Especially if it was like just one person spreading these blatent falsehoods or something and ppl believe him cuz they saw it on the Internet and dont use critical thinking, then attacking that one person's credibility and pointing out some things would be a fairly good way to help others since if they know that person isn't credible and it only comes from him, and ppl use that person as thier only source on the topic or something it saves a lot of ppl from believing the wrong thing to simply criticize the person directly.

I do have an issue with people criticizing people based on different interpretations however because unless you are enlightened or at least a highly skilled meditator you may not necessarily have the right interpretation yourself. for all you know the person your criticizing as a heretic is right and you were wrong. This would be okay if you actually did know something to be the truth/correct interpretation with certainty, but Ive found that enlightened people and highly skilled meditators who know things through direct abhiññā tend not so spend too much of thier time on forums sadly.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by TRobinson465 »

StormBorn wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:59 am This sutta even encourages investigated and scrutinized criticism.
“Bhikkhus, possessing four qualities, the foolish, incompetent, bad person maintains himself in a maimed and injured condition; he is blameworthy and subject to reproach by the wise; and he generates much demerit. What four?

(1) “Without investigating and scrutinizing, he speaks praise of one who deserves dispraise. (2) Without investigating and scrutinizing, he speaks dispraise of one who deserves praise. (3) Without investigating and scrutinizing, he believes a matter that merits suspicion. (4) Without investigating and scrutinizing, he is suspicious about a matter that merits belief. Possessing these four qualities, the foolish, incompetent, bad person maintains himself in a maimed and injured condition; he is blameworthy and subject to reproach by the wise; and he generates much demerit.

“Bhikkhus, possessing four qualities, the wise, competent, good person preserves himself unmaimed and uninjured; he is blameless and beyond reproach by the wise; and he generates much merit. What four?

(1) “Having investigated and scrutinized, he speaks dispraise of one who deserves dispraise. (2) Having investigated and scrutinized, he speaks praise of one who deserves praise. (3) Having investigated and scrutinized, he is suspicious about a matter that merits suspicion. (4) Having investigated and scrutinized, he believes a matter that merits belief. Possessing these four qualities, the wise, competent, good person preserves himself unmaimed and uninjured; he is blameless and beyond reproach by the wise; and he generates much merit.”

He who praises one deserving blame,
or blames one deserving praise,
casts with his mouth an unlucky throw
by which he finds no happiness.

Slight is the unlucky throw at dice
that results in the loss of one’s wealth,
the loss of all, oneself included;
much worse is this unlucky throw
of harboring hate against the fortunate ones.

For a hundred thousand and thirty-six
nirabbudas, plus five abbudas,
the slanderer of noble ones goes to hell,
having defamed them with evil speech and mind.

An excellent sutta to share! I think the key really is to investigate and scrutinize dodgy claims tho. especially regarding monks. dont wanna have the misfortune of accidentally blaming a praiseworthy person is the thing. as this is a most unlucky throw if you truly did blame one deserving praise.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 2147
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by JamesTheGiant »

budo wrote: Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:43 am I was banned from a discord that loved Ajahn Brahm because I said I'd like to see video footage of Ajahn Brahm entering jhana in an oven that's turned on after he enters it.
Oh, that is sad. I said the same thing directly to him, and he laughed and made some jokey comment.
We were talking about being immune from fire in jhana, and there was a big bonfire of fallen trees we were about to burn the next day at his monastery, and I suggested he meditate on the bonfire and we would light it on fire, and see.
He laughed. He is almost impossible to offend. Unfortunately followers can be too serious, and take offense easily.
User avatar
StormBorn
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:31 pm

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by StormBorn »

TRobinson465 wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:07 pm... Ive found that enlightened people and highly skilled meditators who know things through direct abhiññā tend not so spend too much of thier time on forums sadly.
Very true... Indeed we need more enlightened people in this world, but the genuinely enlightened people seem to have no or less interest in the modern religious drama!
“Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one—himself.”
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by budo »

TRobinson465 wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:07 pm This would be okay if you actually did know something to be the truth/correct interpretation with certainty, but Ive found that enlightened people and highly skilled meditators who know things through direct abhiññā tend not so spend too much of thier time on forums sadly.
Because it's a waste of time and a source of stress. All one has to do is follow the instructions. The instructions are extremely simple, just no one wants to put in the hard work because desires are so alluring and even primal. It's hard to let go of the world when you have a good family. Maybe only after they've died and you don't have your own new family is it an option, but for most people they are too old by the time that happens. Hence why stream entry is usually the only enlightenment most lay people can achieve.

I think becoming a monk when one is in their mid twenties is probably the best window of opportunity one can have. After that if one has kids and a spouse, one is seriously hindered.
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by TRobinson465 »

budo wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:21 pm
TRobinson465 wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:07 pm This would be okay if you actually did know something to be the truth/correct interpretation with certainty, but Ive found that enlightened people and highly skilled meditators who know things through direct abhiññā tend not so spend too much of thier time on forums sadly.
Because it's a waste of time and a source of stress. All one has to do is follow the instructions. The instructions are extremely simple, just no one wants to put in the hard work because desires are so alluring and even primal. It's hard to let go of the world when you have a good family. Maybe only after they've died and you don't have your own new family is it an option, but for most people they are too old by the time that happens. Hence why stream entry is usually the only enlightenment most lay people can achieve.

I think becoming a monk when one is in their mid twenties is probably the best window of opportunity one can have. After that if one has kids and a spouse, one is seriously hindered.
Yeah, to be honest i think my spiritual development has actually declined since i started posting on here again lol. Although the trade off is i do learn a lot and find plenty of cool resources browsing the forum.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
D1W1
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Is it unwholesome to criticise ordained monks?

Post by D1W1 »

I think there are no set rules if you do this you will definitely go to hell. But that doesn't mean it's okay to do whatever we want. It highly depends on who you criticize and on what basis. IMO, one should try their best to remain respectul toward ordained monks. As said previously by other poster, not all monks are virtuous, so it's probably good feeling to be free from criticism. If we aware someone is committing unwholesome deed regardless of their social status, for example, our mind will say something about that, does that count as criticism? I think we do this from time to time, we can be mindful of what we do and think and I think that is beneficial. We are all still learning. Biased views, misunderstanding and delusion are quite common for most people.
Post Reply