The terror of sounding judgemental

Christopher Titmuss

CRITICAL – expressing or involving the analysis of the merits and faults of an issue. The critic has a keen awareness and analysis of areas deserving attention.
JUDGEMENTAL– expressing a negative or hostile point of view
JUDGEMENT (constructive feedback) – the ability to make considered decisions.

I believe there is an urgent need for critical analysis, skilful discourse on unaddressed areas and a willingness to examine the development of the Buddhist tradition in the narrow, ideologically bound Western society.

Are we adapting to our environment or working to alter it in radical ways?
Are we attempting to impose an alien religion on our confused, troubled culture bombarded with secular, scientific and inexplicable theistic views?

I love reading books of critical inquiry on conventional and ultimate realities but find little truly inspiring to read in the Anglo-American Buddhist culture despite some 400-500 new Buddhist books in English coming out every year. Perhaps we need to explore more deeply invaluable translations of Pali and Sanskrit texts and contemporary literature outside Buddhist writers. I find that critical thinkers who truly challenge our perceptions tend to be based in France. Although not having any connection with the Buddhist tradition, they explore in depth anicca (impermanence), dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) and anatta (not self), as well as other core features of the Dharma. These critical thinkers include:

Alain Badiou (1937 - ) examines criteria for truth, the nature of the subject, situational event, ethics, the unnameable, good and evil and more.

Jean Baudrillard (1929 - ) analyses ‘hyper-reality’ of goods and culture that has become more ‘real’ than the real, objects, values and more.

Jacques Derrida (1930 -2004) – challenges (deconstructs) a range of meanings, concepts, differences between talking and writing, notions of identity and presence.

Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984) inquires into power, knowledge, sexuality, control, madness, punishment and the limits imposed upon us.

None of the thinkers is an easy read. >From a Dharma and personal perspective, there is plenty that is either utterly incomprehensible or profoundly disagreeable. These thinkers and others often strongly disagree with the discourse of each other. Yet, these French critical thinkers challenge us, question our mental constructions and display an uninhibited determination to shake us out of any conceptual complacency and get us to think outside the box.

They are largely free from the naïve utopianism (or doubt and cynicism supporting it in equal measure) that haunts Western life. Utopianism shows itself in identification with experiences and claims of Absolute Oneness, a unified worldview, democracy, choice, personal freedom, personal evolution and so on. Dharma points to the utter Emptiness of utopianism and cynicism and a liberating inquiry into the nature of existence.

Buddhists worldwide generally seem to exhibit a terror of sounding judgemental, a blind sense of loyalty to the Buddhist past, and an unwillingness to move on from the comfort zone. Dissent is thus half-smothered.

We certainly need to dissolve the judgemental mind but also have the capacity to transform it into critical analysis, clear judgements and constructive feedback. Simply sitting on the meditation cushion letting go of the judgemental mind can kill the capacity for critical analysis. In a similar way, mindfulness can suffocate direct, uninhibited spontaneous action. Passive loving kindness meditations can suppress the liberating power of an active and a radical engagement with Love. As a result, we can become calm spectators to daily life, pleasingly nice, with the subsequent unconscious submission to the prevailing values of our time.

Here are just a few areas that, I believe, deserve critical analysis or constructive feedback about. Is there?

• a terror of expressing clear, unambiguous, criticism of lifestyle in case it upsets people. ‘I won’t say anything. I don’t want to sound judgemental…’

• a fear of criticism of the blind controlling forces of political/social/educational/religious structures

• identification with the corporate-hierarchical model of running Buddhist centres,
  • adherence to the crippling ideology of professionalism

• a resistance to exploring the divine communion between a man and a woman (or same gender) dharma of making love, sexual freedom, as a means for a liberating non-dual practice.

• self-interest at the expense of the welfare of other species, indifference to ethics outside precepts, indifference to our use of energy and resources, such as vehicles. Indifference masquerades as being ‘open to desire’ or ‘not clinging to a position.’

• preoccupation of individuals and sanghas with money, comfort, and efficiency

• substitution of critical analysis and sound judgement with the rhetoric of loving kindness.

• and fear of using our minds to examine issues in case (God forbid) we are accused of the heinous crime of being out of touch with our feelings.

Hailed a generation ago as the fastest growing religion in the West, Buddhism will deservedly become the fastest declining religion in the West unless we engage in widespread soul-searching instead of leaving authentic change to a few visionaries.

Baby boomers, who helped form the Western Sanghas, are sliding towards death leaving behind a painfully conservative contemporary Buddhism. It’s much the same in the East. For example, when Ven Thich Nhat Hahn, second to the Dalai Lama in terms of popularity among Buddhists, made his historic return to his homeland of Vietnam in early 2005, along with some 250 of his Western sangha, ordained and lay, it was apparent that many young Vietnamese in Vietnam were not interested while the response was much stronger from middle-aged people. Is Buddhism, East and West, losing its relevance?

Are we forgetting that we are sons and daughters of the Buddha, a radical visionary?

Criticism works best in the written form or in public speaking. It is easier to read criticism or listen to it at a public meeting. We resist criticism that is directly about ourselves or what we identify with, no matter how accurate it is. Do we have to pull back from offering unambiguous, authentic hard core judgements, constructive feedback or advice?

What is it to be judgemental? In its negative expression, it carries with it blame and hostility. It is possible that such negativity may obscure or distort a valid perception. At times, critical analysis and being judgemental merge together. You may regard this article as containing elements of both.

We have to be able to discern the difference between being judgemental and making a judgement. The Buddha said that a true friend is one who is honest with us, not one who flatters us (or says next to nothing). It is the capacity to make a clear judgement, express it to another (s), based on considered and measured reflections, that can provide a climate for real change. There is power to constructive feedback.

The Buddha made numerous judgements about other teachers, their students and their practices.
‘There are eel wrigglers. When asked about this or that matter, they resort to evasive statements and they wriggle like eels. DN1.
‘Conceit of being trained is due to nothing but inexperience. DN3.
‘Your teacher has let you down.’ DN3.
‘Since you don’t know what development of body is, how could you know what development of mind is.’DN3
Talking to Brahmins (Priests), the Buddha said. ‘Something may be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may be empty, hollow and false.’ MN 95.
He described the religious view of eternal life as an ‘utterly and completely foolish teaching.’ MN 22.

Spiritual teachers, their students and priests would hardly have welcomed such statements of the Buddha. They may well have felt that he was being judgemental about them and their beliefs. It didn’t stop the Buddha from making his judgement.

What are some of the factors that we need to develop for a fearless critical analysis and an ability to make a sound judgement?