This is just my own understanding. It is not being judgemental when one feels pain and communicate to the dentist to be more gentle.
Following are some examples of being judgemental and fabricating commentaries (proliferation or papanca).
“why is it so painful?”
“this is a lousy dentist.”
“it is my friend’s fault because he recommended this dentist”
“actually the being who created this universe is sleeping on the job, who can I lodge a complaint to?”…
In this manner, one is hit by a physical arrow followed by a mental one that is completely optional and self inflicted. See SN36.6
On the other hand, this path is about purifying and liberating the mind. Even Buddha feels physical pain and has to find solace in Jhana. At times, he even requested Sariputra to take over a Dhamma talk to lie down and ease his back pain. However, the Buddha don’t suffer from it.
I think there is also a sutta (maybe in AN6, but I can’t find it at the moment) where the Buddha discusses some causes for the downfall of a Bhikkhu, or something along these lines, and at some points he says something like “without having fully investigated, he blames the praiseworthy or praises the blameworthy”.
I think it is a mental sickness of this age when people at large (and Buddhists try to be better, but they are no exception) jump straight to judgementality before even having fully looked at the facts. This is used to great effect by propagandists of all stripes. I could throw in some examples, but I wouldn’t want to start an off-topic discussion.
Commentaries as in an expression of opinions such as a football match commentary. One will hear different perspectives from a commentator siding team A vs another rooting for team B. If one watches the match without commentaries in silence, one is non-judgemental.
Based on initial comment, proliferation follows. This is what I was driving at.
Not by passing arbitrary judgments does a man become just; a wise man is he who investigates both right and wrong.
He who does not judge others arbitrarily, but passes judgment impartially according to the truth, that sagacious man is a guardian of law and is called just. Dhp 256-257
I think the Buddha encourages us to judge, but according to the truth as he taught it. In the modern context, being non-judgemental often refers to an attitude of minding ones own business when other individuals behave in a way that does not conform to his/her own beliefs or convictions, especially when their actions do not cause immediate harm to him/her. Such attitude is useful for coexisting in a diverse society. In terms of practice, we are encouraged to purify our own minds, so in terms of setting priorities, being non-judgemental is helpful to the practice without turning it into moral blindness. All in my opinion.
Greetings Bhante,
I’m not a native English speaker so please excuse me if I’m reading too much into it, but doesn’t this imply that we are making a judgment about the best course of action when we aren’t sure about a teaching? A patient wholesome/skillful approach as opposed to a rushed unwholesome/unskillful one?
We kind of judge our judgement (that it’s currently unreliable and underdeveloped) and then use the Dhamma as guide because of it’s superior quality of judgement!
One could say it’s a play upon words, but it seems more of a play upon thoughts!
Perhaps the negative connotations with the word ‘Judgement’ is because of New Age Spiritual ideas, but as far as the Dhamma is concerned, it seems compatible with the path, at least to me!
Any corrections are most welcome
I think Bhante Sujato’s quote is correct too, but it is just the first half. The Buddha advised us to accept or reject after considerable amount of analysis and consideration, whether it accords to the Dhamma-Vinaya or not.
I get what you are saying, but “fabricating commentaries” is not papanca, or mental proliferation. Maybe it would be a part of it depending on the circumstances, but I understand mental proliferation to be when thinking in general gets out of control, or excessively “spread out” if you will, in relation to a sense object. It doesn’t necessarily even have to include judgements, but could, and also could include internal commentaries.
The point is that everything is fabrication, even fabricating the idea that we are not going to judge is a fabrication. This is where my position comes from, that it is actually impossible to not judge. Because choosing to be “gentle” or not complain about pain or whatever, is a judgement—a path chosen, through judgement, that we continue down. One, that I think is purely silly and some attempt at virtue signaling. There is no progress on the path because one chooses to not “complain” or make a comment to a dentist that pain is being caused to them. Claiming something is a complaint because you feel it is a complaint is just another … you got it … judgement! What if the dentist requests (as they typically do) to let them know if you feel any pain?
This is where “doormat” Buddhism comes into play, or people who withdraw from politics or other things because they don’t want to judge or be involved in making hard decisions. And this is a huge problem, especially in capitalist countries where this type of behavior feeds into the neoliberal machine.
If Bhikkhu Bodhi didn’t judge things like poverty and world hunger, then Buddhist Global Relief may not do the great work they do. I am sure he has some internal commentary going on regarding these issues, and I don’t believe that to be papanca.
There is this idea of practice that people have, and then there is actually operating in the real world, as a real human being. Because at the moment I assume most of us are unenlightened, so, we fabricate all day long each and every day various things in our mind. To think we can escape this, or escape samsara in general prior to attaining nibbana is in itself, is once again, another judgement.
I recall this sutta, (likely AN4.100) because when I originally read it, the conclusion surprised me. I had assumed that the Buddhist way would be to neither criticize nor praise, but nuh-uh - it’s apparently to do both (with appropriate timing, context and verification of facts).
I’m not saying you’re wrong on this point, but my experience of western (Christian) culture has been very different. We are steeped in centuries of judgmental habits; the witch-hunts and crusades may be behind us, but the black and white blamey mentality remains imo - it’s just more refined. I was literally raised on “You’ve only got yourself to blame”.…all with good intentions, of course. Sometimes perhaps the judgement is not expressed explicitly, but the tone is “you’ll get yours on Judgement Day”.
One aspect of the Buddhist mindset that I find immensely refreshing and consistently helpful is viewing things in terms of skillful / unskillful instead of right / wrong…much like Ayya Suvijjana’s refence to MN19 in post 2.
Part of the issue here, to seems to me, is one of language and context. Being “judgmental” in the west has a somewhat negative connotation. I see often in some Zen circles, for example, the misuse of terms like “judgment,” emptiness," and the idea of “not-knowing” as being bypasses for making the effort to understand something.
In the Early Texts, we have the ability, with the help of our monastic teachers here, to understand what the Buddha was teaching about judgment, or discernment. This subject comes up in the Pañcaṅgikasutta AN 5.28 which describes the jhana process and the resultant cultivation of discernment (or judgment and insight). “In the same way, when noble right immersion with five factors is cultivated in this way, a mendicant becomes capable of realizing anything that can be realized by insight to which they extend the mind, in each and every case.”
When these qualities are developed, we’re then able to practice discernment, the fifth factor.
Describing this fifth development, the Buddha says: “And further, the monk has his theme of reflection well in hand, well attended to, well-pondered, well-tuned [well-penetrated] by means of discernment.”
Being “judgmental” in western terms might involve wrong view, or not having insight into the reality of a situation or thing. But I think the Buddha praised the cultivation of wise judgment and the employment of jhana as the pathway to cultivating insight into Right View, emptiness, knowledge and discernment.
Yes. This hits the nail on the head for me. We must judge, but we must not do it because we are out of our mind, or generally speaking, stupid. We must not do it to elicit a response, like a shock jock on the radio or podcast, doing something for a response (typically motivated by profit potential).
This brings me to the Nagara Sutta and the simile of mindfulness as a fortress. It is not described as an open door to just “let it all flow in” or some other kind of wellness inspired trash that flows from many (especially secular) Buddhist circles.
I found the one I was talking about. It’s AN 2.134
“When a foolish, incompetent bad person has two qualities they keep themselves broken and damaged. They deserve to be blamed and criticized by sensible people, and they make much bad karma. What two? Without examining or scrutinizing, they praise those deserving of criticism and they criticize those deserving of praise. When a foolish, incompetent bad person has these two qualities they keep themselves broken and damaged. They deserve to be blamed and criticized by sensible people, and they make much bad karma.
When an astute, competent good person has two qualities they keep themselves healthy and whole. They don’t deserve to be blamed and criticized by sensible people, and they make much merit. What two? After examining and scrutinizing, they criticize those deserving of criticism and they praise those deserving of praise. When an astute, competent good person has these two qualities they keep themselves healthy and whole. They don’t deserve to be blamed and criticized by sensible people, and they make much merit.”
Thanissaro and Analayo are talking about different things. Thanissaro has a complete chapter on ‘The Burden of Bare Attention’ which is clearly directed at teachers of mindfulness, much in the way the Buddha has discourses debunking theories of the Jains. Nyanaponika and Analayo are referring to an initial function of mindfulness which assesses the subject, before memory comes into play. Both are right, but Thanissaro’s is the broader approach.
The most direct application of equanimity is in mindfulness as a middle point to return the mind to when it wanders into anger or desire (AN 4.195). It’s necessary to cultivate this otherwise the mind could establish mild anger or desire as a state of normalcy.
@Gillian This paper has been recently released publicly, and makes reference to the sutta where the Buddha admonishes Ananda for exercising equanimity inappropriately.
Sure! I mean, being non-judgemental itself implies a judgement. Which is why at the end of the day it’s more of a rhetorical device than anything else. In this case, the more accurate description would be “suspending a decision pending better information”.
I guess I was thinking rather more of the new-agey “spiritual” circles in the West, which would tend to look to Jesus as a pure teacher whose message was distorted by later Christians. I think there are many people—including, I should add, many Christians—for whom the judgementalism of so much of modern Christianity is an affront to the clear message of the Gospels. And I think there’s a large overlap of such people in western Buddhist circles.
Right, and I think its wrapped up in the conceit of superiority, the rush to condemn anyone who is different just because.
Perhaps we should distinguish between “making judgements” and “being judgemental”. One is a necessary act of wisdom, the other is an identity bound up with ego.
Yes, totally agree that everything is fabricated. Even the very basic function of seeing is fabricated. Technically, the eye can only sense colour and brightness. The boundaries, shapes and objects are all fabrications of the mind. Without fabrication, we wouldn’t be able to survive in this world.
The Buddha spoke of non-fabrication in the context of not taking the five clinging aggregates as me, mine or Self. This category of fabrication can only create or condition Dukkha. Paying wise attention to the relationship between five clinging aggregates and Dukkha is the key towards the noble path.
“What do you think, Māluṅkyaputta? Do you have any desire or greed or fondness for sights known by the eye that you haven’t seen, you’ve never seen before, you don’t see, and you don’t think would be seen?”
“No, sir.”
“Do you have any desire or greed or affection for sounds known by the ear …
smells known by the nose …
tastes known by the tongue …
touches known by the body …
thoughts known by the mind that you haven’t known, you’ve never known before, you don’t know, and you don’t think would be known?”
“No, sir.”
“In that case, when it comes to things that are to be seen, heard, thought, and known: in the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known. When this is the case, you won’t be ‘by that’. When you’re not ‘by that’, you won’t be ‘in that’. When you’re not ‘in that’, you won’t be in this world or the world beyond or in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering.”
