Is it ok to judge someone for what goes on in their mind?

Blobbenstein said:
I don't know the answer to my OP....what's the point in not judging peope, if I only end up judging people for judging people...o_O
Click to expand...

Lol! You've found another "intolerance will not be tolerated" paradox there Blobbers.

Just for the sake of chipping something in to the conversation ...

In buddhism the matter of judgmental-ism is kinda covered under the heading of 'equanimity', the seeing of all things as being equal.

The 'close enemy' (looks/feels like the virtue in hand but is actualy an opposite to it) of equanimity is non-discernment though.

To not judge, as in not to pass sentence, is one thing.

To not be able to discern positive from negative, good from bad, healthy from unhealthy etc is a totally different kettle of biscuits though.
 
^ And that is why I am not a buddhist. I dont jive with the concept of equanimity.
 
just looked that up...I think if equanimity is faked, then that would be bad, but if it is genuine then it could be good.....Probably a lot of people want to be in that state of mind, so they fake it.
 
Freesia said:
^ And that is why I am not a buddhist. I dont jive with the concept of equanimity.
Click to expand...

Too right Sister!

Only an eejyutt would 'jive' with this kind of sh*t ..

"It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha (equanimity) is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings."

~Bhikkhu Bodhi
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Blobbenstein said:
just looked that up...I think if equanimity is faked, then that would be bad, but if it is genuine then it could be good.....Probably a lot of people want to be in that state of mind, so they fake it.
Click to expand...

My limited to woefully inadequate personal understanding and experience guestimate would be along the lines of this ...

If someone were faking it, if we ourselves sincerely believed we had it; Without the 100% genuine article to compare it against no one could ever really know.

I'm not even sure if the 100% genuine article actualy exists.

I think it may be one of those things where the best measure of how far down the path a person is how far that person believes they still have left to go.

A bit like drivers. The better/worse a driver thinks him/herself to be then the worse/better a driver they almost 100% guaranteeably are.
 
Freesia said:
but I realised a while back, who cares anyway? I dont have to be how people think I should be.
Click to expand...



I agree,.I dont have to be how people think I should be unless... how they think I should be is secretly how I think I should be.

If they think I should be something I am not and judge me as inferior because of this that is no buisness of mine IF.. I am confident that I shouldnt be/couldnt be or do not want to be what they think I should be. In this situation I have no interest in their judgement.

However.. if they point out flaws in my character, determination, or decision making that I am already aware of then their judgement hits a raw nerve.

It confirms what I already know and am not admitting. It writes in the sky in giant letters things that I need to work on. In this situation I may condemn them as judgemental and cruel and become angry or upset. How dare they make me hear/face something I am am too scared or lazy to face?

If they force me to think and agree with them ..then they have done me a favour even if I hate them for doing so!!!:cool:
 
Try this analogy: When confronted with a tiger - we see something wild, beautiful and dangerous. We could be eaten by the tiger - or perhaps not - but we have no way of knowing this because we cannot know what the tiger is thinking until it acts. Even then - we have no way of ascertaining the details of those thoughts in the tiger's mind. We are not judging the tiger in front of us for what is going on in its mind - but rather making a broad, general judgement based on what we know about tigers. The only way we can even get a hint about what is on a specific tiger's mind is when they act or react to something and we observe it. But if a tiger wanted to kill and eat us - we would not pass judgement on the animal - because we know that this is natural behaviour to them.

Humans are different - but it is much the same scenario - because we cannot truly know what is going on in a person's mind, therefore one cannot judge another's thoughts. But we can and do judge their actions. And it is assumed that your actions mirror your thoughts and intentions - even though as humans - we know that this is often not the case at all. (I can be polite to someone and wishing they'd just go **** themselves in my head.)

In summary: The OP has questioned whether it is okay to judge someone for what goes on in their mind. It is simply not possible to know a person's true thoughts - so it is not a question of whether this judgement is right or wrong - it's impossible.

Edit: One could only judge a person's thoughts based on their perception of what they believe must be the others' thoughts. In which case it is the same as the example of the tiger above.

Each of us have millions of thoughts and impulses - and our brain sorts through these makes choices on which thoughts to act on - and which ones to ignore - or keep to ourselves. We can only truly be judged by our actions - not the thoughts behind them. Even if I was to tell you what I was thinking - you would have no way of knowing whether that was really what I was thinking or whether I was just acting on an impulse to deceive you.

Maybe that only make sense to me - but there you have it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FortyTwo, ledboots and Second Summer
Clueless Git said:
Too right Sister!

Only an eejyutt would 'jive' with this kind of sh*t ..
Click to expand...

But a number of Buddhists I have met online proclaimed that they were not interested in the wellbeing of others, or political issues, as it did not line up with equanimity- having political opinions is an "attachment" according to them.

I used to belong to a Buddhist forum, but there was a woman there who was very rude to all the posters and "shouted" at them in a harsh, abrupt manner and insulted people. The forum leaders, who were yogis, had a detached, equanimous attitude to her behaviour and allowed her to run roughshod around the board. She was an older member, so she sort of had a "forum grandfathered" thing going. I remember a woman posting saying that she thought she was gay and this woman said "Who cares about your post? It is of no interest." And nobody did anything. I asked for advice in a post and she told me I was a bad buddhist.

I think many aspects of the religion made sense when people were in poverty and wished to detach from their circumstances, but in a globalised world, though the concept of peace is good, I dont see equanimity being applicable anymore. Buddhism needs to be a bit revamped to match our modern times.
 
I'll let you into a little two part secret, Freesia,

1. Anyone who thinks they fully understand buddhism definitely doesn't.

2. Anyone who thinks they are a good buddhist definitely isn't.


Freesia said:
Buddhism needs to be a bit revamped to match our modern times.
Click to expand...

From what I have read a constant revamping, albeit without losing core concepts, was exactly what the buddha instructed his monks to do with his teachings after his death

The instruction (to teach) "in the language of and according to the customs and understanding of any given audience at any given time" is the best I can quote from that teaching from memory.

But a number of Buddhists I have met online proclaimed that they were not interested in the wellbeing of others, or political issues, as it did not line up with equanimity- having political opinions is an "attachment" according to them.
Click to expand...

That is bizarre (they, not you) on two counts ...

1. 'Buddha nature', the prerequisite for enlightenment, as described in the Four Immeasurables makes it abundantly clear that interest/care/concern/passion for the well being of others is essential to the well being of self.

2. Buddhas's teachings are littered with core level politics.

How wealth should be earned and accumulated. How wealth should be spent and distributed. How employers should treat employees. How employees should treat employers. How rulers should treat subjects. How subjects should treat rulers. How husbands should treat wives and how wives should treat husbands.
 
Last edited:
Didn't Jesus say something about adultery in your heart? Jimmy Carter got in some trouble by admitting to this.
 
Joe said:
Didn't Jesus say something about adultery in your heart? Jimmy Carter got in some trouble by admitting to this.
Click to expand...
Jimmy Carter admitted thinking about adultery, and some people cast the first stone?
 
Joe said:
Didn't Jesus say something about adultery in your heart?
Click to expand...
I had to look it up but you are right, it seems he did, Joe.

Matthew 5:27-28New International Version (NIV)
Adultery

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Click to expand...
 
was that when he confronted the people who were going to stone a woman for adultery?

eta: oh, I see it was the Sermon on the Mount.
 
I've tried to reply to Blobbenstein several times, but keep getting an error message, like: server error--try again later.
 
It's hard to answer that. On the one hand, people have the right to think whatever they want. On the other hand, I pay attention to the way that people think. I click best with others who think on a similar wavelength as me.

I don't judge people for individual thoughts they have. Even the nicest people sometimes get nasty thoughts. It's normal. But if someone constantly voices opinions that bother me, then yeah I will judge them because it is a thought pattern they have. For example, I don't like men who regularly voice negative opinions about women. I will decide they are sexist. Even if they try to hide it, their thoughts will still affect the way they treat women.
 
Last edited:
I suppose I don't really meet a lot of people, in my life, so don't get to meet many people that I don't like......people bug me on the TV though.
 

Similar threads

D
I’ll Cry If I Want To
Replies
12
Views
417
Support
Col
Col
majorbloodnok
A few hints for Indian cooking
Replies
10
Views
2K
Food & Drink
silva
silva
Vegan Dogs
Cecil the Lion hunter strikes again.
Replies
4
Views
1K
Animals
LoreD
L
Vegan Dogs
The myth of the Angry Vegan V the Angry Non Vegan
Replies
7
Views
1K
General
TofuRobot
TofuRobot
Vegan Dogs
Pet Cat Dog Ferret Foods-Legal set by AAFCO
Replies
7
Views
3K
Animals
Jeremy Delvarr
J
Top Bottom
Back