Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:15 pmThis sets the bar very high, at the level of
saccanubodhi, or direct awakening to the truth.
Not at all. It only sets the bar high as far as patronizing others or being mean to them and believing one is justified to do so, goes.
It's quite possible for an unenlightened Buddhist to know that particular behaviours and beliefs are wrong,
Epistemically, that's like guessing what the result of a mathematical equation is instead of calculating it.
Prior to stream entry, the person is like the blind men and the elephant: the blind men are indeed touching an elephant, but they don't know it as such; they don't know they are touching the elephant. So that person might indeed know some Dhamma, but doesn't know they know Dhamma.
to a degree of certainty which allows them to criticise others.
All one needs to criticize others is an ego. Look: there's no shortage of critics.
It's not the case, as you say, that "anything goes" prior to stream entry.
By "anything goes", I mean one is like the blind men and the elephant.
It's certainly more correct to say that lying is harmful than it is to say that lying is harmless. A truthful person is justified in criticising a persistent liar, even though neither of them are enlightened.
Doing so would go against the principles of who is suitable for being instructed in the Dhamma. And then there is all that about not publicizing another's faults.
S/he doesn't need to have attained perfect knowledge of all of the Dhamma in order to do that. To think that is just letting the doubting mind take over.
No. I'm talking about justified contempt, righteous indignation.
Religious/spiritual people tend to love to criticize others, show them contempt, but more than that: they expect others to accept that, to submit to them. "I'm religious/spiritual, therefore, I am free to despise you, hate you, and you must submit to me."
If religious/spiritual people should be given that right to despise others and others be obligated to accept that, then religious/spiritual people should have the according attainment that justifies that right, instead of just assuming it.
And then the plebeians do the unthinkable: They rise up against the religious/spiritual.
The same applies with regard to our criticism of beliefs. It's not the case that, as you say, "anything goes". It is more correct to say that the Buddha taught the path to nibbana than it is to say that most of his teaching was about supermarket trolleys.
Oh, I think you know very well what I'm talking about.
You might want to say that any assertion about the dhamma is invalidated and relativised by the person asserting it not being enlightened,
No, but their right to despise others is.