>
>This is a strange argument you put forward. As laymen even if we
>are maditating long hours day and night and attained stream entry as
>well, we cannot taking on ourselves to make any critical remark
>about the dhamma. That would show an essential lack of Saddha, or
>confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.

Dear Charles and others,

Some of the conflict may come from there being two meanings of the
word 'critical'. In one sense it means to criticize something, and
disparage it. In the other sense it means to constructively sift
through evidence and draw careful conclusions. I agree that a person
with Saddha would never disparage the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. That
would be a contradiction in terms. However a person with Saddha could
very well study the texts in which the Dhamma is preserved for us,
with a a critical attitude, in the second, positive, sense. This
would be a way to try to sift the essential points from the less
essential points. Whether one is a monk or a layman makes no
difference in this regard. In the same way a layman can be critical
of monks who do not live up their responsibilities. It's even a duty
of laymen to do so. But again, this would not be to disparage the
Sangha as a whole, only to try to help uphold the ideals.

To me, your post above conflates the two senses of critical, and also
conflates the Three Gems with their worldy, and not always perfect
representatives. The Ariyasangha is by definition perfect, but not
every monk is perfect. The Dhamma is perfect, but not every text
claiming to record the Dhamma is perfect. So for a person with strong
faith, it could actually be an expression of their faith for them to
be critical. They have an such strong and implicit faith in the three
gems that there is no risk or harm in taking a critical look at their
representatives.

best regards,

/Rett