Unless we find fault how can we differentiate between saint from a swindler?

From: Roshan

Fault finding is not a virtue, but unless we find fault how can we say saint from a swindler?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
on for our own good. Question- How can we differentiate a saint from a swindler? Answer- Differentiating a saint from a swindler is not a matter of fault finding.
It is a matter of discriminating. Just like if we are sick and we have to go to a doctor and we find by our observation, experience, analysis that a particular person is not at all a competent doctor. He doesn’t have the requisite knowledge, he doesn’t have the requisite skills.
And we decide going to this doctor is going to worsen my condition. And therefore we decide not to go. And that is not a matter of fault finding, that is a matter of discriminating.
So, discrimination is essential for any form of basic living in our life. Now, if we see a particular person driving recklessly on the street, and then we say, this person is going to kill himself or is going to kill others. And then, if that particular person is driving along, we decide not to cross the road at that time.
And we say, this is a dangerous driver, is that fault finding? No, that is simple discrimination. So, in general, the essential difference between discriminating and fault finding is that, in discriminating, we try to analyze what is beneficial for us, what is harmful for us. Whereas, in fault finding, we place ourselves on a high moral pedestal.
And, we say, this person is good, this person is bad. This person is virtuous, this person is vicious. So, essentially, what makes fault finding bad is placing ourselves on a high moral pedestal and considering ourselves to be capable of judging others.
So, that is what is undesirable. Now, even when we say that certain spiritual teachers are not actually teaching spirituality and are having some ulterior motives by which they may be exploiting their followers, then this is something which is based on objective criteria. We understand from scriptures what are the characteristics of a saintly person and when we see those characteristics lacking, we understand that following such a person is not good for us.
We are not actually finding fault with that person. We are discriminating for our own benefit and this is something which is essential. In fact, the whole Bhagavad Gita is told by Krishna so that he can discriminate between right and wrong courses of action.
So, discrimination is a virtue. Fault finding is not a virtue because in fault finding we impute ourselves, we place ourselves on a very high moral pedestal. So, it may seem to some people that when we say that some people who claim to be spiritual teachers are wrong, are not bona fide, we are placing ourselves on a high moral pedestal also.
But that is not necessarily the motive. The motive is not to place ourselves on a high moral pedestal but it is to guide others, to help others to understand what is right and what is wrong. So, most people may not be well informed about the standards by which a spiritual teacher is to be understood to be bona fide or not.
Generally, we understand whether a doctor is proper or not from repetition, by seeing the certificate, by basically observing his dealings and most importantly by seeing whether his treatment works or not. But when it comes to spirituality, people don’t even know what it means for spirituality to work. If they just feel good, if just going to some experience, hearing some discourse, doing something feels good, then they think, yeah, this must be spiritual.
So, because people don’t have any discriminatory faculty at all in modern times, therefore, we need to educate them. So, it is like a doctor sees that there is another person claiming to be a doctor and he turns out to be a quack. A quack means a fraud, a person who is impersonating another doctor and he sees that by going to that person, many people are worsening in their sickness and they are suffering because of that.
But unfortunately, the common people are not able to understand that this person claiming to be a doctor is not a doctor. Then at that time, it becomes this doctor’s both moral and professional responsibility to point out to people that this person is not a doctor. And he may do it in strong, even aggressive terms.
But his motivation in doing that is not that he hates the person, but that he is taking up a position for which he is not capable. So, that again is not fault-finding. That is educating.
So, from our point of view, if we are seekers, we need to discriminate and that discrimination is not fault-finding. And if we are in the position of sharing spirituality with others, teaching spirituality to others, then even when we are pointing out the deficiencies and the flaws in certain people who claim to be spiritual, that is not fault-finding. That is educating.
So, we don’t place ourselves in a high moral pedestal in that I am a very great person and that person is not great. No, we understand that. Now, I might have been worse than that person if I had been left by myself.
But because God’s grace has touched me through His representatives, they have helped me to understand what is right and what is beneficial, what is harmful, what is right and what is wrong. And they have guided me to this correct understanding and they have given me the responsibility to share this understanding with others. And that is why I am doing this.
So, our motive is not to get a sadistic, egoistic delight in calling names to other people. But it is to, if we are seekers, to benefit ourselves and if we are teachers, to benefit others. But the motive is not to denigrate anyone.
The motive is not that we want to criticize for the sake of criticizing because we get a malicious delight in criticizing others. If that is the motive, then that is fault-finding, no doubt. But otherwise, it is discriminating or educating.