Of course, expressions of view can also include incorrect cognitions if there are errors in repetition or logic.
Many people like to casually quote Buddhist scriptures, like the Heart Sutra. In articles or social media posts, people often quote phrases like "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, formations, and consciousness." Strictly speaking, this is taking things out of context and a complete misrepresentation. Don't think this is harmless - the consequences of such misrepresentation can be terrifying. We may not believe in Buddhism, but we should still approach it with reverence, as carelessness can lead to severe karmic consequences. This is not alarmism but a statement of fact - no matter one believes or not, karma is infallible, and retribution is certain
Sometimes, the karmic consequences of misrepresenting Buddhist teachings can be far worse than taking a life. Killing ends a life, but corrupting someone with incorrect Dharma harms their wisdom-life. Comparing the two, harming one's wisdom-life is more severe and terrifying, with much longer-lasting effects. If you take my life in this lifetime, I might return as a celestial being in the next life to seek revenge. But if you harm my wisdom-life, I might suffer unimaginable torment in hell for eons, and upon emerging, I would seek terrible revenge. It's not that I deliberately want to seek revenge, but this is how karma works - it's beyond our control. Causes inevitably lead to effects, and when will this cycle of retribution end?
Logical errors lead to invalid cognition. For example, we might make mistakes when drawing inferences.
When the retelling is accurate and the logic is sound, practitioners can express these views regardless of their level of spiritual attainment. Listeners should not judge the speaker based on whether they have personal experiences or realizations.
Even without personal spiritual experiences or realizations, we can discuss Buddhist teachings through accurate retelling or logical reasoning. This means we can't demand of a Dharma teacher, "Are you enlightened? If not, step down!" If they step down, are you ready to take their place? So, when teaching Dharma, having a correct understanding is sufficient.
Of course, views can be mistaken. In such cases, we should rely on the Dharma, not the person. This means you can verify the correctness of what's said based on Buddhist doctrines. Therefore, choosing a teacher is crucial, and we must be extremely careful.
It's fine to listen to teachings from various monks or teachers. But it's hasty to immediately think, "Now that I've received your teaching, I must become your disciple." Selecting a teacher shouldn't be so casual. You've listened to my teachings for years, but have I ever acknowledged you as my disciples? I don't accept that system at all. Want to be my disciple? It's not that easy!
As long as one has a correct understanding of Buddhism, monks or instructors can teach the Dharma. If we demanded that only enlightened beings could teach, Buddhism would die out. Where would we find so many enlightened people nowadays? Many people online claim to be enlightened, but they're all fools. Some so-called great masters might fool the gullible, but they can't fool us skeptics - we're professional fault-finders.
Excerpted from: Cognition and Expression Part Three
