For what it's worth, yesterday I wrote this:
But other things get in between, so I waited.
Ben wrote:
Hi Forestmat,
For what its worth - I don't consider what you were doing as intentionally trolling.
However, we do need to be mindful that many of the things we come across be they publications, newspaper articles or news stories on TV or radio are at best a version of the truth. At worst - little more than unsupported allegation. Because something gets published or is aired by the BBC or some other authority - it doesn't mean that its representative of the truth or correct. Quite often, it is incomplete, biased and one-sided. Be sure that many issues whether they relate to events within a monastery or in the secular world are far more complicated than what is presented in the press (or other publications).
All of us need to be careful that we do not pour petrol on the fire by propagating untested allegation as fact or participating in trial by popular opinion. While Dhamma Wheel is a discussion forum devoted to the Dhamma of the Theravada - no one here has an absolute right to discussion. All of us have a responsibility to ourselves and to protect the Dhamma and the best way we can do that is by devoting ourselves to walking on the path. If we personally know of misdeeds - then your concerns should be lodged with the relevant authorities.
The moderators, administrators and I will be reviewing our terms of service with regards to right speech in light of recent discussions.
kind regards,
Ben
Sadhu, Ben!
We all need to calm down a bit and be more patient.
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:In the past, I have spoken out against corruption when I knew from direct observation that it was going on, and got expelled from my last residence for my efforts. I have left another monastery of my own accord for the same reasons, and got thrown out of another because others didn't agree with me.
Sadhu, Bhante Pesala!
It is important to keep such integrity and very admirable.
Idle gossip is not wholesome, and keeping even problematic situations for oneself as long as one does not know how they help anyone, requires very much sacrifice and patience and a strong heart.
In the Na Unaya thread we had a very painful glimpse into the difficulties with corruption in monastic life. One could see how these ex-monks from Na Unaya were very cautious and concerned not to unduly slendour the sasana, and not to harm the even very little good conditions that may still be left somewhere and not to endanger others, even giving considerate and compassionate advice to laypeople who would like to consider staying at Na Unaya, saying that it might nevertheless be a good place for them, really totally coming only from a place of giving. Because they have been "invited" so to speak by a very circumspect person. And that even after being poisoned and having friends killed! They had concern even for the Parajika monks, but of course mostly and importantly for the sasana, really knowing their way well! They really had a lot of compassion and were very circumspect. There was no lynching mentality or anything. Being caught in such a dangerous situation is heavy to bear with such heavy knowledge on one's heart, and being able to speak out skillfully where even someone might have a bit of understanding to learn from it wisely and considerately, can be such a great relief. Then one has given and shared something valuable and can move on with more peace. In fact, this is important for us, too! Really, Nirosh was clearly completely coming from a place of giving and integrity. And for Rob1980 it must have surely been such a great relief to be able to come into contact with him here and get some helpful, wholesome and encouraging advice and new strength, and he was very considerate for none of us to accrue wrong ill-will towards his endangered friends! So one should at least rejoice in this! Really, there is great reason to rejoice, that he may find new peace now, and courage!
And we should really have much gratitude here for BlackBird's compassionate act of investigating with sincerity!
Of course, this should not degenerate into a sensationalist gossip story, as is generally most often the case with the casual news-spreaders here and everywhere in the world. But it was not the same underlying intention as those more common. In fact, I cannot see this would have been possible to happen with this story here, had it been left open after these ex-monks came here and spoke with consideration. But of course I understand Ben's great responsibility, and he is really doing a good job! So he should rejoice likewise in having patiently provided those noble ones hospitality for long enough to have some reconciling, healing discussion between noble friends, while at the same time sharing awareness for those who might see clearly. The awareness should not be spread and directed to the whole crowd in a gossiping way. People who have no interest will leave it, and it's better. But actually now this happens by suppressing things which should not have been suppressed.
As one could see there was a lot of danger they were aware of, much more than we can fathom, and they had to be very careful. It must be such a horripilating heavy burden to bear, having been with others in such corrupted situations and seen them suffering, and always having to be aware not to put them in danger, yet they spoke very considerately, really sharing a gift for all of us, because there was a window of wholesome opportunity of sharing awareness. Even though it may be heavy to take. One does not have to take what is given if one cannot accept it. There is no fault in it. It is wholesome to abstain. That is one's own responsibility. But one should not be angry at someone who gives with compassion and even slander it as unwholesome. It was given, because there was an "invitation" so to speak, by a person acting considerately. So one should always stick to just that what is given. If it was not given for you, then leave it. We are very hungry indulging in such things and getting paranoid and angry of what other poor people might think. Actually it's our own thinking. It is hard to take it with consideration. But some can. So you should let them.
So as you also know of corruption by own experience, you certainly might have some imagination how heavy it might have been for those monks.
And you really should have at least some compassion for your good fellow ex-monks who bravely endured so much suffering. And you should really consider whether you would have been able to cope so well and with honor in such a heavy situation.
Please be considerate.
This:
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:In the past, I have spoken out against corruption when I knew from direct observation that it was going on, and got expelled from my last residence for my efforts. I have left another monastery of my own accord for the same reasons, and got thrown out of another because others didn't agree with me.
I wrote yesterday to put you at ease and able to rejoice in the wholesome, and not for the sake of feeling wrongly honored.
Being wrongly honored is a heavy burden. I know this from experience.
It is important to learn right honor.
What you wrote here...
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Should One Criticise Shameless or Immoral Monks?
“When a person, knowing a monk to be shameless or immoral, speaks ill of him or condemns him, either directly or indirectly, does he attract the ten evil results? (
Dhp v 1237) By doing so, is he free from evil or not?”
Right Speech (Sammā Vācā).
"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech."
— SN 45.8
... is not very considerate. It invites to ambiguous allusions. You are not clear about what you want to convey.
A quote from the text
Should One Criticise Shameless or Immoral Monks?:
Those who slander or condemn others with harsh words commit serious evil only if a Buddha, Pacceka Buddha or Noble One are objects of their condemnation.
So, what is it then, have you slandered a noble one?
Please be considerate.
It can invite some other allusion: that you have not done wrong. If it was for this purpose, to prove that you have not done wrong, quoting ambiguously, allusively, this is not the right way.
Recently you have given this advice:
In a higher sense, we all have to "die" to remove our clinging to self-view. Without seeing things as they really are no one can relinquish their views — specifically, one imagines things to be permanent, though they are not, to be the source of happiness, though they are not, and as belonging to a self, though they do not.
It is very timely advice. Please take it, with compassion and consideration. And don't get me wrong. Don't kill yourself.
So, what do you think is right speech, people?
If it hurts it is not right speech?
Please be considerate.
It is important to point out faults, especially heavy faults, out of compassion, not anger.
But it is
not like this: that the greater the anger one feels, the more right it is to accuse of wrong. Actually the own anger is wrong.
Here we have to keep in mind what binocular taught us again and again.
Please take it with consideration. No need to react quickly. I will go to sleep now.
And remember Bhante Gavesako, who skillfully left the situation with proper shame and consideration reflecting alone for himself. Of course he will come back gladly, having done well.
Sadhu!
No need to fear.
Good friends will always reconcile.