Right Speech: The Person in the Ball

[L.N.]

It appears that all parties involved?? have broken that rule!!

Well again, I don't think it's about imposing rules (other than applying TOS in a fair manner). Rather, this is supposed to be a Dhamma discussion about what I think is an appropriate question: where to draw the line between "playing the person" and "playing the ball." Unfortunately, some here don't appear to understand the basic issue which is the topic of this Topic.

[L.N.]

So if anybody is interested in posting comments actually responsive to the OP, perhaps there are other suggestions/examples of where to draw the line between "playing the ball" and "playing the person." Obviously most people who have posted here believe I have drawn the line in the wrong place. I created the topic for the purpose of discussing how to "play the ball, not the person" in the context of Right Speech.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings L.N.,

I believe it was retrofuturist who originally used the term "play the ball, not the man" in another Topic. Clearly, as stated in the OP, different people might have different opinions.

Yes, it was me who mentioned this phrase.

So if anybody is interested in posting comments actually responsive to the OP, perhaps there are other suggestions/examples of where to draw the line between "playing the ball" and "playing the person." Obviously most people who have posted here believe I have drawn the line in the wrong place.

I was looking for a post where I've said something similar before (but I couldn't find it, so I'll say it again here, maybe in more detail)... things wouldn't be so complicated and over-wrought, if the topics you created were simply about ideas, concepts, sutta, Dhamma teachings etc. Instead, you create topics, where you (to borrow your phrase) have put a "person in the ball". When you create topics about what other people are doing, or have done, how they're not meeting your satisfaction in terms of speech codes etc. there is no possible mode of participation for anyone, which does not involve the person. - i.e. someone will either "play the man", or they will "play the ball (which has had a person put inside it)"... and either way, no matter what they say, they commit a foul, according to your criteria.

This is what I mean by over-wrought. It's so many layers of complication and conflation, and it's exacerbated greatly when it's combined with an instantly triggered response that everyone else's comments are "personalized", "name-calling", "insults" or whatever... the way the conversation is set up, prevents the conversation from being a good one in the first place. With such conditions, how could a conversation ever hope to be productive?



If you really genuinely want to have good Dhamma conversations, just start talking about the Dhamma... not starting topics, which are literally the airing of grievances against others that you've been unable to let go of.

Metta,
Paul.

[L.N.]

Instead, you create topics, where you (to borrow your phrase) have put a "person in the ball". When you create topics about what other people are doing, or have done, how they're not meeting your satisfaction in terms of speech codes etc. there is no possible mode of participation for anyone, which does not involve the person. - i.e. someone will either "play the man", or they will "play the ball (which has had a person put inside it)"... and either way, no matter what they say, they commit a foul, according to your criteria.

This is what I mean by over-wrought. It's so many layers of complication and conflation, and it's exacerbated greatly when it's combined with an instantly triggered response that everyone else's comments are "personalized", "name-calling", "insults" or whatever... the way the conversation is set up, prevents the conversation from being a good one in the first place. With such conditions, how could a conversation ever hope to be productive?



If you really genuinely want to have good Dhamma conversations, just start talking about the Dhamma... not starting topics, which are literally the airing of grievances against others that you've been unable to let go of.

This is actually a helpful comment, but I do not understand why you and others have taken the topics in this way. Following are the topics. None was meant to air grievances. All were meant in friendship and with mutual respect. The one where I mentioned Sam Vara in the OP was intended recognize his invitation, and I thought (incorrectly) that a friendly discussion would ensue.

Please point out in any of the OPs of these topics where I have engaged in the conduct that you complain of. Each OP was set up for the purpose of Dhamma discussion. What followed in most instances was quite a bit of trash talk which I found surprising.

Right Speech: Getting Personal. (Please note that Sam Vara initially said the Topic "looks better" and things got off to a good start and did not go completely off the rails until you, retrofuturist, hijacked the thread to make repeated personal comments.)

Right Speech: Insensitive Speech.

Right Speech: Virtue Signaling.

Would certain Buddhists on DW please stop disparaging other faiths.

Have a great day everyone!.

Please point out which OP among the above created a Topic in which it would have been impossible to have a constructive discussion?

This is not about what I can or cannot "let go," as you put it. I am interested in Dhamma. I came to this forum for Dhamma discussion. That is what I thought I was doing in each of the above. Your responses in particular have been surprising in their degree of negativity.

[Goofaholix]

I agree that these would be ways to phrase the comments in a manner less likely to be taken personally. However, regardless of whether the comment begins with "your words" or "those words," notice that the subject is still the words, not the speaker's state of mind or character. This is the crucial distinction.

That depends on the readers state of mind and how he/she reacts to what is being read, an initial reaction to the words You/Your may colour how the rest of the sentence is interpreted, ie it may be interpreted as personal. You could argue that it then shouldn't be the writers problem as the writer can't control the readers reaction, this has been my argument all along.

I try to review my posts to take out personal language whenever I have the time and presence of mind to do so.

If it's not interest to you, then no need to participate. However, my impression is that there is an enormous difference between (a) commenting about someone's words, and (b) commenting about the character or state of mind of the speaker.

I would suggest that there is an enormous difference between multiple posts about one precept/factor of the eightfold path compared with multiple posts about the precepts/eightfold path in general, or each of the five/eight individually. It speaks to fixation.

If this precept is so publicly flaunted can you imagine what is happening behind closed doors when in the privacy of Dhammawheelers homes? Now there's a crusade worth fighting for.

It appears your opinion is that the line between "playing the person" and "playing the ball" is drawn in a different place than what is proposed in the OP.

Possibly, I can't draw the line with regards to other peoples posts as it's not my job and I don't know their intentions or state of mind of the writer so i prefer not to and instead interpret every post impersonally. Even obvious attempts to goad a reaction out of me, surely if anything anatta should teach us that. I call it being an adult.

[L.N.]

I agree that these would be ways to phrase the comments in a manner less likely to be taken personally. However, regardless of whether the comment begins with "your words" or "those words," notice that the subject is still the words, not the speaker's state of mind or character. This is the crucial distinction.

That depends on the readers state of mind and how he/she reacts to what is being read, an initial reaction to the words You/Your may colour how the rest of the sentence is interpreted, ie it may be interpreted as personal. You could argue that it then shouldn't be the writers problem as the writer can't control the readers reaction, this has been my argument all along.

I try to review my posts to take out personal language whenever I have the time and presence of mind to do so.

I agree. Did you happen to see the OP of this Topic? We might not always be able to predict what another will take personally. This does not mean we should never take personal responsibility for the words we speak.

If it's not interest to you, then no need to participate. However, my impression is that there is an enormous difference between (a) commenting about someone's words, and (b) commenting about the character or state of mind of the speaker.

I would suggest that there is an enormous difference between multiple posts about one precept/factor of the eightfold path compared with multiple posts about the precepts/eightfold path in general, or each of the five/eight individually. It speaks to fixation.

It speaks to interest in Dhamma. On this forum, speech is what we have. Everything we encounter here is speech. My mind is inclined to Dhamma, and I really had hoped these topics would lead to Dhamma discussion about right speech, rather than to recriminations.

If this precept is so publicly flaunted can you imagine what is happening behind closed doors when in the privacy of Dhammawheelers homes? Now there's a crusade worth fighting for.

I think you are joking here.

It appears your opinion is that the line between "playing the person" and "playing the ball" is drawn in a different place than what is proposed in the OP.

Possibly, I can't draw the line with regards to other peoples posts as it's not my job and I don't know their intentions or state of mind of the writer so i prefer not to and instead interpret every post impersonally. Even obvious attempts to goad a reaction out of me, surely if anything anatta should teach us that. I call it being an adult.

Then can you imagine the quandary retrofuturist is in? He has to draw the line constantly as to other people's posts in furtherance of enforcing TOS. Your approach in the paragraph above is admirable. However, I happen to agree with retrofuturist that it is best for me and all of us to "play the ball, not the person" or "play the ball, not the man" if you prefer. The question is, what is the best way to do this? Perhaps your answer is to simply ignore comments which play the person instead of the ball.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings L.N.,

The question is, what is the best way to do this? Perhaps your answer is to simply ignore comments which play the person instead of the ball.

A good place to start, is to not assume that literally everything anyone says is a "personalized attack".

For example, I called an analysis of yours "overwrought" yesterday and you instantly took that to be an attack on your mindstate etc.

You eventually stepped down from that reaction, once you realised that it was not applicable to the situation (and I for one appreciated that), but nonetheless, you had needlessly introduced "reactivity" into the conversation - a "reactivity" founded in seeing the worst in others, and in taking things personally. That reactivity is detrimental to the conversation, and I assume it can't be much fun for you either.

It's for this reason, I feel the advice that Goofaholix gave was invaluable, and with that advice having come from someone other than me, I'm hoping that you'll actually take it in the spirit it was given.

Metta,
Paul.

[L.N.]

A good place to start, is to not assume that literally everything anyone says is a "personalized attack".

Agreed.

For example, I called an analysis of yours "overwrought" yesterday and you instantly took that to be an attack on your mindstate etc.

No, I took it to be commentary which played the person, not the ball. You then said you didn't intend it that way, and I accepted your words.

You eventually stepped down from that reaction, once you realised that it was not applicable to the situation (and I for one appreciated that), but nonetheless, you had needlessly introduced "reactivity" into the conversation - a "reactivity" founded in seeing the worst in others, and in taking things personally. That reactivity is detrimental to the conversation, and I assume it can't be much fun for you either.

Don't you see that words might elicit reactivity in others? That is part of what this discussion is about. Repeatedly, we may intentionally or unintentionally speak words with elicit reactivity in others. Some words are more likely to elicit reactivity than others. We are not responsible for the listener's reaction, but we are responsible for the words we speak.

Whether or not I personally am reactive is irrelevant. While I appreciate your concern for me, I am not trying to start these topics because of reactivity. I am trying to start these topics because it appears there are significant differences in viewpoints regarding Right Speech and taking personal responsibility for one's words. I think this is a ripe area for Dhamma discussion. I think you keep on reading into these comments something that is not there.

It's for this reason, I feel the advice that Goofaholix gave was invaluable, and with that advice having come from someone other than me, I'm hoping that you'll actually take it in the spirit it was given.

I believe that I have. I appreciate these comments and your comments above. I hope I have conveyed something which helps to explain why the topics are not about me.

I think there was some good potential in the Topics for actual discussion on the issues presented. This potential has not been realized, in my opinion.

Please also note that I have intentionally and genuinely tried to express appreciation even for those with whom I disagree. As you said, the forum is not a hug festival (or whatever the term was).

You and I have a legitimate difference of opinion regarding what constitutes personalized speech, and the degree to which one should take personal responsibility for one's words. Let's agree to disagree in a mutually respectful and friendly way, unless that is asking too much.

[Goofaholix]

Perhaps your answer is to simply ignore comments which play the person instead of the ball.

Excellent, I'm glad you agree!

Perhaps this will allow other aspects of dhamma to be discussed besides this one then.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings L.N.,

Don't you see that words might elicit reactivity in others? That is part of what this discussion is about.

There's a spectrum of possible responses, none of which are in the control of the speaker. If enough people go on to read a certain innocuous comment, someone in that group is bound to take offense.

In this context, even the Buddha was blamed, despite being blameless. If he was blamed, what hope do we mere Buddhists have, in not being blamed for our speech? For this reason, I respect the intellectual and spiritual autonomy of others to determine their own speech, and whether it is Right. Whether others choose to afford this interpersonal respect to others is up to them.

The only way the speaker could totally avoid eliciting reactivity through their words, is to speak none. I guess that's how Buddhism came to have the phenomenon of the paccekabuddha. But even then, some people will be prone to interpret the silence in a certain way too. We live in a world of the "eight worldly winds"... but it's up to the individual to decide whether to be affected by them.

See: AN 8.6: Lokavipatti Sutta

The majority of active members here have known me long enough, to know where I'm coming from when I say something. But like I said above, "there's a spectrum of possible responses, none of which are in the control of the speaker. If enough people go on to read a certain innocuous comment, someone in that group is bound to take offense.". By virtue of my role, and my degree of participation, quite a few people will read what I say... and it only takes a small handful on the reactive end of the spectrum, to create a brouhaha over that which the majority (especially those who have known me for years) could understand in the way in which it was intended and spoken.

I understand some will be reactive, and I don't expect it to be otherwise, but I don't have to be appreciative of faithless reactivity either, nor do I need to pander to it, and I certainly won't be forced into silence by weaponized outrage. I hope others aren't coerced into silence by such reactivity either, and feel free to speak their truth, as it comes to them.

Metta,
Paul.

[Spiny Norman]

Are the suttas not clear enough?

"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."
— AN 5.198

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/ptf ... index.html

It appears that all parties involved?? have broken that rule!!

To be fair, this sutta sets a high standard for speech, one which I certainly fail to meet on occasion. Clearly the intention behind what we say is of pivotal importance - are we really trying to be helpful, or is it more about winning an argument, scoring points, trying to be right or sound clever, and so on?

[binocular]

This may be the way some people rationalize for themselves why it is acceptable to speak unkindly to others, however it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding, in my opinion. Discussions about Right Speech are not about the "hearer" adjudicating, over-analyzing, or setting personal demands or expectations on others. I believe the OP is very clear in stating that it is not about requirements. This is supposed to be a Dhamma discussion, but I can see how you appear to be taking it personally.

The Dhamma teaching is more detailed and calls upon one to take personal responsibility for the effect of one's actions/words on others. As follows:

"What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?"
/.../

Our actions can lead to the affliction of others. Our speech can lead to the affliction of others. Even though one is responsible for one's own kamma, this does not render us incapable of harming others. Another teaching on taking personal responsibility for the results of one's actions and/or words, even if the results are not intended.

I think what needs to be considered is that some people just don't think that what they say could be hurtful to others. Some people just are quite rough or thick-skinned. This is not to excuse them; it's just that it isn't appropriate to assume that everyone does or should operate by the same standards of what constitutes hurtful speech.

Moreover, some people, sometimes, really do want to hurt others with their words, and they don't want to be kind and harmless.

In short, the situation is more complex than what you present it as.

When one refuses to accept personal responsibility for the potential or real effects of ones actions/words on others, it is a cop-out and a self-proclaimed license to engage in unskillful, harmful behavior toward others.

But you're focusing only on one side of the matter, and that is the speaker's. In compliment, you can also find many suttas that speak about the listener, and how as a listener, one should take the words of others with a grain of salt etc.

I find that the suttas give a far more detailed and comprehensive take on the matter than you have so far.

Perhaps the actual topic of these recent threads about communication is about how to find a balance between the two sides of communication (ie. as a speaker and as a listener) for oneself, alone and when part of a group?

[L.N.]

Don't you see that words might elicit reactivity in others? That is part of what this discussion is about.

There's a spectrum of possible responses, none of which are in the control of the speaker. If enough people go on to read a certain innocuous comment, someone in that group is bound to take offense.

In this context, even the Buddha was blamed, despite being blameless. If he was blamed, what hope do we mere Buddhists have, in not being blamed for our speech? For this reason, I respect the intellectual and spiritual autonomy of others to determine their own speech, and whether it is Right. Whether others choose to afford this interpersonal respect to others is up to them.

Absolutely correct. I have thought of posting about the Buddha's words on the effect that there is nobody in this world without blame. Even so, this does not abrogate the benefit of taking personal responsibility for one's own words/actions.

Moreover, to the extent posts in the various Topics have been directed personally at my perceived "reactivity," "bitterness," etc. I have never, ever blamed anyone else for any reaction I might have. These topics were intended to inspire a dialogue about how one can conduct oneself skillfully for one's own benefit and the benefit of others.

The only way the speaker could totally avoid eliciting reactivity through their words, is to speak none. I guess that's how Buddhism came to have the phenomenon of the paccekabuddha. But even then, some people will be prone to interpret the silence in a certain way too. We live in a world of the "eight worldly winds"... but it's up to the individual to decide whether to be affected by them.

See: AN 8.6: Lokavipatti Sutta

Absolutely correct. We cannot be responsible for the reactivity of others. However, we can take personal responsibility or the words we speak and the volitional actions we take which might be harmful to self or others.

The majority of active members here have known me long enough, to know where I'm coming from when I say something. But like I said above, "there's a spectrum of possible responses, none of which are in the control of the speaker. If enough people go on to read a certain innocuous comment, someone in that group is bound to take offense.". By virtue of my role, and my degree of participation, quite a few people will read what I say... and it only takes a small handful on the reactive end of the spectrum, to create a brouhaha over that which the majority (especially those who have known me for years) could understand in the way in which it was intended and spoken.

That may well be the case. However, as you may have noticed, I have intentionally and genuinely tried to show appreciation for you despite our disagreements. The fact is, to the extent you wish to discuss me personally, my internal reactions have been primarily puzzlement over the negativity of the responses to my posts, and an ongoing sense of a duty to speak out when I see such words directed at others (such as chownah by way of just one example), and admittedly some annoyance when, at every turn, my attempts to start Dhamma discussions are met with recriminations against me personally. But in the end, I have deep and abiding respect for every person who posts here.

I understand some will be reactive, and I don't expect it to be otherwise, but I don't have to be appreciative of faithless reactivity either, nor do I need to pander to it, and I certainly won't be forced into silence by weaponized outrage.

Nor should you. However, "faithless reactivity" is the lens through which you may choose to see others. You cannot know whether (a) the other person is indeed reactive in the way you imagine, or (b) even if reactive, that such perceived reactivity is faithless. Can't you see how your interpretation might possibly color your own reactivity in a manner which is not fitting to the occasion?

I hope others aren't coerced into silence by such reactivity either, and feel free to speak their truth, as it comes to them.

I know that others have felt coerced into silence by the negativity directed at them when they speak their mind. It has never been my intention to coerce anybody into silence. Rather, it has been my intention to have communication about Right Speech, including the role of taking personal responsibility for the words one speaks/writes. Unfortunately, these efforts have variously been denounced as my "obsession," as my "fixation," as "meta-discussion," as "behavioral analysis," etc., all of which appears to me to be a method of avoiding any meaningful discussion of whether it is beneficial Dhamma practice to take personal responsibility for one's volitional actions/words.

[L.N.]

Are the suttas not clear enough?

"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."
— AN 5.198

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/ptf ... index.html

It appears that all parties involved?? have broken that rule!!

To be fair, this sutta sets a high standard for speech, one which I certainly fail to meet on occasion. Clearly the intention behind what we say is of pivotal importance - are we really trying to be helpful, or is it more about winning an argument, scoring points, trying to be right or sound clever, and so on?

This is an excellent point. In response to some of the personal recriminations and personal commentary, I try to give others the benefit of the doubt, but I don't always succeed.

Where my actions have caused suffering, may I be forgiven.

Where my actions conflict with those others would choose, may they understand.

Source.

[Cittasanto]

I shall point out what I have said before.
There are two arrows, it is the first one only the actor has control over. The other person can respond to events or shoot themselves with another arrow and react. Buddhist practice is about responding appropriately, not reacting.

Dy firrinagh focklagh
In Truth
Cittasanto