Right speech

[Dhamma Chameleon]

According to dependent origination, from the base of contact arises feeling. My actions and speech are the name-and-form that create the contact so that is my kammic result (as per the intention behind it). The fact that feeling arises in the other is due to my handling. If I hadn't done that, the feeling would not have arisen in the other.

The way the receiver reacts and forms their own thoughts, speech and actions is their kamma.

[thepea]

Even if speaker talks with ill-will, contempt, viciousness or vengeance, he is not part of the cause of listeners' hurt.

Condition for hurt, is feeling, condition for feeling is phassa, phassa for perception. so on.

All hurt comes from inside, has nothing to do with who is talking.

We must stop looking at others or external environments for origin of our hurt feelings. It is all within oneself.

Because of this, liberation is possible. If others can influence our feelings, there is no possibility for liberation.

How would that process differ for physical pain, as opposed to hurt feelings?

I don't want to go off-topic, but I'm wondering if this only applies to speech.

Environment causes sensation, if I yell loud in your ear or use an air horn I can cause you physical harm. Similarly if one eats hot pepper they feel heat.
But my speech cannot effect you unless you react to it with aversion or craving.
The intent would be my volition which is my personal responsibility nothing to do with others.

Jack is correct.

[thepea]

The practice is looking in at oneself/past selves(sankharas). Yes metta is at heart the entirety of the practice, but again this is done looking inward and focussing on what is happening in the present moment.
Then as a mere by-product of this practice of treating oneself with kindness we then outwardly treat others similarly.

That might be "a practice", but it's not what the sutta says, is it?

Of course it is, you just choose to interpret this as treating others looking outwardly opposed to simplifying the practice to a 100% internal personal journey.

[thepea]

According to dependent origination, from the base of contact arises feeling. My actions and speech are the name-and-form that create the contact so that is my kammic result (as per the intention behind it). The fact that feeling arises in the other is due to my handling. If I hadn't done that, the feeling would not have arisen in the other.

The way the receiver reacts and forms their own thoughts, speech and actions is their kamma.

We occupy space in time, and nobody else can occupy this space in this time. Speech(sound) or silence(no sound) are wavelets or lack of wavelets, these cannot harm anyone.
Hence the old adage “sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me.” It is the fear instilled in man for not obeying words that causes coercive consent.
Forced suffering, this is the physical repercussion of non compliance. Remove this and liberation.
This is the mind.

[Sam Vara]

Even if speaker talks with ill-will, contempt, viciousness or vengeance, he is not part of the cause of listeners' hurt.

Condition for hurt, is feeling, condition for feeling is phassa, phassa for perception. so on.

All hurt comes from inside, has nothing to do with who is talking.

We must stop looking at others or external environments for origin of our hurt feelings. It is all within oneself.

Because of this, liberation is possible. If others can influence our feelings, there is no possibility for liberation.

How would that process differ for physical pain, as opposed to hurt feelings?

I don't want to go off-topic, but I'm wondering if this only applies to speech.

Environment causes sensation, if I yell loud in your ear or use an air horn I can cause you physical harm. Similarly if one eats hot pepper they feel heat.
But my speech cannot effect you unless you react to it with aversion or craving.
The intent would be my volition which is my personal responsibility nothing to do with others.

Jack is correct.

Jack's point is that "all hurt comes from inside, has nothing to do with who is talking. We must stop looking at others or external environments for origins of our hurt feelings". I take this to mean that, in the case of speech, words in themselves cannot hurt the listener; the listener must interpret the words to mean something which they find unfavourable, or make some sort of mental construct out of them which gives rise to unpleasant mental feeling. Words are mere patterns of sound-waves or pixels or symbols on paper, which require active attribution of meaning. A person cursing or abusing in a foreign language will have no effect upon the reader, or the listener if done in a neutral tone.

My question is whether Jack thinks "all hurt comes from inside" and "if others can influence our feelings, there is no possibility for liberation" in the case of vedana caused by physical injury.

[Sam Vara]

The practice is looking in at oneself/past selves(sankharas). Yes metta is at heart the entirety of the practice, but again this is done looking inward and focussing on what is happening in the present moment.
Then as a mere by-product of this practice of treating oneself with kindness we then outwardly treat others similarly.

That might be "a practice", but it's not what the sutta says, is it?

Of course it is, you just choose to interpret this as treating others looking outwardly opposed to simplifying the practice to a 100% internal personal journey.

But the sutta is just as clear that by caring for others one looks after oneself, as it is that by-self-caring one looks after others. I'm not saying that the two are opposed; merely that they are both there, equally weighted, and that ignoring one of them one has "a practice" which is not based on the full teaching. I choose to look at the whole teaching, with the assumption that there is a good reason for it being spoken and recorded in this way.

[Spiny Norman]

Of course it is, you just choose to interpret this as treating others looking outwardly opposed to simplifying the practice to a 100% internal personal journey.

You seem to be overlooking the path factor of Right Intention.

[Sam Vara]

Of course it is, you just choose to interpret this as treating others looking outwardly opposed to simplifying the practice to a 100% internal personal journey.

You seem to be overlooking the path factor of Right Intention.

I agree, but I suspect that renunciation, good will and harmlessness can be construed as pertaining only to ourselves.

[Spiny Norman]

Of course it is, you just choose to interpret this as treating others looking outwardly opposed to simplifying the practice to a 100% internal personal journey.

You seem to be overlooking the path factor of Right Intention.

I agree, but I suspect that renunciation, good will and harmlessness can be construed as pertaining only to ourselves.

I suppose so, but that would be a rather narcissistic way of looking at it.

[Sam Vara]

You seem to be overlooking the path factor of Right Intention.

I agree, but I suspect that renunciation, good will and harmlessness can be construed as pertaining only to ourselves.

I suppose so, but that would be a rather narcissistic way of looking at it.

Absolutely, but I think that's going to be the response...

[Jack19990101]

How would that process differ for physical pain, as opposed to hurt feelings?

I don't want to go off-topic, but I'm wondering if this only applies to speech.

It is the same pertaining 'physical' pain.

Pain/sickness has already arisen when we are born. The manner to deliver the pain, is of no significance. A leg broken by a mugger or by an accidental fall, both is from same condition - birth.

As to kindness - that is the training of heart, not domain of action/speech. Even without anybody around, ones heart is to be soft, free of ill-will, anger, vengeance.

The training on action/speech, is sila - which doesn't require one of metta, it simply requires discipline.

[thepea]

How would that process differ for physical pain, as opposed to hurt feelings?

I don't want to go off-topic, but I'm wondering if this only applies to speech.

Environment causes sensation, if I yell loud in your ear or use an air horn I can cause you physical harm. Similarly if one eats hot pepper they feel heat.
But my speech cannot effect you unless you react to it with aversion or craving.
The intent would be my volition which is my personal responsibility nothing to do with others.

Jack is correct.

Jack's point is that "all hurt comes from inside, has nothing to do with who is talking. We must stop looking at others or external environments for origins of our hurt feelings". I take this to mean that, in the case of speech, words in themselves cannot hurt the listener; the listener must interpret the words to mean something which they find unfavourable, or make some sort of mental construct out of them which gives rise to unpleasant mental feeling. Words are mere patterns of sound-waves or pixels or symbols on paper, which require active attribution of meaning. A person cursing or abusing in a foreign language will have no effect upon the reader, or the listener if done in a neutral tone.

My question is whether Jack thinks "all hurt comes from inside" and "if others can influence our feelings, there is no possibility for liberation" in the case of vedana caused by physical injury.

But we are not seeking liberation from external physical sensations. We don’t train 8-fold path so you can avoid back pain. It’s merely the added mental pain we seek to liberate from.
In alignment with this the speech of another triggers no added mental pain to the properly trained mind. Proving that speech has no effect unless you consent to this.

[thepea]

That might be "a practice", but it's not what the sutta says, is it?

Of course it is, you just choose to interpret this as treating others looking outwardly opposed to simplifying the practice to a 100% internal personal journey.

But the sutta is just as clear that by caring for others one looks after oneself, as it is that by-self-caring one looks after others. I'm not saying that the two are opposed; merely that they are both there, equally weighted, and that ignoring one of them one has "a practice" which is not based on the full teaching. I choose to look at the whole teaching, with the assumption that there is a good reason for it being spoken and recorded in this way.

The caring for others is sankaras(past life regressions or past lives). The practice is a selfish one as stated earlier, your neighbour or co-worker are not required for your liberation all you need is within.

[thepea]

Of course it is, you just choose to interpret this as treating others looking outwardly opposed to simplifying the practice to a 100% internal personal journey.

You seem to be overlooking the path factor of Right Intention.

Not at all. I’ve previously mentioned that ones volition can only be truly known by their self and what others interpret of my speech is may not be a reflection of my volition.
Free speech is a freedom that is necessary for the eightfold path. But it comes with kamma(cause and effect). By the wisdom of our kamma do we learn to come out of suffering.

[Spiny Norman]

Of course it is, you just choose to interpret this as treating others looking outwardly opposed to simplifying the practice to a 100% internal personal journey.

You seem to be overlooking the path factor of Right Intention.

Not at all. I’ve previously mentioned that ones volition can only be truly known by their self and what others interpret of my speech is may not be a reflection of my volition.
Free speech is a freedom that is necessary for the eightfold path. But it comes with kamma(cause and effect). By the wisdom of our kamma do we learn to come out of suffering.

So what does developing harmlesness mean to you?