Right speech

[Radix]

Can you show anything hypocritical that I’ve said?

Like I said:

“People like me”???
Care to expand on this?

The operative term is pharisaic:

"emphasizing or observing the letter but not the spirit of religious law"

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... /pharisaic

[thepea]

Can you show anything hypocritical that I’ve said?

Like I said:

“People like me”???
Care to expand on this?

The operative term is pharisaic:

"emphasizing or observing the letter but not the spirit of religious law"

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... /pharisaic

What is the religious law I’ve broken?

[Radix]

What is the religious law I’ve broken?

Again:

pharisaic:

"emphasizing or observing the letter but not the spirit of religious law"

Probably one the most well-known stories about pharisaism is the one with rescuing sheep on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the day when one isn't supposed to work, and since rescuing a sheep is work, doing so on the Sabbath would be breaking the law.

"He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?"

https://biblehub.com/matthew/12-11.htm

The same phenomenon ob observing the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law can be observed elsewhere.

For example, Buddhists can this way justify smoking tobacco because tobacco is not on the official list of intoxicants. Or they interpret the precept against intoxication to mean it's not wrong to drink alcohol, it's just wrong to drink so much of it that one becomes drunk. Or the way one clever and fairly popular monk found a way to justify abortion.

Similary, the doctrines on kamma and equanimity can be read in a way that justifies aloofness toward other people, and a disregard for social bonds and civilized society.

Indeed, such a person might not have broken any laws, religious or secular, but they are, well, a jerk.

[cappuccino]

What is the religious law I’ve broken?

Don’t know, you said that you kill fish

[thepea]

What is the religious law I’ve broken?

Don’t know, you said that you kill fish

Yes, I kill fish for food.
What law does this break?

[thepea]

What is the religious law I’ve broken?

Again:

pharisaic:

"emphasizing or observing the letter but not the spirit of religious law"

Probably one the most well-known stories about pharisaism is the one with rescuing sheep on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the day when one isn't supposed to work, and since rescuing a sheep is work, doing so on the Sabbath would be breaking the law.

"He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?"

https://biblehub.com/matthew/12-11.htm

The same phenomenon ob observing the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law can be observed elsewhere.

For example, Buddhists can this way justify smoking tobacco because tobacco is not on the official list of intoxicants. Or they interpret the precept against intoxication to mean it's not wrong to drink alcohol, it's just wrong to drink so much of it that one becomes drunk. Or the way one clever and fairly popular monk found a way to justify abortion.

Similary, the doctrines on kamma and equanimity can be read in a way that justifies aloofness toward other people, and a disregard for social bonds and civilized society.

Indeed, such a person might not have broken any laws, religious or secular, but they are, well, a jerk.

Buddha gave the dhamma, this is not a law but a practice. The laws of nature/karma operate within. What you are describing are belief structures or religion. I am not religious. I am not buddhist. I simply observe this mind body phenomenon and have gained wisdom in that performing certain actions do not feel good and in fact cause me to feel bad. So I try to act in a way that feels morally correct. It allows me to sleep peacefully.

[cappuccino]

I kill fish for food. What law does this break?

Karmic safety is not necessarily compatible with normal life

[thepea]

I kill fish for food. What law does this break?

Karmic safety is not necessarily compatible with normal life

Freedom from fear is the final goal, karmic safety sounds a bit like hiding in fear.

[cappuccino]

Freedom from fear is the final goal, karmic safety sounds a bit like hiding in fear.

You should be afraid of hell

[Tl21G3lVl]

What is the religious law I’ve broken?

Just the law of karma that you might have to pay back in the next life or certain number of lifetimes, or however many rounds of samsara it could be.

[Sam Vara]

The topic is Right Speech, please.

[Spiny Norman]

Can speech hurt feelings?

Yes. So be mindful of what you say, and how you say it.

[thepea]

Can speech hurt feelings?

Yes. So be mindful of what you say, and how you say it.

But this requires your consent, correct?
Obviously I must be mindful of my speech and intention, but it’s your responsibility if you interpret sound waves as hurtful.

[SDC]

Can speech hurt feelings?

Yes. So be mindful of what you say, and how you say it.

But this requires your consent, correct?
Obviously I must be mindful of my speech and intention, but it’s your responsibility if you interpret sound waves as hurtful.

According to the Buddha there is factual harsh speech. How that is received depends on the listener, yes, but if the speaker has even a shred of wisdom they would know that certain words could be ill-received and would speak carefully. Indeed there was the one arahant who spoke down to the other monks, but those admonishments were likely well-suited for those monks even if they were not receptive to them. You, on the other hand, are attempting to bear zero responsibility either way, so it just seems as though your methods lack both wisdom and consideration. Too bad you don’t read the suttas or you would’ve known this.

[thepea]

Yes. So be mindful of what you say, and how you say it.

But this requires your consent, correct?
Obviously I must be mindful of my speech and intention, but it’s your responsibility if you interpret sound waves as hurtful.

According to the Buddha there is factual harsh speech. How that is received depends on the listener, yes, but if the speaker has even a shred of wisdom they would know that certain words could be ill-received and would speak carefully. Indeed there was the one arahant who spoke down to the other monks, but those admonishments were likely well-suited for those monks even if they were not receptive to them. You, on the other hand, are attempting to bear zero responsibility either way, so it just seems as though your methods lack both wisdom and consideration. Too bad you don’t read the suttas or you would’ve known this.

How am I trying to beat zero responsibility “both” ways?
I agree that one must be and is responsible for their own speech. Inversely I am equally responsible for my reaction to sound waves.
Only I know the intention behind my words, how they are reacted towards is ZERO % my responsibility if my intent is pure.