Right speech

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by thepea »

asahi wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:29 am
thepea wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:34 am
asahi wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:40 am Is being selfish and concern of ourself is the same .
As cap mentioned it’s a paradox.
They are both sin(craving or fear of loss).

I think not exactly the same .




Screenshot_20221004-192839_Chrome.jpg

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

Screenshot_20221004-192704_Chrome.jpg
What I’m saying is the N8FP is a selfish journey.
To be concerned with ones self and look deeply for this self/at this self. In the end this is a paradox. Is there a self?
This was never answered by buddha as it’s a paradox.
Similarly right speech is a selfish practice. It is linked with right thought, but I think we all must be brutally honest with our own thoughts and get off the moral high horse.
You can externally mask your true personality, we see this mask clearly. You can mask your speech but you will not progress one step on the path masking. You must take the mask off and be truthful and expose oneself to the fear(sin).
Looking deeply at sin is like trying to penetrate a solid wall but eventually the stones move and you can penetrate. This is the connection to source consciousness, with this connection you can play(interact) with others. You can say whatever feels right as you are connected and feel when you are experiencing stress.
For the disconnected masking your speech becomes ritualistic/habitual. The thoughts however are the tell and these thoughts manifest physically as disease.
Last edited by thepea on Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by SDC »

thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:35 pm
SDC wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:19 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:42 pm If we are practicing dhamma then we are aware of feelings, emotions, thoughts arising, the entire time we are conversing.
When you speak and nobody agrees with you and that feeling arises, this is most commonly aversion. And when you speak and you get thumbs up the feeling that usually arises is craving. The news flash is that you created both of these through your reactions to sensory perception. This is 100% your responsibility as is the associated kamma.
Just because you are aware of those things does not imply you’re using that attention beneficially. Especially if you are using them as a gauge for what “feels good” (or not), you would be using that attention to identify why is unwanted. You should read some suttas about “delight” because that is exactly the criteria you operate according to. As usual, you seem to be describing an ordinary world view.
I see you as the one describing an ordinary collective view vs swimming against the current. You seem to have a go with the flow attitude. Whatever the worldly view is you parrot that.
You seem to be disconnected to the teacher within which teaches through mental suffering. If it feels good why not keep doing it? This is not simply the physical indulgence but a combination of both mental and physical faculties.
If giving to others feels good then do this. If taking drugs feels good but then after the high you don’t like the low, then strive to get off the rollercoaster and seek out level ground.
If I speak my mind and it feels good but then afterwords I feel bad after reflecting on what I’ve said then same rules apply, get off the rollercoaster.

We are each responsible for our own carnival experience, I cannot force you onto the rollercoaster without your active consent.
Again, your criteria for what constitutes right speech isn’t aligned with that described by the Buddha. Although, it is good that you can at least reflect back on your regretful speech - that is the building up virtue. The next time around you may have a prompt to restrain and not say what you would regret later.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by asahi »

thepea wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:35 am What I’m saying is the N8FP is a selfish journey. To be concerned with ones self and look deeply for this self/at this self. In the end this is a paradox. Is there a self?
This was never answered by buddha as it’s a paradox. Similarly right speech is a selfish practice. It
Selfishness has two fold :
1. Is concerned mainly with one's own personal profit .
2. Is lacking consideration for other people .


N8FP are a path for individual whom aspire to strive for liberation , that is not selfishness . Whereas the concept of self is different thing . Self or Atman is something permanent .
No bashing No gossiping
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by thepea »

SDC wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:31 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:35 pm
SDC wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:19 pm

Just because you are aware of those things does not imply you’re using that attention beneficially. Especially if you are using them as a gauge for what “feels good” (or not), you would be using that attention to identify why is unwanted. You should read some suttas about “delight” because that is exactly the criteria you operate according to. As usual, you seem to be describing an ordinary world view.
I see you as the one describing an ordinary collective view vs swimming against the current. You seem to have a go with the flow attitude. Whatever the worldly view is you parrot that.
You seem to be disconnected to the teacher within which teaches through mental suffering. If it feels good why not keep doing it? This is not simply the physical indulgence but a combination of both mental and physical faculties.
If giving to others feels good then do this. If taking drugs feels good but then after the high you don’t like the low, then strive to get off the rollercoaster and seek out level ground.
If I speak my mind and it feels good but then afterwords I feel bad after reflecting on what I’ve said then same rules apply, get off the rollercoaster.

We are each responsible for our own carnival experience, I cannot force you onto the rollercoaster without your active consent.
Again, your criteria for what constitutes right speech isn’t aligned with that described by the Buddha. Although, it is good that you can at least reflect back on your regretful speech - that is the building up virtue. The next time around you may have a prompt to restrain and not say what you would regret later.
Wisdom will notify me of speech that has come from unwholesome place. Wisdom will also eradicate this in time.
Restraint without connection to the teacher is mere ritual.
We must learn through practice.
When learning a new skill do you restrain yourself from making a mistake?
When teaching others a skill do you restrain them if they make mistakes?
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by thepea »

asahi wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:38 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:35 am What I’m saying is the N8FP is a selfish journey. To be concerned with ones self and look deeply for this self/at this self. In the end this is a paradox. Is there a self?
This was never answered by buddha as it’s a paradox. Similarly right speech is a selfish practice. It
Selfishness has two fold :
1. Is concerned mainly with one's own personal profit .
2. Is lacking consideration for other people .


N8FP are a path for individual whom aspire to strive for liberation , that is not selfishness . Whereas the concept of self is different thing . Self or Atman is something permanent .
So then speech that only mentions ones personal benefit is wrong, and also if it’s lacking consideration for others.

So calling police when your house is being robbed is a no no?
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by asahi »

thepea wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:46 pm So then speech that only mentions ones personal benefit is wrong, and also if it’s lacking consideration for others.
You may want to check out if the speech are suitable .
thepea wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:46 pm So calling police when your house is being robbed is a no no?
Calling 911 that is okay no one will blame you .
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by Radix »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:34 pm It says pleasant conversation, but you call it polite chit chat. I wonder how you know?


Because "After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies" is a standard phrase. ("Polite chit chat" is a synonym.) First they have an "exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies", and after that they get down to the business of lecturing and being lectured.

Here the passages in question again:
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:39 pm
Radix wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:09 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:10 pm Who says buddha had a sense of his audience?
As a monastic he couldn’t sell tickets to a receptive audience. I think it’s more like he spoke his truth and those drawn to his words stayed and those opposed left.
I agree. Even when he talked with people, those weren't conversations, but lectures, sometimes in the way of the Socratic method (so they have merely the appearance of a conversation).
That doesn't seem to be the case at all:
Then a certain brahman approached the Blessed One. Having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them...
Many suttas say something similar.
The "pleasant conversation" part refers to the "exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies", ie. the introduction to their conversation, not to their actual handling of a Dhamma topic.
And Charles defers to his gillie, groom, tailor, security staff and Welsh Language tutor when he needs to. They have as little to tell him about being a king, though, as the Buddha's associates had to tell him about enlightenment.

Exactly, hence they cannot have a conversation about the Dhamma on equal terms.
2. Sure, the Buddha sat and talked with kings and brahmans, and the occasional bigmouth sadhu gone rogue. But mostly the folks of poorer background quietly stood at a polite distance from the Buddha while he talked.
Evidence? The suttas generally have devas standing to one side, and humans seated to one side. To stand while he was talking would have been considered disrespectful. You might well be right, but where are your sources?
My point is about whom the Buddha actually talked with, and whom he didn't, who just quietly listened from a polite distance. (All the keywords I can remember are too common and give too many results.)

As for who got to stand while the Buddha was talking, just search ATI for "stood to one side": it's devas and humans.
As for the etiquette of sitting and standing: it can be both ways. Where I come from, it's rude for an underling to sit down without asking for permission to do so. Often, a power relationship is expressed in the way that the one with more power sits, and the one with less power has to stand. But also, the power relationship can also be expressed by the underling having to sit and the superior standing or walking around the room.
3. There is an etiquette for talking to monks and one's seniors, and this etiquette makes it impossible to have a conversation on equal terms. If you don't respect this etiquette, your seniors will do it for you.
Let's test this one against reality, shall we? I offered you, in your previous incarnation, a zoom meeting with monks and lay supporters where you could ask them questions and discuss things. Easily arranged, as the time difference is not important. I could watch or participate, and we would see if anyone imposed an "etiquette" such as you describe.
Look, I'm not being critical of the monks here. Even though you seem to think I am. I've always advocated for a clear segregation between lays and monastics and for other forms of segregation between lays. I think it would go a long way in saving all involved a lot of time and grief if the unfit aspirants would be eliminated early on.
After I made the offer, you disappeared from the forum for a few months; but the offer is still there, and the Zoom is even better.
1. You overestimate yourself if you think there is a causal relationship between your "offer" and my actions. A monk sent me an invite to a Discourse thingy that is per invite only, and I didn't go there either.

2. I didn't have a computer camera and microphone then and I don't have them now, and have no intention of buying them.

3. "A few months"?

4. I have long since lost all hope of ever having a meaningful conversation on the topic of Dhamma with a Buddhist monk or advanced lay practitioner. It's just gone. I used to be sad about it, but now it's just a plain fact. They are nothing to me, I am nothing to them.

If 20+ years ago I knew what I know now, I would have never gotten involved with Buddhism in any way. If I could somehow put all my knowledge of Buddhism and all my memories of it on a pile and burn it, so that it would all be gone from my mind, I would do it without hesitation. It has taken me a long time to understand that I just don't have what it takes. I think it would be nice if Buddhists would be more explicit about the requirements for practicing Buddhism. But alas, it's their religion and they can, of course, do with it as they please. It's just hard for me to let go, given all the time and effort and money I invested, and I still haven't forgotten my initial optimism about the Dhamma being the solution to the problem of suffering.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by thepea »

asahi wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:38 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:46 pm So then speech that only mentions ones personal benefit is wrong, and also if it’s lacking consideration for others.
You may want to check out if the speech are suitable .
thepea wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:46 pm So calling police when your house is being robbed is a no no?
Calling 911 that is okay no one will blame you .
So the consequence comes from external?
Others will judge me?
The higher my approval rating the closer to Nibbana I am?
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by Radix »

thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:33 pm Discussing baking a loaf of bread. Is this adhamma? Are we not to practice dhamma 24/7 and if practicing isn’t any conversation a dhamma practice? Observing ones emotions/thoughts/feelings, as everyday occurs.
That sounds like Goenka practice.

Oh, the many kinds of bestial topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Right speech

Post by Sam Vara »

Radix wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:05 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:34 pm It says pleasant conversation, but you call it polite chit chat. I wonder how you know?


Because "After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies" is a standard phrase. ("Polite chit chat" is a synonym.) First they have an "exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies", and after that they get down to the business of lecturing and being lectured.

Here the passages in question again:
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:39 pm
Radix wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:09 pm

I agree. Even when he talked with people, those weren't conversations, but lectures, sometimes in the way of the Socratic method (so they have merely the appearance of a conversation).
That doesn't seem to be the case at all:
Then a certain brahman approached the Blessed One. Having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them...
Many suttas say something similar.
The "pleasant conversation" part refers to the "exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies", ie. the introduction to their conversation, not to their actual handling of a Dhamma topic.
And Charles defers to his gillie, groom, tailor, security staff and Welsh Language tutor when he needs to. They have as little to tell him about being a king, though, as the Buddha's associates had to tell him about enlightenment.

Exactly, hence they cannot have a conversation about the Dhamma on equal terms.
2. Sure, the Buddha sat and talked with kings and brahmans, and the occasional bigmouth sadhu gone rogue. But mostly the folks of poorer background quietly stood at a polite distance from the Buddha while he talked.
Evidence? The suttas generally have devas standing to one side, and humans seated to one side. To stand while he was talking would have been considered disrespectful. You might well be right, but where are your sources?
My point is about whom the Buddha actually talked with, and whom he didn't, who just quietly listened from a polite distance. (All the keywords I can remember are too common and give too many results.)

As for who got to stand while the Buddha was talking, just search ATI for "stood to one side": it's devas and humans.
As for the etiquette of sitting and standing: it can be both ways. Where I come from, it's rude for an underling to sit down without asking for permission to do so. Often, a power relationship is expressed in the way that the one with more power sits, and the one with less power has to stand. But also, the power relationship can also be expressed by the underling having to sit and the superior standing or walking around the room.
3. There is an etiquette for talking to monks and one's seniors, and this etiquette makes it impossible to have a conversation on equal terms. If you don't respect this etiquette, your seniors will do it for you.
Let's test this one against reality, shall we? I offered you, in your previous incarnation, a zoom meeting with monks and lay supporters where you could ask them questions and discuss things. Easily arranged, as the time difference is not important. I could watch or participate, and we would see if anyone imposed an "etiquette" such as you describe.
Look, I'm not being critical of the monks here. Even though you seem to think I am. I've always advocated for a clear segregation between lays and monastics and for other forms of segregation between lays. I think it would go a long way in saving all involved a lot of time and grief if the unfit aspirants would be eliminated early on.
After I made the offer, you disappeared from the forum for a few months; but the offer is still there, and the Zoom is even better.
1. You overestimate yourself if you think there is a causal relationship between your "offer" and my actions. A monk sent me an invite to a Discourse thingy that is per invite only, and I didn't go there either.

2. I didn't have a computer camera and microphone then and I don't have them now, and have no intention of buying them.

3. "A few months"?

4. I have long since lost all hope of ever having a meaningful conversation on the topic of Dhamma with a Buddhist monk or advanced lay practitioner. It's just gone. I used to be sad about it, but now it's just a plain fact. They are nothing to me, I am nothing to them.

If 20+ years ago I knew what I know now, I would have never gotten involved with Buddhism in any way. If I could somehow put all my knowledge of Buddhism and all my memories of it on a pile and burn it, so that it would all be gone from my mind, I would do it without hesitation. It has taken me a long time to understand that I just don't have what it takes. I think it would be nice if Buddhists would be more explicit about the requirements for practicing Buddhism. But alas, it's their religion and they can, of course, do with it as they please. It's just hard for me to let go, given all the time and effort and money I invested, and I still haven't forgotten my initial optimism about the Dhamma being the solution to the problem of suffering.
The best I can offer you (and I do wish you all the best!) is to reflect on the fact that you seem to be blocked from a helpful engagement with the Dhamma by your ideas about status and power. People go the Buddha for refuge - and that's quite a powerful thing - because they consider him to have been an enlightened being. Uniquely, "one who knows things as they are has come into this world". And generally speaking they seek out monastics because, as practitioners, their insights are seen to be valuable in lots of different ways.

If you think those things, it is actually sensible to allow the Buddha to speak through suttas without getting side-tracked by the reported behaviour of his contemporaries. And to be respectful around monks and ask your "big questions" relating to the ending of suffering and the path thereunto. But if you are stuck at objecting to the level of deference they receive, then what is the point in engaging with them at all? If there was a genuine belief that they could solve that problem of suffering, how much of other people's shitty behaviour would you be prepared to overlook?

The desire to be free from suffering comes first. Without that, you are just providing an object lesson in the fallacy of sunk costs.

But good luck with it anyway. Even if you don't benefit, I'm grateful for your being here because others might learn something. And you might pick up something which you later find to be valuable. :anjali: :heart:
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by Radix »

thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:43 pm What do you mean talking to walls?
If there is a response then this is conversation, isn’t it?
If you say "Jump!" and the other person responds with "How high?", then that's not really a conversation, is it?
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by thepea »

Radix wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:52 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:43 pm What do you mean talking to walls?
If there is a response then this is conversation, isn’t it?
If you say "Jump!" and the other person responds with "How high?", then that's not really a conversation, is it?
Conversation/verbal contracting, what’s the difference?
That is an example of an order, a verbal contract between employer and employee. There must be consent to contract.
Now if this is diene free from coercion than it is a contract or conversation. If done under duress then this is trespass.
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by Radix »

KathyLauren wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:54 pm
Radix wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:34 pm
KathyLauren wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:56 pm Responsibility is cause.
But that is terrible then, to think of one's mental states as being at the mercy of others.
Indeed. Samsara is terrible. Hence the teachings on how to get out of it.
But certainly not by believing that one's mental states are at the mercy of others.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by Radix »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:50 pmBut if you are stuck at objecting to the level of deference they receive, then what is the point in engaging with them at all?
The epistemic and ethically normative implication of deference is the act of taking for granted that what the person deferred to says is true. One cannot bow to someone or kneel before them without epistemically and ethically submitting to that person. Unless, of course, one is very "civilized and cultured" and has mastered the art of pretense; or else, if one is some kind of zombie and can just go through the motions.
If there was a genuine belief that they could solve that problem of suffering, how much of other people's shitty behaviour would you be prepared to overlook?
Again and yet again, what you call "shitty" behavior, I don't think it's a bug, I think it's a feature.
Even if you don't benefit, I'm grateful for your being here because others might learn something.
Always great to be an object lesson!
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Right speech

Post by Sam Vara »

Radix wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:49 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:50 pmBut if you are stuck at objecting to the level of deference they receive, then what is the point in engaging with them at all?
The epistemic and ethically normative implication of deference is the act of taking for granted that what the person deferred to says is true. One cannot bow to someone or kneel before them without epistemically and ethically submitting to that person. Unless, of course, one is very "civilized and cultured" and has mastered the art of pretense; or else, if one is some kind of zombie and can just go through the motions.
If you don't think what the objects of deference and veneration say is true, then why hang around them, making comments from the side-lines? Why not just ignore the deferential religious power-crazed weirdos?
Again and yet again, what you call "shitty" behavior, I don't think it's a bug, I think it's a feature.
You might well be right. It might be that one has to deal with a fair bit of it in order to attain that liberation that you claim to be interested in.
Post Reply