Right speech and clarity

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
Post Reply
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Right speech and clarity

Post by Bundokji »

Friends,

Is clarity anywhere included in right speech? If not, why not?

Can we equate svākkhāto (well spoken) with clarity?

In my line of inquiry, clarity implies that the listener is not at a complete mercy of the speaker, and that the speaker owes the listener not resorting to evasiveness.

What is the defining line between evasiveness and having a sense of the right time when it comes to right speech? assuming that in speech, it is not necessarily a one way traffic.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Right speech and clarity

Post by Radix »

Bundokji wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 10:04 amWhat is the defining line between evasiveness and having a sense of the right time when it comes to right speech?
The presence or absence of the speaker's goodwill.
assuming that in speech, it is not necessarily a one way traffic.
Since in most situations of human interaction, there is a power differential between the persons involved, communication is necessarily going to be one-way, with the person in position of more power by default being the one who is right, while the responsibility for the quality of the communication being the responsibility of the person with less power.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Right speech and clarity

Post by Bundokji »

Radix wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 6:03 pm The presence or absence of the speaker's goodwill.
Goodwill seems to be a reasonable defining line, except for someone who is uncertain and genuinely answers accordingly. Take the six heretical schools mentioned in DN2, where the last belongs to Sañjaya Belatthaputta. He is described as evasive, but how can we come to a conclusion that his evasiveness is driven by ill-will.

On the flip side of the coin, if someone claims certainty, then clear answers are to be expected. Goodwill does not have to translate into giving direct answers as with SN 44.10:
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"
While the above is driven by good will, it strips Vacchagotta from the chance to receive an answer and make up his own mind, so again, good will does not necessarily justify evasiveness.
Since in most situations of human interaction, there is a power differential between the persons involved, communication is necessarily going to be one-way, with the person in position of more power by default being the one who is right, while the responsibility for the quality of the communication being the responsibility of the person with less power.
There is something self-fulfilling about power differentials. For example, in the teacher-disciple relationship, the teacher can do all sort of strange things in order to trick the disciple into the elusive truth. Any incoherence or lack of clarity can be justified through this lens, such as using a child's language to teach. Being equal before the truth, while not overly emphasized, is encouraged. For example, scrutinizing the teachings is praised, or inspecting the teachers behavior is the duty of the disciple.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Right speech and clarity

Post by Goofaholix »

Evasiveness can be caused by different things, poor communication skills, lack of understanding, tiredness etc these aren't issues of morality. It becomes an issue of morality so a precept issue when the intention is to deceive.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Right speech and clarity

Post by Bundokji »

Goofaholix wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 10:06 pm Evasiveness can be caused by different things, poor communication skills, lack of understanding, tiredness etc these aren't issues of morality. It becomes an issue of morality so a precept issue when the intention is to deceive.
The intention to deceive has to do with the relationship between right speech and truthfulness, but there are other aspects to it.

Teaching the dhamma is considered the highest dana. Take a lower form of dana as an example or as a tool\ for reflection. Take the dana in terms of offering alms, where the donor can always be more generous:

One of my favorite suttas is AN5.44, where the roles are in reverse (the Buddha is on the receiving end) and where Ugga kept on progressively provide better offerings:

“The giver of the agreeable gets the agreeable, enthusiastically giving clothing, bedding, food and drink, and various requisites to those of upright conduct.
https://suttacentral.net/an5.44/en/suja ... ript=latin

It is strange, is it not, when the feeling that the Buddha could always have explained himself better persists, to the extent that he had to tell Ananda outright that he does not teach the dhamma with a closed fist. Either way, it is always the shortcoming of the listener, or is it not?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Right speech and clarity

Post by Bundokji »

The desirability of clarity in speech, especially to leaders and teachers of humanity, is not only relevant to Buddhism, but to other religions as well.

In Exodus 4:10, Moses asked his god:
Moses said to the LORD, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.”
I guess in the case of sammasambuddhas, the expected clarity is a result of practicing right speech as a Bodhisatta:

From DN30:
A Large Tongue and the Voice of Brahmā

“Mendicants, in some past lives the Realized One was reborn as a human being. He refrained from harsh speech. He spoke in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people. Due to performing those deeds he was reborn in a heavenly realm. When he came back to this state of existence he obtained these two marks: he has a large tongue, and the voice of Brahmā, like a cuckoo’s call.

Possessing these marks, if he stays at home he becomes a wheel-turning monarch. And what does he obtain as king? He has a persuasive voice. His words are persuasive to brahmins and householders, people of town and country, treasury officials, military officers, guardsmen, ministers, counselors, rulers, tax beneficiaries, and princes. That’s what he obtains as king. And what does he obtain as Buddha? He has a persuasive voice. His words are persuasive to monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen, gods, humans, demons, dragons, and centaurs. That’s what he obtains as Buddha.” The Buddha spoke this matter.

On this it is said:

“He never spoke a loud harsh word, insulting, quarrelsome, causing harm, rude, crushing the people. His speech was sweet, helpful, and courteous.

He uttered words dear to the mind, going to the heart, pleasing to the ear. He enjoyed the fruit of his good verbal conduct, experiencing the fruit of good deeds in heaven.

Having experienced that fruit, on his return to here he acquired the voice of Brahmā. His tongue was long and wide, and his speech was persuasive.

Even as householder his speech brings prosperity. But if that man goes forth, speaking often to the people, they’ll be persuaded by his fair words.”
One Hair Per Pore, and a Tuft

“Mendicants, in some past lives the Realized One was reborn as a human being. He refrained from lying. He spoke the truth and stuck to the truth. He was honest and trustworthy, and didn’t trick the world with his words. Due to performing those deeds he was reborn in a heavenly realm. When he came back to this state of existence he obtained these two marks: his hairs grow one per pore, and between his eyebrows there grows a tuft, soft and white like cotton-wool. One hair per pore, because his words of truth have only one meaning. Likewise, the tuft conveys purity and integrity.

Possessing these marks, if he stays at home he becomes a wheel-turning monarch. And what does he obtain as king? He has many close adherents among the brahmins and householders, people of town and country, treasury officials, military officers, guardsmen, ministers, counselors, rulers, tax beneficiaries, and princes. That’s what he obtains as king. And what does he obtain as Buddha? He has many close adherents among the monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen, gods, humans, demons, dragons, and centaurs. That’s what he obtains as Buddha.” The Buddha spoke this matter.

On this it is said:

“In past lives he was true to his promise, with no forked tongue, he shunned lies. He never broke his word to anyone, but spoke what was true, real, and factual.

A tuft so very white like cotton-wool grew prettily between his eyebrows. And never two, but only one, hair grew in each of his pores.

Many soothsayers learned in marks and expert in signs gathered and prophesied: ‘One like this, with tuft and hair so prominent, will have many as his close adherents.

Even as householder many people will follow him, due to the power of deeds in the past. But once gone forth, owning nothing, as Buddha the people will follow him.’”
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Dhammapardon
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon May 09, 2022 12:11 am

Re: Right speech and clarity

Post by Dhammapardon »

The Buddha sought to clearly comprehend and taught clear comprehension. Deception is a fool's game and using sutta to justify it is a fool's errand trapping one in samsara. Shame on a teacher for deceiving a student. Students come to teachers for clarity. Teachers who think they are the Buddha deceive others and cause much bad kamma for all.
Just as a bird, wherever it goes, flies with its wings as its only burden; so too is he content with a set of robes to provide for his body and almsfood to provide for his hunger. Wherever he goes, he takes only his barest necessities along. This is how a monk is content.(DN11)
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Right speech and clarity

Post by Bundokji »

Dhammapardon wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:59 pm The Buddha sought to clearly comprehend and taught clear comprehension. Deception is a fool's game and using sutta to justify it is a fool's errand trapping one in samsara. Shame on a teacher for deceiving a student. Students come to teachers for clarity. Teachers who think they are the Buddha deceive others and cause much bad kamma for all.
I think deception is inseparable from the concept of "truth" and how we perceive it. We, as ordinary people, when we find ourselves in a state of conflict, we refer to "vantage points" to clarify ourselves with the hope that the "other" would understand. This is why, getting out of our ways at times to explain ourselves can be a form of generosity in the sense that we do it with the intention of avoiding misunderstandings/confusions rather than encouraging a sense of entitlement in each other. The Buddha himself got out of his way, or against his inclination not to teach.

The problem is that the Buddha's vantage point (if any) is unclear, even if his verbal descriptions are assumed to be accurate. As such, our relationship with him can easily turn into role playing of some sort (he is the teacher and we are the disciples) and whatever we do not understand has to be due to our shortcomings.

Also the fact that there can be only one sammasambuddha in a solar system turns clear descriptions of the highest truths into a monopoly of some sort - belonging to one person. Imagine samsara to be some kind of a matrix. where only one person in many generations figured the way out, and only he and no one else can describe it. Also in the matrix there is a gatekeeper (Mara) who has control over many things, and yet, allowed the utterances of the master to remain public, probably knowing that only a few can understand it (to his disappointment). Talking about clarity, i wonder where the problem lies, and why clarity is not an explicit component in right speech.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Right speech and clarity

Post by Radix »

Bundokji wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 8:49 pmThe problem is that the Buddha's vantage point (if any) is unclear, even if his verbal descriptions are assumed to be accurate. As such, our relationship with him can easily turn into role playing of some sort (he is the teacher and we are the disciples) and whatever we do not understand has to be due to our shortcomings.
Approaching Buddhism as a religion settles all this, clears it up.
Also the fact that there can be only one sammasambuddha in a solar system turns clear descriptions of the highest truths into a monopoly of some sort - belonging to one person. Imagine samsara to be some kind of a matrix. where only one person in many generations figured the way out, and only he and no one else can describe it. Also in the matrix there is a gatekeeper (Mara) who has control over many things, and yet, allowed the utterances of the master to remain public, probably knowing that only a few can understand it (to his disappointment). Talking about clarity, i wonder where the problem lies, and why clarity is not an explicit component in right speech.
The problem is when one approaches Buddhism as if Buddhism were some kind of free-for-all, do-with-it-what-you-like kind of thing, a philosophy, and not a religion.
Talking about clarity, i wonder where the problem lies, and why clarity is not an explicit component in right speech.
If one sees oneself as an subordinate (as is the norm in religion), one doesn't see oneself as the authority on deciding whether some statement made by one's superiors is "clear" or not.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Post Reply