Right speech

[thepea]

But you are not judge and jury of my volition. Only I am judge and jury of the volition of my words. I can best illustrate this with the freedom of speech’s most powerful aspect, silence. Silence must be included in right speech.
Just as an example, not to get into political discussion of Covid, I have gone out shopping and kept silent regarding masks or vaccine status, just as I’ve done for my entire life. I haven’t changed but the atmosphere seems to have changed. I’ve witnessed a variety of responses from bewilderment-to extreme anger without saying a word.
Can my silence be harmful to others, if I e taken a vow of silence for ten days or more in my laylife, can my silence going about day to day activities be harmful? Am I responsible for the reactions of others?

Sorry, I have no idea what point you are trying to make, or how it might or might not relate to what I said. I am not judging you. I am only explaining how kamma works.

Kathy

I’m saying that you cannot know the volition behind others words, only your own. You can assume what others are feeling from past experiences but we really never know the quality of their minds.
My other point is remaining silent(say taking a vow) for ten or more days in laylife. I’ve done this during Covid and gotten some very extreme reactions. Is my silence wrong speech?

[thepea]

It depends on what you mean by "free". Your desires might exceed some people's expectations, so you cannot assume that you have their permission to speak about anything you desire. It's very easy to check this out, though; polite and caring people do it all the time.



This doesn't make much sense as it stands, due to the imprecision involved in saying something is "on" someone. If you mean the kammic consequences, there are bad consequences attendant upon saying something just to offend them. Less so, if you have chosen the correct time and are speaking the truth with goodwill, but you still believe they might be offended.

If you mean that the causes or conditions for the offence felt by the listener are entirely to do with the listener, then this is clearly not the case. It is necessary that you or someone else speaks for the listener to be offended in that way. You would be part of the causes and conditions.

What you seem to be suggesting is that I bear some responsibility for your reaction.

I don't think that the Buddha had a concept of "responsibility", as we think of it today. The two concepts I was referring to are kamma, and causality. If you act intentionally, there will be a kammic result. If you intend to offend someone simply because it gives you pleasure to think of the person being offended, then there will be a kammic result or vipaka. If you unintentionally offend someone, however, there is no such result.

With regard to causality, if you interact with a person and they are offended by that interaction, then clearly your action was the cause, and their feeling of being offended was the effect of what you did. This is the case irrespective of your intention.

You are confusing this Sam, you are correct about ones intention relating to their own kamma, but it’s the responsibility of the individual to manage their own emotions, regardless of the speech or lack of speech. Its when this leads to trespass of property where the offence takes place.
If words were never followed by a physical force, then freedom of choice would have no consequence. We would create no kamma. The black man told not to eat in the white mans restaurant could choose without consequence of his choice. He could ignore it if he chose not to consent.
Suffering is consent.
Noble truths:

There is consent.
There is a cause of consent.
There is an end to consent.
The way out is the eightfold path

[Sam Vara]

What you seem to be suggesting is that I bear some responsibility for your reaction.

I don't think that the Buddha had a concept of "responsibility", as we think of it today. The two concepts I was referring to are kamma, and causality. If you act intentionally, there will be a kammic result. If you intend to offend someone simply because it gives you pleasure to think of the person being offended, then there will be a kammic result or vipaka. If you unintentionally offend someone, however, there is no such result.

With regard to causality, if you interact with a person and they are offended by that interaction, then clearly your action was the cause, and their feeling of being offended was the effect of what you did. This is the case irrespective of your intention.

You are confusing this Sam, you are correct about ones intention relating to their own kamma, but it’s the responsibility of the individual to manage their own emotions, regardless of the speech or lack of speech.

What terms or concepts do you think I am confusing? I have been talking about kamma and causality, and have been very careful to differentiate them. I have expressed no opinion on the "responsibility" of an individual to manage their own emotions. I find it extremely beneficial to manage my own emotions, but don't see this as a "responsibility" that others have, if by that you mean that others are under some kind of obligation to manage their own emotions. Who put them under that obligation? Who made them responsible?

I think this issue is addressed by the Sedaka Sutta:

Just like the assistant Medakathalika said to her master:
"I will look after myself,"
so should you, monks, practice the establishment of mindfulness.
You should (also) practice the establishment of mindfulness (by saying)
"I will look after others."

Looking after oneself, one looks after others.
Looking after others, one looks after oneself.

And how does one look after others by looking after oneself?
By practicing (mindfulness), by developing (it), by doing (it) a lot.
And how does one look after oneself by looking after others?
By patience, by non-harming, by loving kindness, by caring (for others).
(Thus) looking after oneself, one looks after others;
and looking after others, one looks after oneself.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .olen.html

[KathyLauren]

I’m saying that you cannot know the volition behind others words, only your own. You can assume what others are feeling from past experiences but we really never know the quality of their minds.
My other point is remaining silent(say taking a vow) for ten or more days in laylife. I’ve done this during Covid and gotten some very extreme reactions. Is my silence wrong speech?

That we cannot know someone else's volition is not exactly a stop-the-presses kind of announcement. We all know this. (Though sometimes, we can make a pretty good guess.)

How would I have anything to say about your silence? As you said, I cannot know your motivation, and you have not given enough information to take a guess. That story has little relevance to the discussion.

When speaking (or staying silent), a person's motivation might be to cause harm. That would be wrong speech. Their motivation might be to reduce harm. That would be right speech.

Or they might not care about how their words are taken. That appears to be the point you are trying to make. You advocate non-caring as though it were a virtue. Non-caring seems to me (and this is just my opinion) to be a form of contempt. If it is indeed so, then it would be wrong speech. If it is not contemptuous, then it suggests an extreme detachment that may be appropriate for a hermit, but not for someone living among lay people.

Kathy

[Jack19990101]

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.

[thepea]

I don't think that the Buddha had a concept of "responsibility", as we think of it today. The two concepts I was referring to are kamma, and causality. If you act intentionally, there will be a kammic result. If you intend to offend someone simply because it gives you pleasure to think of the person being offended, then there will be a kammic result or vipaka. If you unintentionally offend someone, however, there is no such result.

With regard to causality, if you interact with a person and they are offended by that interaction, then clearly your action was the cause, and their feeling of being offended was the effect of what you did. This is the case irrespective of your intention.

You are confusing this Sam, you are correct about ones intention relating to their own kamma, but it’s the responsibility of the individual to manage their own emotions, regardless of the speech or lack of speech.

What terms or concepts do you think I am confusing? I have been talking about kamma and causality, and have been very careful to differentiate them. I have expressed no opinion on the "responsibility" of an individual to manage their own emotions. I find it extremely beneficial to manage my own emotions, but don't see this as a "responsibility" that others have, if by that you mean that others are under some kind of obligation to manage their own emotions. Who put them under that obligation? Who made them responsible?

I think this issue is addressed by the Sedaka Sutta:

Just like the assistant Medakathalika said to her master:
"I will look after myself,"
so should you, monks, practice the establishment of mindfulness.
You should (also) practice the establishment of mindfulness (by saying)
"I will look after others."

Looking after oneself, one looks after others.
Looking after others, one looks after oneself.

And how does one look after others by looking after oneself?
By practicing (mindfulness), by developing (it), by doing (it) a lot.
And how does one look after oneself by looking after others?
By patience, by non-harming, by loving kindness, by caring (for others).
(Thus) looking after oneself, one looks after others;
and looking after others, one looks after oneself.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .olen.html

You seem to be confusing the practice and the by-product of the practice.
It’s a selfish practice, you deal with your own stuff and as a by-product others benefit from this.
The practice is not to focus outwardly on others and try to treat them with kindness. Similarly by the time your thoughts have signalled the mouth and breath to make sounds the kamma is already in effect.
The sounds and reactions of others is not the path to observe.

[sunnat]

Kindness, metta, is a critical part of the practice. Consideration of other beings and their happiness serves an indispensable part in opening up so that old kamma resultants can be let go of. One could say it is the ultimate act of selfishness to be full of metta except of course metta sullied with thoughts of gain is less than perfect.

[cappuccino]

One could say it is the ultimate act of selfishness to be full of metta

You mean selflessness

[sunnat]

I mean it is very much in the interest of progress on one’s path to cultivate metta

[Sam Vara]

You seem to be confusing the practice and the by-product of the practice.
It’s a selfish practice, you deal with your own stuff and as a by-product others benefit from this.

Anyone is at liberty to interpret the teaching in any way they think fit, but I would have thought that the Sedaka Sutta above makes it plain that one also looks after others and thereby benefits oneself. To claim that the practice is merely selfish and that care for others is no more than a by-product ignores half of its meaning, along with a huge number of suttas which recommend kindness towards others with no reference made to one's own welfare (sadattha).

I would be interested to see canonical evidence of your claim. You are on record as saying that the suttas are corrupted and inauthentic when they don't fit your narrative, so this might well be another example of where your mode of practice radically departs from what scholars and practitioners think the Buddha said.

[Sam Vara]

Kindness, metta, is a critical part of the practice. Consideration of other beings and their happiness serves an indispensable part in opening up so that old kamma resultants can be let go of. One could say it is the ultimate act of selfishness to be full of metta except of course metta sullied with thoughts of gain is less than perfect.

[thepea]

Kindness, metta, is a critical part of the practice. Consideration of other beings and their happiness serves an indispensable part in opening up so that old kamma resultants can be let go of. One could say it is the ultimate act of selfishness to be full of metta except of course metta sullied with thoughts of gain is less than perfect.

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.
The practice is not to look outwardly and treat others with kindness. Sila is merely to develop concentration for looking deeply within oneself.

[thepea]

I’m saying that you cannot know the volition behind others words, only your own. You can assume what others are feeling from past experiences but we really never know the quality of their minds.
My other point is remaining silent(say taking a vow) for ten or more days in laylife. I’ve done this during Covid and gotten some very extreme reactions. Is my silence wrong speech?

That we cannot know someone else's volition is not exactly a stop-the-presses kind of announcement. We all know this. (Though sometimes, we can make a pretty good guess.)

How would I have anything to say about your silence? As you said, I cannot know your motivation, and you have not given enough information to take a guess. That story has little relevance to the discussion.

When speaking (or staying silent), a person's motivation might be to cause harm. That would be wrong speech. Their motivation might be to reduce harm. That would be right speech.

Or they might not care about how their words are taken. That appears to be the point you are trying to make. You advocate non-caring as though it were a virtue. Non-caring seems to me (and this is just my opinion) to be a form of contempt. If it is indeed so, then it would be wrong speech. If it is not contemptuous, then it suggests an extreme detachment that may be appropriate for a hermit, but not for someone living among lay people.

Kathy

Provide me an example of silence causing harm to another?

[Sam Vara]

Kindness, metta, is a critical part of the practice. Consideration of other beings and their happiness serves an indispensable part in opening up so that old kamma resultants can be let go of. One could say it is the ultimate act of selfishness to be full of metta except of course metta sullied with thoughts of gain is less than perfect.

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?

[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.