Right speech

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
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 2:08 pm Why can’t a man say what he prefers(feels is good)?
We are each working with our own developed wisdoms. Ultimate wisdom would equate ultimate purity.
So essentially we are working with our own unique levels.
And morally we feel we are correct given where we are on the path. When additional wisdom accumulated we may see differently and will obviously speak accordingly.
That sounds like a blind man hoping for the best. The suttas describe a right view with a very specific relationship to behavior. To do what “feels good” is the pinnacle of sensuality, ill-will and/or delusive intent. In the end, the person isn’t even verifying the motivation of such words - as long as they “feel good” does not require any reflection. To be virtuous means to sometimes (most of the time) go against what is preferred, since preference is the pressure of a mind not free from defilements (even an ariya must content with this).
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:08 pm It’s not a matter of not caring, it’s simply a matter of personal responsibility. You are working with your bias as am I, you feel you are correct as do I. We have a conversation, you get offended. Who’s responsibility is this?
Whether I care or not should not factor into your offence. It’s your responsibility.
If my child is about to dart out into traffic and I yell STOP!!!!! at a loud decibel and this causes my child to get scared and cry, is this wrong or harsh speech. If doing this prevents him from getting hit by a car, did I not act with right speech?
Again, that example has nothing to do with right speech in terms of right view. It is your preference to help your child avoid injury, and as compassionate as that may be, it does not imply such thinking - on your part - is beneficial in terms of right view. Acceptance of covetousness in any direction - even for purposes of this discussion - is wrong view according to the suttas. I’m not saying that you should avoid protecting others, but the nature of that need is not beneficial when hailing from a certain direction.

It really is essentially pointless to engage in the details with you - there is no standard criteria in this discussion. As you said yourself, you “prefer your own preference” as long as it is in line with your idea of purity, which, based on your history, has nothing to do with the standard described in the suttas.
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:08 pm How is any conversation between parties adhamma?
Regardless of the topic at hand if individuals are practicing dhamma then the conversation is relevant, is it not?
Absolutely not. The mere fact that you have to ask speaks volumes.
“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
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by thepea »

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).

I think this is how it is with religious or spiritual people generally anway. They don't actually have a conversation with others. A conversation is a two-way endeavor. Lecturing isn't a conversation.
Are we able to have a conversation here at Dhamma wheel where 65% of the membership strongly oppose what you wish to discuss, 30% are receptive but will not engage as it’s easier to simply go along with the flow.
Is it not the moral duty of the 5% to continuously speak their truth regardless of the audience?
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by thepea »

Radix wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:37 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:08 pm Why can’t a man say what he prefers(feels is good)?
We are each working with our own developed wisdoms. Ultimate wisdom would equate ultimate purity.
So essentially we are working with our own unique levels.
And morally we feel we are correct given where we are on the path. When additional wisdom accumulated we may see differently and will obviously speak accordingly.

It’s not a matter of not caring, it’s simply a matter of personal responsibility. You are working with your bias as am I, you feel you are correct as do I. We have a conversation, you get offended. Who’s responsibility is this?
Whether I care or not should not factor into your offence. It’s your responsibility.
This is a pernicious individualism so typical for modern times.

It's when people conceive of an interaction between two people as just an interaction between those specific two people, and not a matter of both of them making an effort to maintain a certain common culture of interacting with people.

How is any conversation between parties adhamma?
By being about an adhammic topic.
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.
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 6:16 pm Is it not the moral duty of the 5% to continuously speak their truth regardless of the audience?
If they like talking to walls, or, conversely, like to hear themselves talk ...

I prefer conversations. But people in most countries don't like conversation!
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 »

SDC wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:13 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:08 pm Why can’t a man say what he prefers(feels is good)?
We are each working with our own developed wisdoms. Ultimate wisdom would equate ultimate purity.
So essentially we are working with our own unique levels.
And morally we feel we are correct given where we are on the path. When additional wisdom accumulated we may see differently and will obviously speak accordingly.
That sounds like a blind man hoping for the best. The suttas describe a right view with a very specific relationship to behavior. To do what “feels good” is the pinnacle of sensuality, ill-will and/or delusive intent. In the end, the person isn’t even verifying the motivation of such words - as long as they “feel good” does not require any reflection. To be virtuous means to sometimes (most of the time) go against what is preferred, since preference is the pressure of a mind not free from defilements (even an ariya must content with this).
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:08 pm It’s not a matter of not caring, it’s simply a matter of personal responsibility. You are working with your bias as am I, you feel you are correct as do I. We have a conversation, you get offended. Who’s responsibility is this?
Whether I care or not should not factor into your offence. It’s your responsibility.
If my child is about to dart out into traffic and I yell STOP!!!!! at a loud decibel and this causes my child to get scared and cry, is this wrong or harsh speech. If doing this prevents him from getting hit by a car, did I not act with right speech?
Again, that example has nothing to do with right speech in terms of right view. It is your preference to help your child avoid injury, and as compassionate as that may be, it does not imply such thinking - on your part - is beneficial in terms of right view. Acceptance of covetousness in any direction - even for purposes of this discussion - is wrong view according to the suttas. I’m not saying that you should avoid protecting others, but the nature of that need is not beneficial when hailing from a certain direction.

It really is essentially pointless to engage in the details with you - there is no standard criteria in this discussion. As you said yourself, you “prefer your own preference” as long as it is in line with your idea of purity, which, based on your history, has nothing to do with the standard described in the suttas.
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:08 pm How is any conversation between parties adhamma?
Regardless of the topic at hand if individuals are practicing dhamma then the conversation is relevant, is it not?
Absolutely not. The mere fact that you have to ask speaks volumes.
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.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by thepea »

Radix wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:37 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:16 pm Is it not the moral duty of the 5% to continuously speak their truth regardless of the audience?
If they like talking to walls, or, conversely, like to hear themselves talk ...

I prefer conversations. But people in most countries don't like conversation!
What do you mean talking to walls?
If there is a response then this is conversation, isn’t it?
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: 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.
KathyLauren
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:38 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by KathyLauren »

Radix wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:57 pm
KathyLauren wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 4:13 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:08 pmWe have a conversation, you get offended. Who’s responsibility is this?
Would I have gotten offended if you had not said what you said? If so, then your words are not involved and the responsibility is mine. If not, then my getting offended was caused by your words and you bear responsibility for them and for the reaction they caused.
What do you mean by this?
What does it look like in practice for him to take responsibility for causing you offense?
Do you mean it in the sense thay you can call the police on him or sue him and he will be punished by the authorities?
I distinguish between responsibility and accountability. Responsibility is cause. Accountability is reward and punishment. So you are talking about accountability, whereas I was talking about responsibility.

But, to answer your second question, in most cases, no. In some cases, yes.

Kathy
Tl21G3lVl
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2022 6:51 am

Re: Right speech

Post by Tl21G3lVl »

thepea wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:57 am Is speech violent?
Can speech hurt feelings?
Having no harmful intentions is less consequences. Being mindful is much more safer though.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by thepea »

Tl21G3lVl wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:07 pm
thepea wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:57 am Is speech violent?
Can speech hurt feelings?
Having no harmful intentions is less consequences. Being mindful is much more safer though.
What is the difference?
If I’m mindful and say something that offends you, and I know that it was not my intention of offend then this is the same, correct?
I have no control over who or how anyone reacts to my words.
Tl21G3lVl
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2022 6:51 am

Re: Right speech

Post by Tl21G3lVl »

thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:30 pm What is the difference?
If I’m mindful and say something that offends you, and I know that it was not my intention of offend then this is the same, correct?
I have no control over who or how anyone reacts to my words.
That’s not being mindful if you didn’t know beforehand that it would offend someone. Being mindful is knowing your current state of mind and foreseeing an outcome of a situation before acting or responding.
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 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.
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 »

Tl21G3lVl wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:32 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:30 pm What is the difference?
If I’m mindful and say something that offends you, and I know that it was not my intention of offend then this is the same, correct?
I have no control over who or how anyone reacts to my words.
That’s not being mindful if you didn’t know beforehand that it would offend someone. Being mindful is knowing your current state of mind and foreseeing an outcome of a situation before acting or responding.
I think that’s mind reading which might be a siddhi power but I’m limited in this.
If my volition is not to offend and I’m mindful how am I to know how someone is going to respond?
I can guess but I can never be 100% certain.
Also sometimes people need to hear difficult truths. Or are you suggesting walking on eggshells around others avoiding any contentious topics?
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 7:39 pm 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.
1. Polite chit chat with brahmans is not yet conversation about the Dhamma. King Charles III may shake your hand and have a polite chit chat with you, but that doesn't mean he thinks the two of you are equals and can discuss things 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.

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.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
KathyLauren
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:38 pm

Re: Right speech

Post by KathyLauren »

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.

Kathy
Post Reply