Right speech

[Sam Vara]

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.

And the salient point here is that your intent is only sufficiently pure as to absolve you of all responsibility if you have absolute certainty that your words could not be ill-received and be thought of as harmful.

[SDC]

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.

No, the Buddha said that speech can be factually harsh, so the intent must not simply be “pure” according to your arbitrary criteria, it must be beneficial to the listener, which implies you have some idea of what that person needs to hear in order to understand right view. So, your intent is for the words to be received in some way. The very fact that you opted to communicate and have your words received is bearing responsibility for the listener. Whether or not it ends beneficially is not your responsibility, but what happens as a result of your words is always on you to some extent.

[thepea]

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.

No, the Buddha said that speech can be factually harsh, so the intent must not simply be “pure” according to your arbitrary criteria, it must be beneficial to the listener, which implies you have some idea of what that person needs to hear in order to understand right view. So, your intent is for the words to be received in some way. The very fact that you opted to communicate and have your words received is bearing responsibility for the listener. Whether or not it ends beneficially is not your responsibility, but what happens as a result of your words is always on you to some extent.

So then we do not have free speech?
You are saying that in order for me to speak it must be beneficial to others.
Someone want to poison a lake to kill evasive fish species and another wants to oppose this. When both parties speak to one another who gets to speak?

[thepea]

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.

And the salient point here is that your intent is only sufficiently pure as to absolve you of all responsibility if you have absolute certainty that your words could not be ill-received and be thought of as harmful.

Impermanence of our world affords us the right to free speech, in order to, out of the chaos navigate the change.
It is irrational to think that every word you say will be received beneficially. This is unrealistic expectation.
The Buddha spoke and certainly someone said “ pffft this old bald guy is full of it, just more religious fever.”
I know this from directly witnessing people have this reaction to dhamma talks and sutta readings.
It’s only logical to assume this occured back 2500 yrs ago also.
Buddha might have said something that threatened another’s attachments, and this causes aversion to rise. Buddha maintained his morality and watched his volition and reaction to his words and that’s where his responsibility ends.
Our truth might not be well received but we have the responsibility and right to speak our truth to advocate for change we desire. Removing this through censorship with the reasoning of this free speech being violent or harsh is in essence supporting dictatorship.

[Sam Vara]

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.

And the salient point here is that your intent is only sufficiently pure as to absolve you of all responsibility if you have absolute certainty that your words could not be ill-received and be thought of as harmful.

Impermanence of our world affords us the right to free speech, in order to, out of the chaos navigate the change.

That sounds like a chunk of political and social philosophy, but it's not relevant here. This is about one's responsibility, as a dhamma practitioner, for one's utterances. Not "free speech".

It is irrational to think that every word you say will be received beneficially. This is unrealistic expectation.

I haven't claimed this. Merely that you have zero responsibility for a bad reaction to your words if your intention is pure; and that purity of intention requires absolute certainty on your part.

When the Buddha knew that his words were truthful and beneficial but were likely to be unwanted by others, he had a sense of the proper time for saying them.

But then again, we are not the Buddha, are we, so even more care is needed.

Our truth might not be well received but we have the responsibility and right to speak our truth to advocate for change we desire.

The Buddha talked about truth, not "our truth". And there is no responsibility to advocate change we desire.

[thepea]

And the salient point here is that your intent is only sufficiently pure as to absolve you of all responsibility if you have absolute certainty that your words could not be ill-received and be thought of as harmful.

Impermanence of our world affords us the right to free speech, in order to, out of the chaos navigate the change.

That sounds like a chunk of political and social philosophy, but it's not relevant here. This is about one's responsibility, as a dhamma practitioner, for one's utterances. Not "free speech".

It is irrational to think that every word you say will be received beneficially. This is unrealistic expectation.

I haven't claimed this. Merely that you have zero responsibility for a bad reaction to your words if your intention is pure; and that purity of intention requires absolute certainty on your part.

When the Buddha knew that his words were truthful and beneficial but were likely to be unwanted by others, he had a sense of the proper time for saying them.

But then again, we are not the Buddha, are we, so even more care is needed.

Our truth might not be well received but we have the responsibility and right to speak our truth to advocate for change we desire.

The Buddha talked about truth, not "our truth". And there is no responsibility to advocate change we desire.

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.
Goenka gave a story of a woman who pretended to be pregnant by buddhas child and came to discredit him. This must have been motivated by an opposing force.
Those in opposition did not appreciate what they heard him say.

[SDC]

So then we do not have free speech?
You are saying that in order for me to speak it must be beneficial to others.
Someone want to poison a lake to kill evasive fish species and another wants to oppose this. When both parties speak to one another who gets to speak?

For a person intent on developing virtue and restraint, it goes without saying you can’t say whatever you prefer. Again, if you ever consulted the suttas on these matters, there would be a common criteria for us to consult.

I did not say, “In order for you to speak it must be beneficial to others”, I said that if you are going to speak harshly because you assume it is coming from a “pure” intent, that best be beneficial. If not, you’ve not only spoken harshly but you may have caused deep harm in the process. But you said you don’t care about that.

As far as your poison water analogy, that isn’t a matter of Dhamma so it is hard to say. Both positions assume responsibility in an unbeneficial place, so they are both wrong. But in the end, it is the individual, both the speaker and listener - who are intent on developing the Dhamma - to know the source of the words and how they want them to land. The individual must understand the nature of their position in terms of others and to whatever extent certain actions align with wrong view.

[thepea]

So then we do not have free speech?
You are saying that in order for me to speak it must be beneficial to others.
Someone want to poison a lake to kill evasive fish species and another wants to oppose this. When both parties speak to one another who gets to speak?

For a person intent on developing virtue and restraint, it goes without saying you can’t say whatever you prefer. Again, if you ever consulted the suttas on these matters, there would be a common criteria for us to consult.

I did not say, “In order for you to speak it must be beneficial to others”, I said that if you are going to speak harshly because you assume it is coming from a “pure” intent, that best be beneficial. If not, you’ve not only spoken harshly but you may have caused deep harm in the process. But you said you don’t care about that.

As far as your poison water analogy, that isn’t a matter of Dhamma so it is hard to say. Both positions assume responsibility in an unbeneficial place, so they are both wrong. But in the end, it is the individual, both the speaker and listener - who are intent on developing the Dhamma - to know the source of the words and how they want them to land. The individual must understand the nature of their position in terms of others and to whatever extent certain actions align with wrong view.

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.
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?

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?

[Sam Vara]

Impermanence of our world affords us the right to free speech, in order to, out of the chaos navigate the change.

That sounds like a chunk of political and social philosophy, but it's not relevant here. This is about one's responsibility, as a dhamma practitioner, for one's utterances. Not "free speech".

It is irrational to think that every word you say will be received beneficially. This is unrealistic expectation.

I haven't claimed this. Merely that you have zero responsibility for a bad reaction to your words if your intention is pure; and that purity of intention requires absolute certainty on your part.

When the Buddha knew that his words were truthful and beneficial but were likely to be unwanted by others, he had a sense of the proper time for saying them.

But then again, we are not the Buddha, are we, so even more care is needed.

Our truth might not be well received but we have the responsibility and right to speak our truth to advocate for change we desire.

The Buddha talked about truth, not "our truth". And there is no responsibility to advocate change we desire.

Who says buddha had a sense of his audience?

He did, in MN 58. I know you tend to dismiss suttas that disprove your position, but there we are.

I have excised the bits of your post that lead to your normal obsessions. I guessed you would prefer that to being away from the forum again.

[KathyLauren]

We 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.

Kathy

[thepea]

We 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.

Kathy

I’m working on a home build for a lady friend of mine. She hired me to build her a tiny home.
Her boyfriend prepared the driveway and I am ready to take over and begin building.
There is no permit required for this build as it’s a tiny home under regulation size.
As I discussed my method for installing footings he disagreed with me. I at that point said to my lady friend “either I build the house my way according to your design or find someone else, this is non negotiable.”
This placed her in a tough position as she had to make a choice, honestly I believe this choice made her uncomfortable. Do I have responsibility for this?
Should I not have been direct?
In the end she choose me and the boyfriend can assist but must follow my lead.
I’m certain they both wanted a collective build but I’m a professional and not interested in a collective build. It doesn’t work when there are to many chefs in the kitchen.
Is this right speech?
Am I responsible for their feelings or ultimately my actions and her house integrity?

[Radix]

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.

[Radix]

I did not say, “In order for you to speak it must be beneficial to others”, I said that if you are going to speak harshly because you assume it is coming from a “pure” intent, that best be beneficial. If not, you’ve not only spoken harshly but you may have caused deep harm in the process.

Oh, come on, as if any religious or spiritual person actually cares about this. They always find a way to blame the other person. Always.

It's the old, "I wasn't rude, it's just that you are weak/stupid/wrong/have too much dust in your eyes." And it always goes like this.

Thepea is the perfect example of a religious or spiritual person.

[Radix]

We 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?

[Radix]

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.