Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Right Speech and the Euphemism Treadmill
Part of samma vaca is not using abusive speech. Obviously, as Zeitgeist marches on, the usage of langue changes, since language itself is not a fixed thing but also changing as time goes by, we see ourselves challenged to find the right words for what we want to express often. In cases we did not want to hurt somebody, it later turns out we did. I observed that in Zen, often words such as idiot and imbecile were used by some indivuduals when they wanted to make a point(I saw that many times by now).
So my question is, is there a list of "forbidden" words, that one can aviod to be on the safe side? An example for the use of the word imbecile in the canon, you can find here In how far matters the intention, not only the words? How can we reflect, if our words were skillful?
Please let us not make the debate personal, just give your ideas, experiences and relevant sources please.
So my question is, is there a list of "forbidden" words, that one can aviod to be on the safe side? An example for the use of the word imbecile in the canon, you can find here In how far matters the intention, not only the words? How can we reflect, if our words were skillful?
Please let us not make the debate personal, just give your ideas, experiences and relevant sources please.
0
Comments
Where would you like to start on this one? Shall we address logical positivism? I tend towards semantic holism, where the meaning of a statement (and I would include the single word) is to be considered within a wider context which must include as many elements as possible for safe decryption. This, of course, starts from the fact that language is a code or cypher within which intention as well as meaning are encoded.
A single list of "forbidden", taboo or "inappropriate" words must be out-of-date even before it is prepared. It is possible, of course, to draw up historical lists and they provide us with keys to the changing Zeitgeist.
my personal aproach I put in a comparison to something else:
I have been a little into crypto analysis in my study and jobs. I see language itself as encrypted, they key is the individual who utters it. If one wants to decrypt, one usually needs the key. Obviously, that key is not available, although I do not consider individuals as unique, everyone was shown another tree in his youth by his mother, when she said "look my sweethart, that is a tree". We all may have sometimes the same, somtimes different imaginations of a word. Communication also servers to uncover this for both parties.
There are different methods to decrypt. A Known plain text attack for example. Now if i were a logical positivist, I might get upset by the very word attack. Might be. You know a text somebody uttered plainly and encrypted, for example, a text he uttered on an ocassion where you think he really was how he is, he opend his heart to you for instance. The more you know of such texts, the more you can decipher further texts by him you do not completely understand, e.g. why he said them. Generally, this is reflected by trust in a person and explains why it matters not only what kind of but also out of which mouth the words come.
I think I agree with your approach and will have a read on semantic holism.
particularly in the case of #3, which we may be tempted to take as an affirmation of any example of calling others imbeciles or any other unpleasant words, we should be aware that certainty regarding most of these factors will be emphatically delinquent in us ordinary mortals. For instance, though we may be certain the statement we are going to make is disagreeable, we are in most cases not going to be blessed with certainty as to its benefit or as to the proper time for saying it, and perhaps even how true it is.
I find that ultimately the best guide for our conscience is given in the following:
I note particularly that it is an issue of conscience and the guideline emphasizes the mental qualities of him or her who is speaking or not speaking quite rather than the mental qualities of him or her that is being spoken to. In that sense we see "samma" in samma vaca as meaning not only "correct" as in conforming to a social norm as in not being a rude person, but rather as meaning in accordance with the path itself, which is mainly determined by individual conscience or mental qualities. In that sense "samma" roughly corresponds to magga such that its meaning is that you are staying on the path, have the orientation that is conducive to its fruition. When speech fails to be "samma" it does so to the degree that resulting from its indulgence you stray from the path as evidenced by your interior mental qualities.
Could there be a list of forbidden words? Personally, I don't think it would be helpful, though I think it is best to err on the side of politeness whenever there is doubt. I say that for myself because I rarely possess certainty with respect to the factors of right speech mentioned above such that I would be sure that harsh words would be appropriate.
in friendliness,
V.
The Buddha makes the point that right view comes first which is either with regard to merit or is ariyan which, as ariyan, is supermundane and minus the asavas (influences). The ariyan path has nirvana for its object whereas the non-ariyan path doesn’t. It is merit driven.
By and large, chat rooms adhere to right speech for the sake of merit. I can’t recall Buddhist forums being strongly oriented towards supermundane right speech which is free of the asavas! They often degenerate into something far worse, the human-all-too-human (Nietzsche).
Love ya'll,
Bobby
http://www.suanmokkh.org/archive/rtspch1.htm
The whole article is pretty interesting.
_/\_
metta
Reminds me rather of "good works before justification"!
I think this applies pretty well to the original point of this thread. That is pretty much what I was getting at in my responses to ZMG over the 'idiot' matter. Now, there are times when such speech is appropriate, even if it initially stings, but I do not feel that this was one of those times.
_/\_
metta
I would say is it more like Paul's justification by pistis/faith without the works (ergon) of the Law.
When one becomes an ariyan, having supermundane right view, they are certain. It is not a matter of belief.
For the modern, this dosen't make any sense because the modern has always confused faith with belief. But for a Roman like Paul pistis wasn't the same as our notion of belief. This applies to shraddha/pistis as well.
Shraddha for the Mahayana Buddhist, from what I can gather, is an initial correspondance with the transcendent. Its awakening within us is the very proof of the eternal spirit (tathagata/theos).
Paul's Christianity, the more I study it, chimes with Buddhism. He truly had the Mahayana awakening of faith.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
That`s an interesting sidenonte that could give enough stuff for a seperate thread. About different kinds of gatherings we can read in Anguttara Nikaya, Second Book, Chapter 5, Parisavaggo
Regards
I don't want to take this thread off into even stranger directions. I am, however, wondering which of the "Saint Pauls" you mean, or do you, like the 'Church', scramble them into one?
Thank you Vaccha. I want to note that whenever I felt words like idiot were appropriate, it later turned out, one of the three poisons, anger, was in me. Every time I myself used it or said it was justified, I had to apologize later because of bad concsience.
On a side note, a google search over palikanon.com gives exactly one hit for the word idiot, from what seems to be a text of Nyanatiloka. Nyanatiloka was living at a time where you used the word idiot for what would be mentally retarded today, to link the topic back to the Euphemism Treadmill. That would most probably be a person who even cannot use the internet, so the term when seen there is nowadays often used not as factual designation but merely as a flatout insult or at least an exeggeration.
Regards
All this reminds me of how Caroline Rhys Davids was given to take Dhamma in certain contexts as Conscience or Norm. I find this to be in keeping with several senses of the word that I have come across, not the least of which is often translated as "duty," a concept which is less popular in Buddhist exegesis but rather important in many other forms of Indian spiritual teaching, sometimes unfortunately connected with caste. It comes to the question of what samma means. We ordinarily translate it as "right" meaning something is either right or wrong. Insofar as language is evocative of imagery, we imagine this as two paths in different directions. I find that it seems to me through research and pondering that samma means something more like "in accordance with," which really calls up a different image, and I can see how this imagery lends itself to a monistic interpretation of Buddhism. The image we get from this alternative is that of a single path, the middle path. Samma's "in accordance with" means in-line with the single path or ekayana or middle path such that if we ask "in accordance with what?" the natural answer that comes unhesitatingly is that Samma with reference to the eightfold path means "in accordance with Dhamma" when Dhamma is taken as conscience or Norm and conscience and norm are in reference to the goal. This image, I find, recalls the Zoroastrian myth of judgement in the afterlife being a walk on the edge of a razor-sharp blade across the abyss. On a side note, probably unverifiable and irrelevant, I have read somewhere that quite possibly the term "arya" may have referred to Zoroastrian or proto-Zoroastrian initiates--recalling somewhat tangentially Bobby's reference to initiation/awakening of faith. I note that "shame with regard to misdeeds" (sounds like conscience) is one of the things that stream-entry awakens in one. This puts Sila into perspective not as ethical rules to train in intellectually but rather as a deeper discipline of concentration and accordance with conscience, faith, and the path which goes beyond the world.
Anyway, just a few thoughts.
in friendliness,
V.
And this is from Peter Masefield's commentary to the Udana:
At any rate, you've raised some interesting points. But I think we can nail down the fact that sammaditthi, for example, is not just about 'right view' (oh how I dislike that translation). Sammad. has to be in accord with dhamma or the same nibbana. After all, the maggo is for the sake of nibbana. We have to unbind ourselves from the conditioned otherwise what is the purpose of Dhamma?
Love ya'll,
Bobby