A discussion with a Buddhist about Right Speech

django

Hello everyone,

I had a discussion with a friend of mine who practices Zen Buddhism about the concept of right speech. It was following a party in which I talked about my roommate (whom everyone at the party knows and works with on a daily basis) and his anti-gay viewpoints. The two hostesses of the party are in a lesbian relationship and one of them took to that news with surprise. Chris, my Buddhist friend, asked me on the car ride back if I felt that discussing that was just or necessary and then proceeded, in a friendly, non-proselytizing manner, to talk about right speech.

I'm not sure how to feel about this. I felt it was just to have brought up this tendency of his and that they had a "right" to know, but I wanted to get everyone's opinion.

compassionate_warrior

Good question, django. It depends on the intent with which you raised the subject. To forewarn people who might be harmed in the future by someone is certainly right speech. To criticize, gossip or stir ill will for its own sake isn't. Your call.

vinlyn

It reminds me about a discussion I once had about gossip and how that related to "right speech". And certainly I'm guilty of gossiping...not often, but I'm human.

To me, when you talk about another person and make up things, or pass along things that may not be true, that's gossip...and even when I do it, it's wrong.

On the other hand, when you tell truths about another person...well, that's just the truth. And my simple answer is that telling the truth is not wrong. Of course, there are times when telling the truth might be wrong speech...if your intent is to harm the person. Funny this is about someone being gay, because I think that is a good example of when telling the truth has the intent of harming that person -- for example, "outing" someone.

If in your question the situation was that you were warning your friends to be careful around the other person because he was anti-gay, then I think your intent MAY have been good. If you simply wanted to create feelings against him, then I would say your intent was negative. Complicating it further is if "died by his own sword" based on PUBLIC statements he had made, then I have little sympathy for the position he put himself in.

django

The person in question is not an atrocious human being. To use somewhat vulgar speech, he's just kind of a dick.

I'll admit to sometimes wanting to stir up ill feelings about him, but I don't like this mode of thought and I try to avoid it. Any time I want to discuss these things is because I want people to understand how personally virulent he can be. He has an overwhelming negative energy and I sometimes feel that people forgive him too easily. I do it out of a certain sense of justice. I don't think he'd ever say something homophobic to my friends or anyone else, but I know he can make people feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and, in my opinion, can be almost psychologically terrorizing. The one thing I do feel unsure about is that these are private statements he makes and we all speak differently when we're not around others.

I'll put it this way: My roommate does everything right speech tells you NOT to do and I have an overwhelming desire to protect, warn and expose some of these things, out of a sense of justice. I don't know if this is an enlightened way of living and reacting, though.

aMatt

I'll admit to sometimes wanting to stir up ill feelings about him

This is a poor intention, which leads you to mental distress. Trying to avoid it is great, keep trying! When you think of 'stirring things up' perhaps also think 'doing this is dumb, and hurts me most'.

Any time I want to discuss these things is because I want people to understand how personally virulent he can be. He has an overwhelming negative energy and I sometimes feel that people forgive him too easily. I do it out of a certain sense of justice.

If he has negative energy in him, he is already being punished by himself. When you intend justice through gossip, you're the one being the dick. See how his negative energy spreads to you? You judge and attack the jerk, and become like him. Where he is unskillfully approaching ideas like homosexuality, you are approaching him unskillfully.

Consider spending time observing him with compassion. You see first hand how contageous negative energy can be, and your friend is caught in it. He won't be forever, and is not just "a dick" but perhaps, for now, stuck. Its sad!

We do better as people (and feel more happiness) when we get off our high horses and notice those around us are part of a fellowship of developing, imperfect humans.

With warmth,

Matt

vinlyn

Keep in mind that the definition of gossip is passing on unconfirmed information about someone.

aMatt

Keep in mind that the definition of gossip is passing on unconfirmed information about someone.

Its also idle talk. In the context of my post, if there is confusion, perhaps "divisive speaking" rather than gossip. i would consider it gossip, because it is attempting to guide others to form opinions on people whom they do not have first hand knowledge. Anyway, it is just a pointer to the actions of our friend django's speech.

Dakini

I'll put it this way: My roommate does everything right speech tells you NOT to do and I have an overwhelming desire to protect, warn and expose some of these things, out of a sense of justice. I don't know if this is an enlightened way of living and reacting, though.

I think if you're motivated to protect others, and you're not engaging in this talk just to diss your friend, you're ok. It sounds a little like you have mixed motives, though, if you're being honest with yourself. But only you can know for sure. But I do get that he's a person who needs to have a warning label pinned on him. Try not to get wound up in or attached to the negativity. The fact that you're even asking this question and examining your motives is a good sign.

fivebells

Telling tales about your roommate is shitting in your own nest. Right speech is worth thinking about, but what you did is foolish on a conventional level.

NOTaGangsta

Telling tales about your roommate is shitting in your own nest. Right speech is worth thinking about, but what you did is foolish on a conventional level.

Agreed, Right speech involves not gossiping other people's views, especially when it involves sensitive issues like this. This would get rid of the whole issue of even worrying about your motives.

django

Keep in mind that the definition of gossip is passing on unconfirmed information about someone.

Its also idle talk. In the context of my post, if there is confusion, perhaps "divisive speaking" rather than gossip. i would consider it gossip, because it is attempting to guide others to form opinions on people whom they do not have first hand knowledge. Anyway, it is just a pointer to the actions of our friend django's speech.

The listeners in question DO have first hand knowledge of my roommate. For what it's worth, I apologized to the two hostesses this morning and requested that they not treat him any differently than if I had not said anything. They said that it was fine and that I shouldn't worry about it. One of the women said she may have suspected his homophobic tendencies and one more or less knew about them from overhearing (but not, I think, explicitly eavesdropping).

I think I've convinced myself that what I did was just, but not necessarily wise. Fivebells, I wasn't telling tales, I told the truth. The truth is not always necessary to discuss, but I didn't tell them that my roommate was a bed wetter; I told two homosexual women that he was a bigot and that I was uncomfortable. I resign myself not to talk about these matters in public, but I don't regret what I did as it relates to my heart.

fivebells

Fivebells, I wasn't telling tales, I told the truth.

My point was just that you run the risk of creating feelings of betrayal in someone you're living with, which is a bad situation to be in.

Spaceless

Right speech probably should be along the line of emptiness of noble truth perspective. In this line of exploratory discussion of applying buddhism understanding, it is beneficial to many walks of life in their daily loving kindness pursuit.

santhisouk

The definition

"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech."

— SN 45.8
From: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/

"Whenever you want to do a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then any verbal action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do.

- MN 61
From: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html

federica

This is just my opinion, but if the person in question was already the topic of discussion, as in one of the hostesses asking "I'm a little concerned about *this guy's* manner, and I find sometimes when I talk to him he has a distant attitude, and he makes me feel as if he's talking down to me... can anyone shed any light on this?"

- it might then have been appropriate to put forward the informed opinion that perhaps it's because he disapproves of homosexual relationships.

However, if the matter was introduced as a "by the way, dod you know that..." then it was unnecessary, gossiping and Wrong Speech.

vinlyn

This is just my opinion, but if the person in question was already the topic of discussion, as in one of the hostesses asking "I'm a little concerned about *this guy's* manner, and I find sometimes when I talk to him he has a distant attitude, and he makes me feel as if he's talking down to me... can anyone shed any light on this?"

- it might then have been appropriate to put forward the informed opinion that perhaps it's because he disapproves of homosexual relationships.

However, if the matter was introduced as a "by the way, dod you know that..." then it was unnecessary, gossiping and Wrong Speech.

I think Federica has summarized the right position here better than anyone.

And again, we are back to intent. If the intent is simply gossip, then it is wrong speech. If it is a warning designed to protect someone -- and it is based on fact -- then the intent is to help someone.

taiyaki

what if one doesn't cares for neither help or no help? and then gossips away.

vinlyn

Gossip is a good example of how some of us feel that kamma works. A gossip gets a reputation, and that reputation then causes some people not to trust the gossiper, thus affecting relationships.

The other view of kamma is that it is some sort of punishing tool. Hmmm....that's more difficult to explain.

taiyaki

a sword is your friend or enemy. depends on how you want to see it.

NamelessRiver

"what if one doesn't cares for neither help or no help? and then gossips away."

When you are talking about someone's negative aspects behind his back you can't really excuse yourself pretending to be unconscious of the fact that you are smearing someone's reputation.

I think even if you are trying to help there are more able options than to give a person (or in this case a whole group of co-workers!) reasons to dislike another person. And let's be realistic, shall we? How many times does gossip involve helping someone?

People are just being 'nice' because she spread the word that he was homophobic. If she did the exact same thing but instead spreading the word that he was gay, because he is a dick or whatever and she did it out of a sense of justice (i.e. payback), most people here would be disgusted.

What if the guy is homophobic? As long as he's not harassing people let him think of he wants. It is very easy to talk about freedom of thought about people that agree with us. The whole prejudice thing starts when we start telling people what to think.

"But I do get that he's a person who needs to have a warning label pinned on him."

Are you freaking kidding me?

taiyaki

so it is impossible to do what i am suggesting?

NamelessRiver

"so it is impossible to do what i am suggesting?"

It is easier to visualize what you propose in other situations. For example, if we both have a similar bag and get yours by mistake is that stealing? Here I'd be taking what is not given (violating a precept, so to speak) without intention. Would that be a 'bad thing to do' in a buddhist view? What if it causes you a lot of distress(suffering)? Could I say that if I paid more attention I would have avoided the situation, so in a sense that it is my fault (if you consider paying attention to what you're doing an obligation - such in the case of a doctor as to not 'forget' surgical instruments inside your body)?

It is an interesting point, but I never really thought about it.

taiyaki

in regards to right speech...

i could tell a lie to someone just to tell a lie. there really is no intention nor outcome i am looking for.
i am just doing the action of lying just to do it.

or the opposite. i could tell the truth just to tell the truth. again with no intention or outcome. just telling the truth to tell the truth.

how about stealing like you suggested? i could steal something without even wanting what is stolen. or even not caring what
specifically is stolen. just to steal to steal. no incentive. no motivation. no intention.

or i can not steal. just to not steal. for the sake of not stealing.

if morality can be broken down by true non-intention, what is the purpose of morality?
is true non-intention possible? or is it a delusion that one sets up to justify wrong action?

question and more questions. the mind spins forever, but i stay curious for the hell of it.

seeker242

One of the Zen precepts says "I vow to not speak of the faults of others". This is a good one to follow IMO. The Pali Cannon teaches that if speech is true and factual, in order for it to not be wrong speech, it also has to be beneficial. So sometimes, the fact that it is true and factual, is irrelevant. If it is not beneficial, then it does not matter if it is true.

taiyaki

but you can only know what is a benefit in hindsight. and the word benefit is quite relative. for instance a good action may benefit me in this moment, but later on can reap quite negative consequences.

so if we are looking for a "benefit" for ourselves or for others isn't that conditional? and aren't condition things based on our desires?

so what if one doesn't desire anything and just say does things which can potentially cause either benefit or harm?
and one doesn't care whether or not it causes a benefit or harm?
isn't that true freedom? isn't that an unconditioned freedom?

if we are looking for outcomes, we lose all freedom. if we are looking for not outcomes, then we are free.

i am not saying to disregard the vows or even rules. i understand they serve a function. but my question is up to what point?

fivebells

@taiyaki, at that point, the eight-fold path etc. become descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, "right speech" means speech from a peaceful state of mind, and the different types of "wrong speech" just don't arise from such a state of mind, at least not often.

taiyaki

but what may seem like wrong speech from an external viewer may be right speech to a buddha.
how does one determine what is right and wrong? by benefit? then how does one determine benefit?

at the end of the day the buddha operates from the peaceful state of mind. couldn't one say that the buddha only has right speech, even if it is perceived from our end as "wrong" speech. for the buddha isn't a conditioned being and is free from conditions, thus abiding in non-intention.

the buddha is free to do whatever the fuck he/she wants because again he isn't restricted by thought limitations.

is that why all enlightened beings seem a bit eccentric and weird at times?

lol just food for thought.

vinlyn

but what may seem like wrong speech from an external viewer may be right speech to a buddha.
how does one determine what is right and wrong? by benefit? then how does one determine benefit?

at the end of the day the buddha operates from the peaceful state of mind. couldn't one say that the buddha only has right speech, even if it is perceived from our end as "wrong" speech. for the buddha isn't a conditioned being and is free from conditions, thus abiding in non-intention.

the buddha is free to do whatever the fuck he/she wants because again he isn't restricted by thought limitations.

is that why all enlightened beings seem a bit eccentric and weird at times?

lol just food for thought.

1. I wonder if you are over-analyzing this.

2. Using obscenities on a Buddhist website is offensive to some of us. I would think that makes it wrong speech.

fivebells

at the end of the day the buddha operates from the peaceful state of mind.

Have you ever stepped off the eight-fold path while in a state of peaceful non-intention?

taiyaki

if you are offended i am sorry for that wasn't my intention lol, get it intention lol.

my goal is to question everything. either you disagree with me or agree with me. i'd like to know why you disagree with me or agree with me. it's genuine inquiry.

and like you said before that the 8th fold path was descriptive. it seems from non-intention, there is only correct function. i would assert that non-intention cuts the function of ego and your desire systems. but this is an intellectual theory and one i am currently experimenting with. even if one does intend, they can cut grasping at outcomes. so even intention and non-intention are basically the same thing when there is no grasping. but again this is a theory.

the idea is to work together to come to a greater truth. thus i am posting this and asking you bright people!

Floating_Abu

but what may seem like wrong speech from an external viewer may be right speech to a buddha.
how does one determine what is right and wrong? by benefit? then how does one determine benefit?

at the end of the day the buddha operates from the peaceful state of mind. couldn't one say that the buddha only has right speech, even if it is perceived from our end as "wrong" speech. for the buddha isn't a conditioned being and is free from conditions, thus abiding in non-intention.

the buddha is free to do whatever the fuck he/she wants because again he isn't restricted by thought limitations.

is that why all enlightened beings seem a bit eccentric and weird at times?

lol just food for thought.

Hi taiyaki

It is said in the sutras that even a Buddha is subject to the laws of karma.
(whilst also having relinquished karma)

Also when you say a Buddha operates from the peaceful state of mind, wouldn't that be limiting the Buddha too much?

Best wishes,
Abu

vinlyn

I guess you're talking with me.

There are so many interesting threads right now. Some are pretty deep...for example, the ones dealing with Osama and soldiers.

But in this thread -- dealing with right speech -- maybe it's just me, but I pretty much know (by my own standards of interpreting Buddhist teachings) when I've committed right speech or wrong speech. Now, I may say something that demonstrates a lack of being mindful. Sometimes something comes out of my mouth and then I think...wrong speech.

For example, as a retired school principal, before I would hold a difficult conference, whether it was a post-observation conference with a teacher, or a conference with a parent about his son's suspension, usually before that conference I would take a few minutes, develop a list of key points, and decide how I could make those points using "right speech". Typically those conferences would go pretty well. Sometimes, I would fail to do my little "mindful" routine before the conference, and I would find I was much more likely to goof and use "wrong speech". When that happened, I wouldn't have to think long before I would recognize that I had used "wrong speech". Just seemed kind of natural for me to know right from wrong.

I'm not criticizing you...I'm just wondering if you're making it more difficult than it is. I know there are occasions when I do that.

Floating_Abu

.

taiyaki

so in a way intuitively you knew what was right and wrong.
thanks you and i am over analyzing. lol

vinlyn

so in a way intuitively you knew what was right and wrong.
thanks you and i am over analyzing. lol

Don't we all sometimes?



Yes, I think for some of us in some things, intuition guides us correctly much of the time. Of course, we also stumble and fall on occasion.