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.
I tried, but failed, in my last post to point out that further proliferation of the usage of profanity just spreads and grows the problem. My main point, which I believe I dropped, was that my problem wasn't so much the few bad words I'd say in a week or in a month, but the "noisy, boisterous" backdrop of the culture that I am immersed in. We pick these words up by example from the "good people" who use them. In the case of children, however, it's a different case. Although a grown man or woman would not likely pick things up from those he or she disliked, children do, needing to fit in to their world and not having a very good handle on just who they need to be accepted by. It's a terrible thing so much profanity has found its way into the movies and onto the airways that our highly impressionable children are picking these bad habits up. There's a lot of rudeness going around as a result of it, too.
If our good friends use profanity in front of us, we pick it up in no small measure. I may not feel comfortable in informing a friend of my dislike of profanity generally, but I would be guarded so as not to show any amusement with it either. I just cannot find any reason within myself to advocate the freedom of someone to use profanity ad lib.
I'll admit, firstoff, that I never have believed in the freedom of expression. To me that's patent nonsense. The First Amendment, which I revere, speaks of the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to exercise religion without governmental incursions, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and also to petition the government. There is a penumbra there for freedom to speak or print the Truth, but no provision for dissembling or doing anything to thwart the common good.
There is no place in business, in our schools, in our streets, or in our homes where some sort of constraint does not bind us from expressing anything of which we may be capable. It is only the person in a psychotic state who can act without restraint --with the sole exception of the artist; but art contains its own madness, as they say.
just a quick two cents... I think that "cussing" is ok to an extent, it all depends on the intention. If it's harmful, obviously it has to go. But as a "flavor enhancer" hmm, maybe it's ok...
When we practice Right Speech we think about what we are inclined to say, what the circumstances are, who is listening etc., BEFORE we open our big yaps.
My point is: Buddhists practice Right Speech. Some non-Buddhists practice Right Speech. A lot of non-Buddhists do not. This forum has a mix. As far as I understand Buddhism, it doesn't say that any of the precepts are "True," just that they work and you should check them out for yourself if you are so inclined. So I think the Right Speech standard is a little much, even on the forum. I think the board "rules" might be a more appropriate reference point. Out there in the real world we are governed by laws and rules, too. Expecting people in general to do more than follow those rules is a recipe for letdown. Expecting yourself to do more is something different.
MouthfulofClay, would you please rephrase that statement (in boldface) so that it makes sense. You didn't really mean that, did you? I don't really mean to single you out here, but I am easily confused. I might could understand changing the effect of the hurt, but not the cause.
Hrmmm... How interesting. When you ask me to restate what I said so that it makes sense, rather than asking me to restate so that it makes sense to you (I like to believe that what I say makes sense to someone out there... is that a hopeless thought? :rolleyes:), part of me gets a little... well, testy. How dare you say I don't make sense just because you don't agree with me! :eek: But not only is my frustration and wounded self-esteem easily set aside without further damage, now I also see what I think is the issue between the two of us: we don't agree.
I have never once been speaking about using a curse at someone, so let's just set that one aside before we begin. That's just plain mean.
When a word hurts you, that is an emotional response. I think that the cause of the hurt is within the person who hurts (caused by your perception and attachments), you think it is without (caused by the word itself? caused by the other person's lack of mindfulness? caused by your conditioning? I'm not sure which of these you would say, if any). Besides which, even if you are right and the cause is without, what can you do about it if you are offended? You can avoid it or ask someone to stop (or fire them if you are your or my boss;)), but you can't make someone else be mindful. And you can't make other people stop cussing just because you know someone will be offended. Really, the only thing you can do every time is let go of the pain you feel when you hear someone curse. I guess you can give comfort to someone you know has been offended, but you can't even be sure they will be comforted by your words/actions.
I would like to point out, that I think we also have many points of agreement. We both work at jobs where our language is a hiring/firing point. We are both mindful of how we speak in front of people based on empathic thought processes. We both curse at times.
I'm happy for the debate and happy to see the similarities. And now I'm off to hopefully enjoy at least one good four letter word in the presence of my husband (who will also enjoy the word) before bed. And read some filthy Shakespeare tomorrow with my students. I love language. Hopefully you understood mine.
Wow! Mouthfulofclay, I'm not an exact-spoken fellow. I did not mean that your statement made no sense at all. If I had meant that, I would have said that. I am sorry if you took offense at that. I tried to lighten it up a bit by saying that I didn't mean to single you out. I do beg your pardon, you bold soul!
However, let me say that my not being such a precise speaker I may have seemed to accept your premisses, whereas I now see that I don't necessarily, as you'll see below. Perhaps the word "hurt" is not so apt here. "Intrusive comment" or "rude assertion" might be better descriptors for me.
And, as I've said above, not dwelling on the rudenesses and vulgarities of others is the mature way to handle this matter. It is important not to take things personally when they might not have been. Nonetheless, who needs noisy, intrusive comments when one can just have some peace and quiet?
However, that said,I must digress, go back to the beginning of this post and turn it all around again --just in case all that I have written has been in Greek. So I contradict myself?
1) The fact still remains that there are a lot of people out there that derive pleasure from hurting other people --and sometimes they can give not so subtle clues to people that they care not whether they live or die.
2) Many people have been severely damaged by destuctive acts by insulting people and rough language is very unsettling to them as it brings a lot of these memories back. Perhaps these "damaged souls" do feel "hurt."
3) Where I'd differ from you here would be:
If they are hurt by such words I doubt that they are in a better position to remove that hurt than the one employing these "word weapons" is.
IA good "test" of the quality of what you say is kosher or non-offensive, is would you say the EXACT same words to you parents/wife/husband/children/priest/rabbi or whatever in standard conversation? and in doing so would their reaction be one of delight (happiness) or disgust/anger/, If the answer is "no", well I think it is fairly easily to determine if the words cause "hurt" or not.
Well in my case I do use such language in front of my parents and my wife, and their reaction is neutral. In fact they all often employ the same language.
A good "test" of the quality of what you say is kosher or non-offensive, is would you say the EXACT same words to you parents/wife/husband/children/priest/rabbi or whatever in standard conversation? and in doing so would their reaction be one of delight (happiness) or disgust/anger/, If the answer is "no", well I think it is fairly easily to determine if the words cause "hurt" or not.
Well in my case I do use such language in front of my parents and my wife, and their reaction is neutral. In fact they all often employ the same language.
Sure, to your boss, your teacher, your grandmother --in addition to your children, priest, and rabbi!
Amazing! Thanks for sharing.
Sure, to your boss, your teacher, your grandmother --in addition to your children, priest, and rabbi!
Amazing! Thanks for sharing.
Well I'm self-employed, both my grandmothers are deceased, I haven't been in school since the mid-90's, my wife and I have chosen to be childless, and I have neither priest nor rabbi.
But, what is your point? I see no pertinence to Xrayman's idea, really only impertinence. I did not think this thread was about lifestyles, but about the limits of speech in the larger society —and, of course, on this website!
I suggest that brushing people's heartfelt expressions aside with such lack of circumspection detracts immeasurably from concord and goodwill.
A man's home is his castle. I won't argue that point. In my reasoned opinion, you need to get out more often and meet a policeman or a judge or someone that you deem above contempt, before you can weigh in on Xrayman's question responsibly.
I do not mean to dismiss you, Sir, but I expect more congeniality and mindful respect be given to the ideas of others on this forum.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited September 2009
We mirror behaviour. Hence, I guess, the reason we all behave in certain ways, in the presence of others. I guess if your folks were actually dead against cussing, Takeahnase, you wouldn't do it in front of them.
On the other hand, we do take greater liberties with our loved and close ones, because we rely on a higher level of tolerance from them than we do from others. We speak to them in a different way to the way we speak to others....
Like, for example, children, Priests or Rabbis......
I mean, being self-employed must mean you are in contact with members of the public in order to practice what you do... Would you use liberal language to them, as well?
I did not think this thread was about lifestyles, but about the limits of speech in the larger society —and, of course, on this website!
Choosing who you associate with is your ultimate control in "larger society" though isn't it? How you choose to speak influences and is influenced by this choice of association.
I do not mean to dismiss you, Sir, but I expect more congeniality and mindful respect be given to the ideas of others on this forum.
I've not disrespected anyone's ideas (and if anyone feels I've disrespected them then I offer my apologies), I am debating an idea.
And yes, of course I adjust my language in accordance to the situation. Much like how one speaks more simply when addressing a child, and more. I stand by my original statement however. Words in and of themselves are harmless, it is the way in which they are employed that causes harm. If I slip on ice while in public and exclaim "son of a bitch" while I fall, that harms no one. If I call someone a "son of a bitch" that does harm that person.
Here's something I received today in an email from a socialist discussion list that I belong to:
In all fairness, the language is vulgar. Vulgar means common. It is the language of the common man and is only considered in ill taste because it is related as being proletarian/peasant. I never mind vulgarity, it's the message, not the language, when it comes to what is offensive.
While the context is slightly different, I think it sums up my position quite well.
Here's something I received today in an email from a socialist discussion list that I belong to:
In all fairness, the language is vulgar. Vulgar means common. It is the language of the common man and is only considered in ill taste because it is related as being proletarian/peasant. I never mind vulgarity, it's the message, not the language, when it comes to what is offensive.
While the context is slightly different, I think it sums up my position quite well.
The power and meaning behind "curse words" is and always will be arbitrary. If you have the ability to be offended by curse words, then you have the ability to be not offended...
I personally enjoy my sentence enhancers but I am courteous of who I use them around.
Here's something I received today in an email from a socialist discussion list that I belong to:
In all fairness, the language is vulgar. Vulgar means common. It is the language of the common man and is only considered in ill taste because it is related as being proletarian/peasant. I never mind vulgarity, it's the message, not the language, when it comes to what is offensive.
While the context is slightly different, I think it sums up my position quite well.
This perfectly expresses my view on the issue as well.
I'm late to the party guys... sorry. I confess to being a user of obscenities. Sorry, Fede... however I'm solidly with Fede and Sara on this one. I believe that there is a time and place for such speech. And this forum is not the place IMHO. I am not offended in any was by foul language, but it is overused, so therefore at times it appears incongruous.
I don't like bad language when it appears that its use is unnecessary, or when the speaker seems to have a limited vocabulary. I believe there are some places when bad language is totally out of place, because it doesn't add to discussion, only detracts. If as mentioned in an earlier example, one is in the company of battle-hardened soldiers, course language may well be the order of the day, likewise in the ghettos of east L. A., but here or elsewhere, where people are exchanging rational, philosophical, spiritual ideas, it's simply out of place.
Could not your thoughts be conveyed with the same impact using other words? I know mine can, just as I can convey the same thoughts with the foulest language you can imagine if the audience demands it. If you cannot, I suggest you need to work on that.
This forum strives to contemplate life's higher ideals. Somehow the concept of "higher ideals" and the word "fuck", just don't fit.
The admins should add a feature that makes common vulgarities appear as ****. Users who do not mind the swear woulds could then disable it and browse the boards in all their profanest glory.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited October 2009
Yuh, but that way lies censorship.... We'd like to think that people can exercise Right/Free Speech and not need to resort to such foul profanities that they actually need converting to ****.
I think we need to also find a middle ground, without appearing to either appear too prudish, nor overly liberal....
Which is why we rely on members exercising caution and consideration.....
I subscribe to a forum that really knows a couple of over-zealous moderators, who tend to Moderate out of personal preference and bias, rather than for the good of the forum.
Therefore, it largely depends what mood they're in, a lot of the time....!
The more rules and reg's you add, the more restrictive it becomes, and the more personal interpretation/bias creeps in.....
That's my take on it, as far as I am concerned.....
I am guilty of using vulgar language on a daily basis. Part of it is because of bad habits I picked up on a job I used to have, and part of it is because of my general dissatisfaction with the state of our world. I think that the effects of vulgar language are entirely subjective and dependent on the receiving individual’s morals, values, and upbringing. Their use does not mean that a person is of lesser intelligence, rude, or full of bad values for using them. However, they should be used discriminately and with consideration of their effects on the spiritual path of the deliverer and the receiver.
The admins should add a feature that makes common vulgarities appear as ****. Users who do not mind the swear woulds could then disable it and browse the boards in all their profanest glory.
There is such an option, but it is all-or-nothing, not modifiable by user. We've chosen the "nothing" side.
I work in a clinic and i just saw a gentleman who's found out he has a possibly serious heart complaint. He's 85 and his response was - 'i just get on with it. If it happens it happens, that's life. I'm happy - it's the only way to be'. As he left i noticed his trousers (pants) were tucked into his sock. When i mentioned this he said with a laugh 'I better get that right or they'll take the piss out of me'. It made me think for two reasons. One- here is someone who embodies alot of what the Buddhist teachings I have come into contact have said to strive for. Two - swearing can be a positive/ endearing/funny thing. My opinion is it's all in the context. :rockon:
Yuh, but that way lies censorship.... We'd like to think that people can exercise Right/Free Speech and not need to resort to such foul profanities that they actually need converting to ****.
In all fairness, the language is vulgar. Vulgar means common. It is the language of the common man and is only considered in ill taste because it is related as being proletarian/peasant. I never mind vulgarity, it's the message, not the language, when it comes to what is offensive.
Sometimes all it takes to convey an offensive message is a single word, vulgar or not. Some people seem somewhat incline to justify their foul language (including both words and messages) using Buddhism as a shield.
Hurting other people on purpose or behaving inappropriately and saying its their fault for not taking it the way YOU expect is rather egocentric and mean-spirited, and shows a callous disregard for the feelings of others. Besides, it ends up generating hatred.
I just wish people would stop butchering Buddhism by using its teachings to behave like a sociopath.
Sometimes all it takes to convey an offensive message is a single word, vulgar or not. Some people seem somewhat incline to justify their foul language (including both words and messages) using Buddhism as a shield.
Hurting other people on purpose or behaving inappropriately and saying its their fault for not taking it the way YOU expect is rather egocentric and mean-spirited, and shows a callous disregard for the feelings of others. Besides, it ends up generating hatred.
I just wish people would stop butchering Buddhism by using its teachings to behave like a sociopath.
Don't you think you're being just a little dramatic here? Who's using Buddhism as a shield? Who's butchering Buddhism by using its teachings to behave like a sociopath? What you quoted, for example, has nothing to do with Buddhism, it has to do with a materialistic view of history and the use of language.
Moreover, you say that "hurting other people on purpose or behaving inappropriately and saying its their fault for not taking it the way YOU expect is rather egocentric and mean-spirited." To begin with, nobody is talking about hurting other people on purpose. That's a strawman.
Secondly, what does "behaving inappropriately" mean? Who gets to decides what's appropriate? For example, the paragraph you quoted above illustrates how the common language of the people (including things such as profanity and slang) was historically looked down upon by the ruling class as being inappropriate. From one point of view, you could say that the ruling class was behaving appropriately and teaching the common person by example how to behave. But from another, you could say that imposing aristocratic manners upon the common person was simply another form of oppression, and judging the common person by their use of vulgar or common language was simply another form of class discrimination.
Furthermore, implying that the common person is a sociopath for merely using vulgar language, either then or now, is more insulting to me that if you had said I was a complete fucking asshole. And even though I'm pretty sure you didn't intentionally mean to hurt me, my feelings were hurt anyway. So from one point of view, you could be seen as butchering Buddhism by using its teachings to behave like a sociopath. But from another, you could be seen as simply a person trying to make a point and unintentionally pissing off the local socialist.
The question is, which view is objectively true? I'd say neither because words not only take their meaning from the intention of the person speaking, they're understood and perceived by other people subjectively, through certain filters, and it's not necessarily your fault if they get offended or misunderstand what you're trying to say—unless, of course, your intention was to offend and you actually tried your best to offend that person. In this case, your intention wasn't to hurt me on purpose, but your words did nevertheless. I don't hold it against you, however, because I understand that it wasn't done intentionally and it was all in how I perceived it.
In my opinion, Buddhism isn't about blaming anyone or criticizing them for their mistakes; it's about realizing and correcting our own. Your opinion seems to be that right speech is very important, and you (as well as other members here) hold others to a stricter interpretation of what right speech is. And that's fine. The only problem is that our members all have different ideas as to what right speech entails and how they choose to practice it. Some, for example, think it's more about the intention, while others think it's more about the words themselves.
As a moderator, I'm in no position to judge which approach is right, I'm simply here to enforce the rules of the board, and our position in moderating the site is, as Lincoln already mentioned, "that no one can curse at other people, attack people, or generally be jerks."
I'm going to roll a few replies into a single post.
1. I swear all the time. However, I have an unconscious list of people and situations where it's ok and not ok to swear. A buddhist discussion list is a "not to swear" situation.
2. There's nothing wrong with swearing. The "right speech" injunction (at least in my not so humble opinion) has to do with lying, gossip and harmful speech--like someone's comment about swearing *at* someone.
3. You have a right to your own physical safety (like not being stabbed or dismembered) but you don't have a right to not be offended. Taking offense at something someone SAYS is your problem, not theirs.
4. You DO have an obligation to be kind to others which is why (see above) I have a swear/no swear list.
Furthermore, implying that the common person is a sociopath for merely using vulgar language, either then or now, is more insulting to me that if you had said I was a complete fucking asshole. And even though I'm pretty sure you didn't intentionally mean to hurt me, my feelings were hurt anyway.
I appreciate you took the time to comment my post so fully. Thank you.
I don't want to deviate from the topic in the first post but I feel the need to clarify some things.
My post was not concerned about discourse as a means of domination, where a class, be it in a economic (aristocracy vs common folks), ethnic (as in Hitler ideas), religious (fundamentalists vs the rest), scientific or philosophical sense dominates or tries to dominate the other through words. My post was concerned as discourse as a weapon.
People that use language freely as a weapon are behaving like sociopaths, whether the language used is vulgar or any other kind. What I mean is that they are devoid of any preoccupation with the consequences of their speech. Sometimes people use religious discourse, including Buddhist, as a weapon.
People like to think that it's okay to say anything, or that getting hurt by words is not the most mature/spiritual answer, although words do hurt. I am pretty sure most people have had the experience of being hurt by what other people say.
Some people have the tendency to say that the right thing is not to be offended. It might be the case, but its not so easy. Sometimes, even if you think you are not offended by something someone says, that doesn't mean you are past it. It might just happen that your way of coping is denial, and that it might cause problems in the future.
I get the feeling from these posts that sometimes people think "what I say might be misinterpreted and hurt other people anyway, so why should I care?". Caring means you are compassionate, you try to refrain from hurting other people. It means you are striving to have the correct speech. It means what you say will more likely generate good karma and that you are in the noble eightfold path. I think these are good reasons.
You have a right to your own physical safety (like not being stabbed or dismembered) but you don't have a right to not be offended.
Actually, even by law, you do. Its so important its in most modern constitutions. Sometimes what you say depending on the type of the offense might be even a crime, like racism is in many places.
Edit: what I am talking about is not the usual cursing people do everyday, deprived of harmful meaning, so maybe I drifted away from the topic a bit
Words gain power from both sides. If one actor calls another actor a name following the script of a play, there is no offence caused. Because there is no illusion of intent to cause offence.
Otherwise, its offence that the poster/speaker didn't think about your feelings before saying/posting. For this reason I watch my speech for swearing with people who I do not know very well. Not because they are right to be offended, but because i just don't want to cause any.
In my case, if I get offended by somebody calling me a name, I work with it and ask why. Then I realise that I don't know there intent or if intent is obvious, I wonder about there situation. Often when people curse and swear in an agressively outward way, they are doing so because of stress they already carry around with them.
There is such a thing as a curse word that describes something beautiful thing. For example there was a time when the word orgasm was cindered vulgar, perfectly accepted now, how dose a word redeem it's self? The whole thing just prooves howmuch control the west has over it's people.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
People that use language freely as a weapon are behaving like sociopaths, whether the language used is vulgar or any other kind. What I mean is that they are devoid of any preoccupation with the consequences of their speech. Sometimes people use religious discourse, including Buddhist, as a weapon.
And you consider accusing people you hardly even know of butchering Buddhism and behaving like sociopaths right speech?
And you consider accusing people you hardly even know of butchering Buddhism and behaving like sociopaths right speech?
I didn't accuse anyone. But now I will exemplify.
The sword is generally associated with killing, and most of us wonder how it can come into connection with Zen, which is a school of Buddhism teaching the gospel of love and mercy. The fact is that the art of swordsmanship distinguishes between the sword that kills and the sword that gives life. The one that is used by a technician cannot go any further than killing, for he never appeals to the sword unless he intends to kill. The case is altogether different with the one who is compelled to lift the sword. For it is really not he but the sword itself that does the killing. He had no desire to do harm to anybody, but the enemy appears and makes himself a victim. It is as though the sword performs automatically its function of justice, with is the function of mercy…the swordsman turns into an artist of the first grade, engaged in producing a work of genuine originality.
This is something DT Suziki wrote. Sounds romantic doesn't it? Too bad a slash wound isn't.
The interests of religion and the state do not conflict but rather aid and
support each other in a quest for wholeness…. The problem is easily
resolved if one thinks of religion as an entity with the state as its body, and of the state as something developing with religion as its spirit. In other words, religion and the state form a unity; if every action and movement of the state takes on a religious character and if every word and action of religion takes on a state character, then whatever is done for the sake of the state is done for religion, and whatever is done for the sake of religion is done for the state.
My apologies. For the sake of clarification, then, could you please specify as to whom you were referring to when you said:
Sometimes all it takes to convey an offensive message is a single word, vulgar or not. Some people seem somewhat incline to justify their foul language (including both words and messages) using Buddhism as a shield.
Hurting other people on purpose or behaving inappropriately and saying its their fault for not taking it the way YOU expect is rather egocentric and mean-spirited, and shows a callous disregard for the feelings of others. Besides, it ends up generating hatred.
I just wish people would stop butchering Buddhism by using its teachings to behave like a sociopath.
And while you're at it, perhaps you could also explain why you quoted what I said in post #64 and how that relates to what you said about people butchering Buddhism and behaving like sociopaths.
And while you're at it, perhaps you could also explain why you quoted what I said in post #64 and how that relates to what you said about people butchering Buddhism and behaving like sociopaths.
The first sentence of the first paragraph was me agreeing with you partially, I believe, in the sense that the message is important not the words, but after that I was just giving my opinion on what is bad language.
Since we are in a Buddhist forum, I tried to remain within the scope of the Buddhist discourse being used as bad language. (notice I am referring to the discourse - the vocabulary, so to speak - and not the buddhist thought).
(...) could you please specify as to whom you were referring to when you said...)
Nobody in specific, it was just me stating my opinion of things that do happen, but I chose to exemplify with some of D.T. Suzuki's writings later on. It would be common place to quote some of the 'wisdom drops' of a certain admin of another buddhist forum, but here it goes (feel free to delete this part if it causes any trouble):
Rev Nonin (Forum member) :
No one is free from delusion forever. Nothing is permanent. Delusion keeps coming up.
[...]
Namdrol (former E-sangha global moderator)
This is an unacceptable position, these are the words of Mara, Adharma, False dharma, and may not propagated here at E-Sanga, in any forum. People who present themselves as Buddhist teachers here should not enunciate such falsehoods, lies and slanders.
Here in this forum it was stated that my mind was blind, that my so called doctrine was born out of ignorance, and I believe it was insinuated that I had descended even further from animal realm into Hell, without even a quick stop in hungry ghosts (LOL) for disagreeing with a certain point of view.
The important thing to point out though is not the people that do this type of things, but the action itself of bending the Dharma just to sound more accomplished or to make a point more valid.
The first sentence of the first paragraph was me agreeing with you partially, I believe, in the sense that the message is important not the words, but after that I was just giving my opinion on what is bad language.
Since we are in a Buddhist forum, I tried to remain within the scope of the Buddhist discourse being used as bad language. (notice I am referring to the discourse - the vocabulary, so to speak - and not the buddhist thought).
Nobody in specific, it was just me stating my opinion of things that do happen, but I chose to exemplify with some of D.T. Suzuki's writings later on. It would be common place to quote some of the 'wisdom drops' of a certain admin of another buddhist forum, but here it goes (feel free to delete this part if it causes any trouble):
Here in this forum it was stated that my mind was blind, that my so called doctrine was born out of ignorance, and I believe it was insinuated that I had descended even further from animal realm into Hell, without even a quick stop in hungry ghosts (LOL) for disagreeing with a certain point of view.
The important thing to point out though is not the people that do this type of things, but the action itself of bending the Dharma just to sound more accomplished or to make a point more valid.
Many linguists believe that English has the largest vocabulary of any language on earth, due to its inclusive nature. It's a mongrel tongue that owes much to its ability to take in memes from other tongues. I relish our so-called vulgarities; they exemplify the Anglo-Saxon pedigree of our language - monosyllabic, gutteral and consonant-driven, in many ways less cerebral and more visceral than the genteel Latinate diction favored by polite society. It is particularly delightful when used unexpectedly by a master:
In particular, Goethe argued for a primacy of imagination and integrative hypothesis over building toward generality by factual accumulation in the "neutral" mode. (This is a dangerous method, easily leading to dogmatism, unreality, improper respect for the empirical record, and all the speculative excesses less politely known as bullshit.)
-- S. Jay Gould in Natural History, February 1991
Alas, most of us are not talented enough wordsmiths to pull something like that off with quite the same charm. Still, I don't see any reason to deprive ourselves of the more colorful vocabulary in our repertoire. I am reminded by this video featuring the wonderful Pema Chodron, who does not shy away from using four-letter words in her books:
Calling for self-censorship is, IMO, asking others to pave the world in leather instead of making oneself a pair of shoes. I am much more offended by the confrontational, disrespectful tone created by self-imposed divisiveness common to many Buddhist forums. Many such places are populated with refugees of the Abrahamic religions, and as such tend to view religion/philosophy as an instrument of division. Practicing Buddhism asks us to step out of that mindset in a way that may seem strange at first, but is well worth the lowered blood pressure. The teachings of the Shakyamuni Buddha on metta in a nutshell: we're all more alike than we are different - look beyond yourself at the web of life you are a part of. One person's aversion to profanity and my fondness for it all fall by the wayside in the face of our shared humanity.
I'm only saying that the west seams to be more strict about one word or another being any different (maybe I'm wrong) My point is that the dreaded 7 words (fuck, shit, piss, cunt, cocksucker, mother fucker, and Tits) all have synonyms meaning the same thing which are perfectly accepted in "civilized society, so now all you can say you find offensive is what the word sound like.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited October 2009
The words are vulgar, but if they have synonyms, why not use those....?
Not quite the same, is it?
It's also the context.
And doctors (for example) aren't going to use vulgar terms to describe conditions regarding those particular attributes.
There has to be a distinction between the word/Noun, and the expletive deleted.
I think you'll find that your argument is a strawman one, and is smoke and mirrors.
The words are vulgar, but if they have synonyms, why not use those....?
Because "gosh darnit" just doesn't have the same impact as "goddammit", an usually when I use such words it's to give my statement impact (now speaking casually among friends is another matter, my language tends to be a bit more free in those situations).
Glow. Lovin' that response. I'm teaching Shakespeare right now. If you can't deal with people telling each other to go f--- themselves, then you are missing half the beauty of Shakespearean text.
Fed, can you explain why "darn" is different than "damn?"
The words are vulgar, but if they have synonyms, why not use those....?
Not quite the same, is it?
It's also the context.
And doctors (for example) aren't going to use vulgar terms to describe conditions regarding those particular attributes.
There has to be a distinction between the word/Noun, and the expletive deleted.
I think you'll find that your argument is a strawman one, and is smoke and mirrors.
It's just occurred to me that perhaps we need to draw a distinction between words uttered generally, or as part of speech, and words specifically directed at us as an expression of anger.....
The former, as far as I am concerned are an irritation, and something I see as unnecessary for the most part - the second I find gravely offensive, because of the intended verbal injury.
I also (and again, this is merely my opinion) think it renders a person less articulate.
If someone cannot express what they have to say without resorting to profanities, I personally do not think it says anything for their ability to pass a sentiment on effectively.
But that's just me....
Perhaps when you hear the word in question you 'read' anger? The only meaning the word expresses is the emotion expressed. In other words, the person who utters a swear word in your presence is giving you their anger as a present. You 'dislike' this present because it's similar to someone screaming at you silently. They are showing anger, but not verbalizing the anger fully.
Were an individual to actually articulate their feelings you would have something wholesome to consider. Furthermore the person speaking would not be angry. Anger is a front for sadness, and sometimes anxiety. Perhaps the person swearing is unhappy partly because they are unable to communicate effectively, or as yet lacking the capacity for self control.
My friend swears a lot; now I find that I am influenced by this and also angry that I have attached this unecessary connotation to my emotions. it's like a glitch or a disease that I cannot control. Yet if I manage my temper and get a clear mind going on, this absolutely disappears.
This other bloke I know works with me, and he swears before most words he uses. Having spoken with him on a number of occasions his temper has changed somewhat. When he's in a really good mood, he sings, and doesn't swear much at all. If I haven't noticed it, perhaps I am also in a very positive frame of mind-- but I'm pretty sure I'm partly responsible for how others behave.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Comments
So good to hear from you again.
I'm glad to hear your take on this.
I tried, but failed, in my last post to point out that further proliferation of the usage of profanity just spreads and grows the problem. My main point, which I believe I dropped, was that my problem wasn't so much the few bad words I'd say in a week or in a month, but the "noisy, boisterous" backdrop of the culture that I am immersed in. We pick these words up by example from the "good people" who use them. In the case of children, however, it's a different case. Although a grown man or woman would not likely pick things up from those he or she disliked, children do, needing to fit in to their world and not having a very good handle on just who they need to be accepted by. It's a terrible thing so much profanity has found its way into the movies and onto the airways that our highly impressionable children are picking these bad habits up. There's a lot of rudeness going around as a result of it, too.
If our good friends use profanity in front of us, we pick it up in no small measure. I may not feel comfortable in informing a friend of my dislike of profanity generally, but I would be guarded so as not to show any amusement with it either. I just cannot find any reason within myself to advocate the freedom of someone to use profanity ad lib.
I'll admit, firstoff, that I never have believed in the freedom of expression. To me that's patent nonsense. The First Amendment, which I revere, speaks of the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to exercise religion without governmental incursions, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and also to petition the government. There is a penumbra there for freedom to speak or print the Truth, but no provision for dissembling or doing anything to thwart the common good.
There is no place in business, in our schools, in our streets, or in our homes where some sort of constraint does not bind us from expressing anything of which we may be capable. It is only the person in a psychotic state who can act without restraint --with the sole exception of the artist; but art contains its own madness, as they say.
My point is: Buddhists practice Right Speech. Some non-Buddhists practice Right Speech. A lot of non-Buddhists do not. This forum has a mix. As far as I understand Buddhism, it doesn't say that any of the precepts are "True," just that they work and you should check them out for yourself if you are so inclined. So I think the Right Speech standard is a little much, even on the forum. I think the board "rules" might be a more appropriate reference point. Out there in the real world we are governed by laws and rules, too. Expecting people in general to do more than follow those rules is a recipe for letdown. Expecting yourself to do more is something different.
Hrmmm... How interesting. When you ask me to restate what I said so that it makes sense, rather than asking me to restate so that it makes sense to you (I like to believe that what I say makes sense to someone out there... is that a hopeless thought? :rolleyes:), part of me gets a little... well, testy. How dare you say I don't make sense just because you don't agree with me! :eek: But not only is my frustration and wounded self-esteem easily set aside without further damage, now I also see what I think is the issue between the two of us: we don't agree.
I have never once been speaking about using a curse at someone, so let's just set that one aside before we begin. That's just plain mean.
When a word hurts you, that is an emotional response. I think that the cause of the hurt is within the person who hurts (caused by your perception and attachments), you think it is without (caused by the word itself? caused by the other person's lack of mindfulness? caused by your conditioning? I'm not sure which of these you would say, if any). Besides which, even if you are right and the cause is without, what can you do about it if you are offended? You can avoid it or ask someone to stop (or fire them if you are your or my boss;)), but you can't make someone else be mindful. And you can't make other people stop cussing just because you know someone will be offended. Really, the only thing you can do every time is let go of the pain you feel when you hear someone curse. I guess you can give comfort to someone you know has been offended, but you can't even be sure they will be comforted by your words/actions.
I would like to point out, that I think we also have many points of agreement. We both work at jobs where our language is a hiring/firing point. We are both mindful of how we speak in front of people based on empathic thought processes. We both curse at times.
I'm happy for the debate and happy to see the similarities. And now I'm off to hopefully enjoy at least one good four letter word in the presence of my husband (who will also enjoy the word) before bed. And read some filthy Shakespeare tomorrow with my students. I love language. Hopefully you understood mine.
However, let me say that my not being such a precise speaker I may have seemed to accept your premisses, whereas I now see that I don't necessarily, as you'll see below. Perhaps the word "hurt" is not so apt here. "Intrusive comment" or "rude assertion" might be better descriptors for me.
And, as I've said above, not dwelling on the rudenesses and vulgarities of others is the mature way to handle this matter. It is important not to take things personally when they might not have been. Nonetheless, who needs noisy, intrusive comments when one can just have some peace and quiet?
However, that said,I must digress, go back to the beginning of this post and turn it all around again --just in case all that I have written has been in Greek. So I contradict myself?
1) The fact still remains that there are a lot of people out there that derive pleasure from hurting other people --and sometimes they can give not so subtle clues to people that they care not whether they live or die.
2) Many people have been severely damaged by destuctive acts by insulting people and rough language is very unsettling to them as it brings a lot of these memories back. Perhaps these "damaged souls" do feel "hurt."
3) Where I'd differ from you here would be:
If they are hurt by such words I doubt that they are in a better position to remove that hurt than the one employing these "word weapons" is.
Well in my case I do use such language in front of my parents and my wife, and their reaction is neutral. In fact they all often employ the same language.
Sure, to your boss, your teacher, your grandmother --in addition to your children, priest, and rabbi!
Amazing! Thanks for sharing.
Well I'm self-employed, both my grandmothers are deceased, I haven't been in school since the mid-90's, my wife and I have chosen to be childless, and I have neither priest nor rabbi.
I suggest that brushing people's heartfelt expressions aside with such lack of circumspection detracts immeasurably from concord and goodwill.
A man's home is his castle. I won't argue that point. In my reasoned opinion, you need to get out more often and meet a policeman or a judge or someone that you deem above contempt, before you can weigh in on Xrayman's question responsibly.
I do not mean to dismiss you, Sir, but I expect more congeniality and mindful respect be given to the ideas of others on this forum.
On the other hand, we do take greater liberties with our loved and close ones, because we rely on a higher level of tolerance from them than we do from others. We speak to them in a different way to the way we speak to others....
Like, for example, children, Priests or Rabbis......
I mean, being self-employed must mean you are in contact with members of the public in order to practice what you do... Would you use liberal language to them, as well?
I've not disrespected anyone's ideas (and if anyone feels I've disrespected them then I offer my apologies), I am debating an idea.
And yes, of course I adjust my language in accordance to the situation. Much like how one speaks more simply when addressing a child, and more. I stand by my original statement however. Words in and of themselves are harmless, it is the way in which they are employed that causes harm. If I slip on ice while in public and exclaim "son of a bitch" while I fall, that harms no one. If I call someone a "son of a bitch" that does harm that person.
While the context is slightly different, I think it sums up my position quite well.
I noticed on your post that your location is on the earth. Sounds dirty.
Some of us have our eyes set higher than the earthy, on the heavenly.
You're such a Sport!
Fondly,
Nirvy
:uphand:
I personally enjoy my sentence enhancers but I am courteous of who I use them around.
I don't like bad language when it appears that its use is unnecessary, or when the speaker seems to have a limited vocabulary. I believe there are some places when bad language is totally out of place, because it doesn't add to discussion, only detracts. If as mentioned in an earlier example, one is in the company of battle-hardened soldiers, course language may well be the order of the day, likewise in the ghettos of east L. A., but here or elsewhere, where people are exchanging rational, philosophical, spiritual ideas, it's simply out of place.
Could not your thoughts be conveyed with the same impact using other words? I know mine can, just as I can convey the same thoughts with the foulest language you can imagine if the audience demands it. If you cannot, I suggest you need to work on that.
This forum strives to contemplate life's higher ideals. Somehow the concept of "higher ideals" and the word "fuck", just don't fit.
So you agree with both Jason -
and Les....?
I think we need to also find a middle ground, without appearing to either appear too prudish, nor overly liberal....
Which is why we rely on members exercising caution and consideration.....
I subscribe to a forum that really knows a couple of over-zealous moderators, who tend to Moderate out of personal preference and bias, rather than for the good of the forum.
Therefore, it largely depends what mood they're in, a lot of the time....!
The more rules and reg's you add, the more restrictive it becomes, and the more personal interpretation/bias creeps in.....
That's my take on it, as far as I am concerned.....
Does that make sense?
~nomad
Yes, I agree with what both Jason and Les said. I don't think their posts are mutually exclusive.
The only good censorship, is self-censorship.
Sometimes all it takes to convey an offensive message is a single word, vulgar or not. Some people seem somewhat incline to justify their foul language (including both words and messages) using Buddhism as a shield.
Hurting other people on purpose or behaving inappropriately and saying its their fault for not taking it the way YOU expect is rather egocentric and mean-spirited, and shows a callous disregard for the feelings of others. Besides, it ends up generating hatred.
I just wish people would stop butchering Buddhism by using its teachings to behave like a sociopath.
Don't you think you're being just a little dramatic here? Who's using Buddhism as a shield? Who's butchering Buddhism by using its teachings to behave like a sociopath? What you quoted, for example, has nothing to do with Buddhism, it has to do with a materialistic view of history and the use of language.
Moreover, you say that "hurting other people on purpose or behaving inappropriately and saying its their fault for not taking it the way YOU expect is rather egocentric and mean-spirited." To begin with, nobody is talking about hurting other people on purpose. That's a strawman.
Secondly, what does "behaving inappropriately" mean? Who gets to decides what's appropriate? For example, the paragraph you quoted above illustrates how the common language of the people (including things such as profanity and slang) was historically looked down upon by the ruling class as being inappropriate. From one point of view, you could say that the ruling class was behaving appropriately and teaching the common person by example how to behave. But from another, you could say that imposing aristocratic manners upon the common person was simply another form of oppression, and judging the common person by their use of vulgar or common language was simply another form of class discrimination.
Furthermore, implying that the common person is a sociopath for merely using vulgar language, either then or now, is more insulting to me that if you had said I was a complete fucking asshole. And even though I'm pretty sure you didn't intentionally mean to hurt me, my feelings were hurt anyway. So from one point of view, you could be seen as butchering Buddhism by using its teachings to behave like a sociopath. But from another, you could be seen as simply a person trying to make a point and unintentionally pissing off the local socialist.
The question is, which view is objectively true? I'd say neither because words not only take their meaning from the intention of the person speaking, they're understood and perceived by other people subjectively, through certain filters, and it's not necessarily your fault if they get offended or misunderstand what you're trying to say—unless, of course, your intention was to offend and you actually tried your best to offend that person. In this case, your intention wasn't to hurt me on purpose, but your words did nevertheless. I don't hold it against you, however, because I understand that it wasn't done intentionally and it was all in how I perceived it.
In my opinion, Buddhism isn't about blaming anyone or criticizing them for their mistakes; it's about realizing and correcting our own. Your opinion seems to be that right speech is very important, and you (as well as other members here) hold others to a stricter interpretation of what right speech is. And that's fine. The only problem is that our members all have different ideas as to what right speech entails and how they choose to practice it. Some, for example, think it's more about the intention, while others think it's more about the words themselves.
As a moderator, I'm in no position to judge which approach is right, I'm simply here to enforce the rules of the board, and our position in moderating the site is, as Lincoln already mentioned, "that no one can curse at other people, attack people, or generally be jerks."
1. I swear all the time. However, I have an unconscious list of people and situations where it's ok and not ok to swear. A buddhist discussion list is a "not to swear" situation.
2. There's nothing wrong with swearing. The "right speech" injunction (at least in my not so humble opinion) has to do with lying, gossip and harmful speech--like someone's comment about swearing *at* someone.
3. You have a right to your own physical safety (like not being stabbed or dismembered) but you don't have a right to not be offended. Taking offense at something someone SAYS is your problem, not theirs.
4. You DO have an obligation to be kind to others which is why (see above) I have a swear/no swear list.
I don't want to deviate from the topic in the first post but I feel the need to clarify some things.
My post was not concerned about discourse as a means of domination, where a class, be it in a economic (aristocracy vs common folks), ethnic (as in Hitler ideas), religious (fundamentalists vs the rest), scientific or philosophical sense dominates or tries to dominate the other through words. My post was concerned as discourse as a weapon.
People that use language freely as a weapon are behaving like sociopaths, whether the language used is vulgar or any other kind. What I mean is that they are devoid of any preoccupation with the consequences of their speech. Sometimes people use religious discourse, including Buddhist, as a weapon.
People like to think that it's okay to say anything, or that getting hurt by words is not the most mature/spiritual answer, although words do hurt. I am pretty sure most people have had the experience of being hurt by what other people say.
Some people have the tendency to say that the right thing is not to be offended. It might be the case, but its not so easy. Sometimes, even if you think you are not offended by something someone says, that doesn't mean you are past it. It might just happen that your way of coping is denial, and that it might cause problems in the future.
I get the feeling from these posts that sometimes people think "what I say might be misinterpreted and hurt other people anyway, so why should I care?". Caring means you are compassionate, you try to refrain from hurting other people. It means you are striving to have the correct speech. It means what you say will more likely generate good karma and that you are in the noble eightfold path. I think these are good reasons.
Actually, even by law, you do. Its so important its in most modern constitutions. Sometimes what you say depending on the type of the offense might be even a crime, like racism is in many places.
Edit: what I am talking about is not the usual cursing people do everyday, deprived of harmful meaning, so maybe I drifted away from the topic a bit
Otherwise, its offence that the poster/speaker didn't think about your feelings before saying/posting. For this reason I watch my speech for swearing with people who I do not know very well. Not because they are right to be offended, but because i just don't want to cause any.
In my case, if I get offended by somebody calling me a name, I work with it and ask why. Then I realise that I don't know there intent or if intent is obvious, I wonder about there situation. Often when people curse and swear in an agressively outward way, they are doing so because of stress they already carry around with them.
And I forgive them of that because I do it too.
Why pin this on "The West"?
Could you make your point?
And you consider accusing people you hardly even know of butchering Buddhism and behaving like sociopaths right speech?
I didn't accuse anyone. But now I will exemplify.
This is something DT Suziki wrote. Sounds romantic doesn't it? Too bad a slash wound isn't.
Here is another of his quotes: (got it from here)
My apologies. For the sake of clarification, then, could you please specify as to whom you were referring to when you said:
Hurting other people on purpose or behaving inappropriately and saying its their fault for not taking it the way YOU expect is rather egocentric and mean-spirited, and shows a callous disregard for the feelings of others. Besides, it ends up generating hatred.
I just wish people would stop butchering Buddhism by using its teachings to behave like a sociopath.
And while you're at it, perhaps you could also explain why you quoted what I said in post #64 and how that relates to what you said about people butchering Buddhism and behaving like sociopaths.
Since we are in a Buddhist forum, I tried to remain within the scope of the Buddhist discourse being used as bad language. (notice I am referring to the discourse - the vocabulary, so to speak - and not the buddhist thought).
Nobody in specific, it was just me stating my opinion of things that do happen, but I chose to exemplify with some of D.T. Suzuki's writings later on. It would be common place to quote some of the 'wisdom drops' of a certain admin of another buddhist forum, but here it goes (feel free to delete this part if it causes any trouble):
The important thing to point out though is not the people that do this type of things, but the action itself of bending the Dharma just to sound more accomplished or to make a point more valid.
Sorry, but you've lost me here, NamelessRiver.
-- S. Jay Gould in Natural History, February 1991
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buTrsK_ZkvA
Calling for self-censorship is, IMO, asking others to pave the world in leather instead of making oneself a pair of shoes. I am much more offended by the confrontational, disrespectful tone created by self-imposed divisiveness common to many Buddhist forums. Many such places are populated with refugees of the Abrahamic religions, and as such tend to view religion/philosophy as an instrument of division. Practicing Buddhism asks us to step out of that mindset in a way that may seem strange at first, but is well worth the lowered blood pressure. The teachings of the Shakyamuni Buddha on metta in a nutshell: we're all more alike than we are different - look beyond yourself at the web of life you are a part of. One person's aversion to profanity and my fondness for it all fall by the wayside in the face of our shared humanity.
I'm only saying that the west seams to be more strict about one word or another being any different (maybe I'm wrong) My point is that the dreaded 7 words (fuck, shit, piss, cunt, cocksucker, mother fucker, and Tits) all have synonyms meaning the same thing which are perfectly accepted in "civilized society, so now all you can say you find offensive is what the word sound like.
Not quite the same, is it?
It's also the context.
And doctors (for example) aren't going to use vulgar terms to describe conditions regarding those particular attributes.
There has to be a distinction between the word/Noun, and the expletive deleted.
I think you'll find that your argument is a strawman one, and is smoke and mirrors.
Language....
Words..
Discrimination...
It's all relative,
you guys are like debating that red is a more offensive color than blue, because WE SEE it that way...
WATEVER
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is ugliness i guess...
Because "gosh darnit" just doesn't have the same impact as "goddammit", an usually when I use such words it's to give my statement impact (now speaking casually among friends is another matter, my language tends to be a bit more free in those situations).
Fed, can you explain why "darn" is different than "damn?"
Perhaps when you hear the word in question you 'read' anger? The only meaning the word expresses is the emotion expressed. In other words, the person who utters a swear word in your presence is giving you their anger as a present. You 'dislike' this present because it's similar to someone screaming at you silently. They are showing anger, but not verbalizing the anger fully.
Were an individual to actually articulate their feelings you would have something wholesome to consider. Furthermore the person speaking would not be angry. Anger is a front for sadness, and sometimes anxiety. Perhaps the person swearing is unhappy partly because they are unable to communicate effectively, or as yet lacking the capacity for self control.
My friend swears a lot; now I find that I am influenced by this and also angry that I have attached this unecessary connotation to my emotions. it's like a glitch or a disease that I cannot control. Yet if I manage my temper and get a clear mind going on, this absolutely disappears.
This other bloke I know works with me, and he swears before most words he uses. Having spoken with him on a number of occasions his temper has changed somewhat. When he's in a really good mood, he sings, and doesn't swear much at all. If I haven't noticed it, perhaps I am also in a very positive frame of mind-- but I'm pretty sure I'm partly responsible for how others behave.
No, I read. "Lack of self-control".