Why do the Boddhisattva precept reject telling a person of their misdeeds?

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Discussing misdeeds or infractions of Bodhisattva-clerics or Bodhisattva-laypersons, or of [ordinary] monks and nuns are not allowed, nor encouraged. Why? How can they grow if they aren't told when they're doing something wrong? Didn't the Vinaya say that if someone witnesses an offense it should be spoken of and told otherwise it is participating in the unwholesome deed by enabling and covering up unwholesome deeds of others?

[DeletedUser]

Rebirth in Jambudvipa is a collective misdeed karma. Discussing misdeed in fact increases this collective karma again, do more harm than good for yourself, your friends who may gossip around. Discussing misdeed will increase the misdeed of your friends and as a friend, you should increase their good karma instead of bad karmic.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Wilfred wrote: »

Rebirth in Jambudvipa is a collective misdeed karma. Discussing misdeed in fact increases this collective karma again, do more harm than good for yourself, your friends who may gossip around. Discussing misdeed will increase the misdeed of your friends and as a friend, you should increase their good karma instead of bad karmic.

But if no one rejects and renounces these misdeeds no one ever will leave Jambudvipa! That seems counterintuitive, when all it would take is to tell the person the truth, and they can become aware of it and renounce it and voilà! It is gone! No more collective misdeed.

unsui

I'm not that familiar with the bodhisattva precepts, but the way I interpreted that precept was that it was unskillful to speak of others' errors and faults to someone other than the person who's errors and faults are being discussed. For example, if Buddhist #1 is talking about Buddhist #2's poor hygiene to Buddhist #3, then it would violate* the precept. However, if Buddhist #1 took Buddhist #2 aside and suggested more frequent bathing or laundering (in a polite, courteous, friendly, helpful manner, of course), Buddhist #1 would be showing compassion to Buddhist #2 by helping him/her correct something (not to mention helping the rest of the community get rid of the smell!).

Of course, I could be wrong in my interpretation.

ETA: I think this precept could also be interpreted as saying that gossip is unskillful.

*I don't really like the word "violate" when refering to the precepts as they're not really "rules" or "commandments", as I understand them, but I couldn't think of a better word.

Simonthepilgrim

Two things strike me:

The first is the need to avoid criticising the speck in another's 'eye' when we have a bloody great log in our own.

The second is that there needs to be a process. There is one such: first, as stated by unsui, speak to the other person privately. If that fails to change the behaviour, enlist the assistance of a person whom you both respect and approach the other together. Finally, if there is no change, the help of the community may be needed - but only if all else fails.

Anything else smacks of gossip and tale-bearing.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Simonthepilgrim wrote: »

Two things strike me:

The first is the need to avoid criticising the speck in another's 'eye' when we have a bloody great log in our own.

That makes sense.

The second is that there needs to be a process. There is one such: first, as stated by unsui, speak to the other person privately. If that fails to change the behaviour, enlist the assistance of a person whom you both respect and approach the other together.

I don't know why being honest with that person in private shouldn't change it by itself, but if not then why not speak openly about it? The point of gossip being gossip is that it's actually done in a secretive manner behind a person's back.

Finally, if there is no change, the help of the community may be needed - but only if all else fails.

What about just open rebuking? If there is institutional corruption in say a governmental structure, it would be wrong to rebuke them openly according to the doctrine. That doesn't seem to work well if the problem is actually a group. Say for example how Devadatta's schism was handled.

Anything else smacks of gossip and tale-bearing.

I see what you mean, but rebuking misdeeds isn't tale bearing nor gossip. It's rebuking misdeeds.

Jeffrey

B. Alan Wallace says:

Strangely, it is often true that we yearn to speak about the mundane or degenerate characteristics of other people. Perhaps we feel uplifted by observing the faults of others, as if putting others down elevates our own sense of self-worth. Whether someone is untidy, or slothful, or bad at sports, the faults of others seem to place us in a more exalted light. Within the context of dharma, this inclination is stimulated as we receive teachings and begin to develop ideals about the transformation of our lives. Conversely, we may see ourselves lacking in terms of these same ideals, and this aggravates dissatisfaction. If we are prone to self-contempt or lack self-love - and I don't mean self-centeredness, but simply an affectionate acceptance of ourselves-this may be exacerbated in the early stages of spiritual practice. As we become more aware of faults, we find more grounds for self-deprecation and disdain, which becomes an uncomfortable burden we carry around like a big bag of rocks. To be rid of even one rock would be a psychological relief.
We may try to unload some weight by directing awareness - our own and others'-away from our own faults. So we pick out the faults of others and talk about them: "Did you notice how Jack fidgets around when he is meditating? He can't sit still. His mind must be a whirlpool of confusion." Perhaps the most odious tendency is to compare ourselves favorably to others: "Did you notice how stingy Joe is? I have my problems too, but I have never acted like that."
Sechibuwa gives the blunt advice, "Don't speak of the mundane faults of others, nor of the faults of their spiritual practice." There may conceivably be very rare occasions when it is appropriate, provided that kindness is the motivation. Even more rarely would it be appropriate to speak of Joe's faults when Joe is not present. But how often when we speak of the faults of others is it really motivated by constructive kindness, by a yearning that the person may be free of this affliction? Perhaps not so often.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

I like that quote. It seems to be more honest and examines it from a wider perspective but to allow a person to commit an error repeatedly which leads to their harm rather than telling them and correcting them seems like enabling them... or is telling them an exception using the kindness rule?

Jeffrey

I am not sure as I am not a bodhisattva. Sorry.

Jeffrey

My teacher disagrees with my views on occasion but she does not find fault with me. I am good enough at that on my own I guess. Often I feel she encourages me when I am headed in the right direction even though I haven't penetrated a question.

Jeffrey

Dhamapada Chapter 4

One should not consider the faults of others, nor their doing or not doing good or bad deeds. One should only consider whether one has done or not done good or bad deeds.

Simonthepilgrim

It's just so-o-o much more comfortable to criticise others instead of oneself.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

Simonthepilgrim wrote: »

It's just so-o-o much more comfortable to criticise others instead of oneself.

I disagree. It's incredibly difficult, but why add it to the doctrine?