of course we agree
of course we agree
I wonder if you’d agree that kindness is about intention, or motivation
Maybe we agree, but to be clear, to have an unkind motivation or intention, would be to wish harm by one’s actions, in this case speech, to the one spoken to.
Thus, if one speaks unpleasant words, without a motivation to harm, then they would be kind. No matter who was saying them.
This would probably be a contradiction to most people who do not take motivation into account, but rather focus on the pleasant or unpleasantness, i.e. judging a book by it’s cover.
I’m glad you can’t do that, but to assume that is my motivation, would be unkind, imo.
What I am trying to do is question the definition of Right Speech, taking into account the consistent words and example of the Buddha, rather than the opinions of disciples, or even the inconsistent words ascribed to the Buddha. This is a more complicated process than simply following the common understanding based on a majority of texts, which I used to do.
I aim at following the Buddha’s example and teaching, which is consistent and that requires thorough investigation, as he taught us to do.
I appreciate your honesty. Hope this explanation helps.
It matters not to me, if something someone says displeases me or agitates me, because the Buddha taught, if that happens, we should not react and should investigate what they say for any truth.
Actually I don’t think in that way anymore, that something someone says displeases me or agitates me, now I think: ‘I get agitated or displeased at something someone says’. That is my reaction and if I initiate wise reflection, I may break the reaction and experience some more freedom.
best wishes