Would you let me know your opinion whether this person (A) has commited divisive speech please?
A was sent a phone screenshot by B containing conversation between B and C. C badmouthed A generally as well as specifically about how A did not carry out well an errand s/he was responsible for.
A then forwarded the screenshot to C to explain about the errand. A told C that C should have asked A directly for unclear areas and suggested that C did not talk behind A’s back.
Did A commit divisive speech by forwarding the screenshot?
If B and C become divided but A did not have the intention to divide them, did A commit divisive speech?
I consider this essay Universal Rules of Dhamma Discourse on Dhamma discussion to be very good, and its ideas good for examination beyond online speech in this forum.
The Dhammapada Pairs might be useful to examine
Mind precedes thoughts, mind is their chief, their quality is made by mind,
if with a base mind one speaks or acts,
through that suffering follows him like a wheel follows the ox’s foot.
Mind precedes thoughts, mind is their chief, their quality is made by mind,
if with pure mind one speaks or acts,
through that happiness follows him like a shadow which does not depart.
“He abused me, he struck at me, he overcame me, he robbed me,”
those who bear ill-will towards this their hatred is never appeased.
“He abused me, he struck at me, he overcame me, he robbed me,”
those who do not bear ill-will towards this their hatred is appeased.
For not by hatred do hatreds cease at any time in this place,
they only cease with non-hatred, this truth is surely eternal.
The others do not understand that we should restrain ourselves here,
but for those here who do understand, through that, their dissensions will cease. SuttaCentral
Also translated as
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
“He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me.” Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
“He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me.” Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels. SuttaCentral
Hoping for you all good things, and for all beings.
In the case as you describe it, no A did not commit divisive speech by forwarding the screenshot, as their intention was to resolve the issue and prevent it from happening again. To break this precept one must have the intention to create division, and that is not the case.
It is, unfortunately, often the case that even well-intentioned speech or actions can be one of the factors in a division between people. It’s difficult to always keep this clear, but there is a difference between a effective cause and a moral cause.
In this case, the sending of the screenshot by A was an effective cause, in the sense that it was one of the events necessary for the effect of division to tale place. However it was not a moral cause as there is no bad intention.
We can distinguish these things in principle, but psychologically it is harder: we still feel guilty even if we tried to do the right thing.
And here we start to know whether the people we are engaging with are acting in good faith or bad. Someone acting in good faith would appreciate that, even if events show them in a bad light, the intention was not to hurt them. They extend compassion and recognize the fact that raising honest conversation is difficult and stressful. Someone acting in bad faith, however, will criticize, playing on the guilt that even an innocent a person may feel, manipulating their feelings to get the result that they want.
I agree that this doesn’t break a precept, but will point out that person A might have asked B for permission to forward her screenshot first.
A more tactful approach entirely may have been for A to approach C with a question or even apology and not implicate B at all in that exchange. That would likely have gone over better with both B and C.
But this is in the realm of worldly skill: not something to feel guilty or angry about but just to learn from Hope that helps!
I wouldn’t want any of them as friends. A shared something B said without his/her permission or knowledge. B shared something C said without his/her knowledge. And C badmouthed someone behind their back. As to whether or not it is specifically an example of divisive speech I won’t weigh in on. But it certainly isn’t being a trustworthy confidant. And while the example strips away the participants inner life, I have a hard time believing A and B acted without craving, anger, and/or delusion in sharing these communications.
Hope that helps!