So-called “Free speech” always has state-mandated limits. So the dichotomy you are proposing is a false one.
I don’t know what is meant by “fake Metta”. Obviously more than just a signature on an email.
I don’t think we should say everything we really think. Some things are better left unsaid.
I don’t think a teacher should hurt their student. I’ve been made aware how much traction the aggressive teaching style has gotten in certain circles, and I’ve had it bestowed on me at the wrong moment. It wasn’t helpful.
You mean here on D&D in general?
Could you elaborate? In my opinion, experience shows this dichotomy corresponds for example to two very different styles of online moderation with very different outcomes.
Fair enough upon reflection I didn’t make myself clear. My teachers aren’t aggressive. If someone has wrong view I guess I wouldn’t be afraid to disagree with them. ‘I think’ I have heard it said that we don’t know what real compassion is until after seccond jhana… It seems apparent that we have totally different experiences of Buddhism. When I had wrong view and declared I had right view I was told directly: that’s not real right view. (you can see why that might hurt a proud person with wrong view right?)
Please forgive me. Let’s be friends anyway. Let me just say that plenty of others have done an excellent job sharing. Perhaps your purpose is ‘exploration of the dhamma’?
To me, the key words in the survey question are “suitable standard,” which is to say, not mandated, but rather, the generally accepted norm. My dictionary defines standard in this context as “an acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion,” while “suitable” is defined as “appropriate to a purpose or occasion.”
In other words, what we are being asked to weigh in on is what kind of speech is appropriate in this forum when compared to other sorts of speech. Since these are subjective concepts, and since they imply collective agreement, it is unlikely a consensus will be arrived at inasmuch as subjective collective judgments are dynamic and constantly contested and subject to change. They are, in a word, impermanent.
In light of these observations, what actually ends up being a “suitable standard” is an evolving and changing process of exchanging ideas and, through this exchange, noting and observing in a mindful way that which conforms to our practice of achieving greater awareness of our understanding the Dhamma.
That makes sense. The experience I was referring to and that seemed to match your earlier statement was rather different. I should probably have been a little more cautious before interpreting your words in light of my own experience.
I think they are twofold:
- Knowing which percentage of the people here favor each option
- Engaging a discussion on the subject
If I had one, I would probably deny it. I do emit criticism sometimes when I deem it appropriate. I hope that’s not a bad thing.
Never mind, you can save it for another time 
No worries
You could probably say that
1 Like
Very good!
A few years ago there was an online exchange of papers between Bhikkhu Bodhi and Ajahn Thanissaro on the question of whether the idea of “just war” is dhammically supportable. Thanissaro, arguing for a moral absolutist approach to the first precept, held that it wasn’t. Bhikkhu Bodhi, taking more of a situational ethics approach, basically defended classical just war theory.
Would the “Free speech bounded by Right speech” option mean that a debate like this would simply be ruled out of bounds “in a space dedicated to discussion among Dhamma enthusiasts”? From the quotation above it rather seems that it would, for one of the two protagonists is in effect arguing for the acceptability of transgressing the first precept in certain circumstances (a position explicitly endorsed in the Mahayana tradition, but on which the Theravada hasn’t historically taken any stand or even given much thought to).
If that’s the case, then I should certainly want to vote for the “Free marketplace” option. Since Buddhists (including prominent and influential Buddhist teachers) are in fact divided between those advocating moral absolutism regarding sīla and those advocating something else, a debate between the two is one well worth having, if only for the sake of promoting clarity on the issue. But we can’t have this debate if we’ve ruled a priori that one side is simply wrong and has to shut up.
10 Likes
Venerable, is this really the case? From a cursory search online about this, it seems there is at least some thought that has gone into this in the Theravada tradition.
For example, I found this: Is Violence Justified in Theravada Buddhism? by
Mahinda Deegalle
Which cites the following line from the Mahavamsa in which supposedly, arahants seem to absolve king Dutthagamani’s acts of war:
From this deed arises no hindrance
in thy way to heaven. Only one and
a half human beings have been slain
here by thee, O lord of men. The one
had come unto the (three) refuges,
the other had taken on himself the
five precepts. Unbelievers and men
of evil life were the rest, not more
to be esteemed than beasts. But as
for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the
doctrine of the Buddha in manifold
ways; therefore cast away care
from thy heart, O ruler of men! Thus
exhorted by them the great king took
comfort (Mahavamsa 25, p.109-112)
Not necessarily. That is why there is a moderator team on every forum, and they can discuss each separate issue to work out the details.
@moderators what do you think?
I wouldn’t agree a general principle should be thrown out the window just because one has found a case where an exception would make better sense, or would provide an occasion to refine the principle. Also, I am not sure we are here to discuss the details of what appropriate community guidelines should be, as it would make for a rather boring conversation in my opinion, and I think we might be better off discussing only the general principles. But perhaps that’s just me.
Well, my experience is that such a thing happens very often even in places that allow for speech that runs afoul of the 5 precepts, which demonstrates that embracing the absolutist approach is no guarantee of being allowed to tackle tough issues, especially ones that question the principles most dearly cherished by the ones in charge (even though questioning a mundane philosophical principle like absolute free speech should be a lot easier to accept on a Buddhist forum than questioning the 5 precepts).
The best solution in my opinion is to have good community guidelines and dedicated moderators who view their work as a practice of the Dhamma rather than an opportunity to make their preferred philosophicalo-political principles prevail.
3 Likes
As an aside: interesting… apparently the @moderators thing only works to notify of PMs and doesn’t work to call attention in a thread.
As to your Q, from where I’m sitting, I think it might be possible (but, of course, I may well be wrong) that you and Ven. Dhammanando are talking at slightly crossed purposes. As I’ve interpreted the key point of your inquiry you’re chiefly concerned with how discussions are held and what kind’s of speech behaviours may or may not be suitably restricted. Ven. Dhammanando looks to have taken your question as concerning what discussions topics may be restricted.
5 Likes
Yes, generally I find the discussion on this forum cordial and civil. It’s not the same everywhere.
1 Like
I think you are right, and it hadn’t occurred to me to bring in that distinction 
4 Likes
I would always lean towards absolute free speech, it should be highly encouraged that we abide by right speech, and the mods and most active members should set the tone and the example by their own actions.
In my 40 years of life I have a hard time seeing any situation where the more control, more force, equals better.
That doesn’t mean that there is no need for moderation, it should just be done in its namesake… “in moderation” and with clear and explainable reasoning that doesn’t create suspicion amongst the visitors of the site.
2 Likes
Forgive me…I’m being cheeky and playing Mara’s advocate now. Not because I believe one or the other argument tangent or ideological bent, (though I might ), but rather, because this has been a most interesting and civil debate; well…the bits I’ve read so far have been anyway. One could indeed even say that there has been a certain flavour of “freedom” thus far. Perhaps it is “free” because it seems to have ocurred within the bounds of what would be considered by Dhamma practitioners to be “right”.
But…
This specifically:
and this:
and this:
seem to contradict this:
(And yet, when looked at within the context of your intentions - which I don’t think I’ve misunderstood, they all make sense.)
I guess what I am trying to say is, it appears that Free Speech, by the sequence I’ve quoted, doesn’t apply to the Mods! 
Are we to be bound and limited and held accountable while others are not?
Fear not though! I’m just asking for the sake of my own understanding and for furthering the debate in the gentle, generally beneficial manner in which it has been thus far conducted…well…like I said, the bits I read seem to have been well done… Because the truth is, we do, do this:
Indeed, we seem to agonise at times over it, as well as other aspects of Right Speech too. Beneficialness, understanding and the best we can do considering our own lack of Ariyan states is something that is often not seen by the wider forum. But while it is sometimes difficult, we’re really grateful for the opportunity to Practice in this way. It’s been amazing and while there have been thoroughly unpleasant moments when much Wrong Speech has been slung our way - even this has been a learning experience conducive of gratitude. Then what can I say of the many moments of Right Speech that have also come our way? Gratitude, gratitude, gratitude.
I suggest that one of the key points to tease out in this thread is the definition of “free” and “freedom”. Freedom from what? Freedom to do what? What is “free”? How does “free” feel, what does it look like and sound like when people are supporting it, practising it and valuing it? What is the intention behind those who propose that “freedom” is valuable and how is such an intention most often - and actually - served? Specifically, what is freedom in a Buddhist paradigm and how does this translate to how we approach and practice Right Speech?
With metta
2 Likes
This is a tough ask
We do our very best. Because while it maybe a tough ask, it is a valuable one.
However, ultimately, we cannot control others’ perceptions or assumptions. Many is the time when we have been astounded by what people have thought of us or our actions. The lesson to walk our path with as much love and truth as we can, and to not worry or be overly anxious about “what other people think of us” is one that you quickly learn as a Mod - either that or you turn into an anxiety riddled, self-doubting, self-metta-less pile of goo - and this will not serve our own Practice and if our own Practice isn’t served, we cannot hope to serve anyone else. Indeed, this is an example, at an individual level, which is where Right Speech is most effectively practised and where we can Practise the following towards ourselves first, and then naturally apply it to others as situations merit:
Indeed, this is certainly what we have all tried to do over the years and still try to do. Much applause to @Claralynn and @Brenna - the two original Mods, @Cara and @Pasanna who have recently retired as Mods and our current kind-hearted Mods: @Aminah and @Nadine. And if I may just give credit where it is due, Aminah, in my opinion, has often excelled at ensuring that we do not moderate “views”, but rather focus on ensuring a kind, safe (and therefore free?) space for all (regardless of background, sensitivity, vulnerability or personality). Indeed, she sometimes (because she is “being herself” and thus not being forceful or controlling, and speaking what she sees to be true and loving) quite naturally pulls the rest of us into line if we need it. More gratitude.
Because we’re conditioned too. We want to be do the right thing by ourselves and others and be fair. But that is necessarily going to be viewed through our own conditioning - until we become Awakened (and maybe to some extent even then) this is just how it is. This is partly what Anatta means, right? So we all do need to be reminded, or gently “pulled into line” because of our conditionality.
None of this is ever going to achieve perfection. But if we’re guided by truth and gentleness and peace and harmony, we can’t go too far wrong in creating a sense of freedom for everyone, including ourselves.
7 Likes
Apologies for the multiple postings! But it just ocurred to me that within specific contexts, it is considered appropriate to moderate views!
For instance, I can remember something like the following from some suttas:
“…this pernicious view has arisen in such and such a person…”
or
“misguided man, when have you ever heard me to teach the Dhamma in this way?..”
Indeed, I believe - please, please correct me if I’m wrong here - that some of the monastic rules may be about ensuring one’s companions views are “Right”. I believe this rests on the very specific Buddhist notion of what “freedom” means and the crucially defining nature of Right View - as evidenced by it’s placement at the head of the 8 and 10 Fold Paths. Indeed, even if there are no actual rules, some of the suttas do seem to indicate the grave concern displayed by monastics, towards certain of their companions when they appear to display wrong view.
Of course, part of this has to surely be because the Buddha, the early Buddhists and the recitors of the Canon wanted to impart upon the Buddhist world the vital importance of ensuring we got our “View”…well…“Right”. And that we didn’t grasp the Dhamma incorrectly - I’m reminded of the similie of grasping a snake by it’s tail, that if grasped incorrectly, it would turn around and bite you. MN 22
It is interesting to me that Right View and Right Speech should have so many intersections. I guess, the other factors of the Path also intersect with Right Speech. MN 117
Some of the suttas on Right Speech: SN 45.8, AN 10.176, MN 58, MN 61
I can’t help asking, was the Buddha seeking to curtail one/some freedom by suggesting such boundaries for speech. And why? Was it for the promotion of other types of freedom and if so why and why were these held to be of more value?
In a religion that seeks to promote boundless love and tolerance, what is the place, value and usefulness of boundaries? Aren’t the very precepts we keep boundaries that we voluntarily impose upon ourselves - it seems a sort of paradox, when viewed through the willful values of the samsara, that such boundaries contribute heavily to the promotion of boundless metta and freeing wisdom.
I’ve had way too much caffeine today. 5 cups of tea. That’s a huge amount for me. And it’s midnight and I’m tired and wide awake and sipping a chamomile tea that has 4 strong teabags steeping in it! Fingers crossed it will pull me into greater sleepiness. Anyway…this is my excuse for way too many words… oh the irony…
Anyway…goodnight all. 
3 Likes
I didn’t vote but can say that I censor my own speech quite heavily here, although probably not as much as I should.
2 Likes
It depends on what kind of place one wants to have.
Option 1: A circle-talk subbredit type of group with high degrees of censorship of politically wrong ideas, like so many buddhist forums of the past have been. A place where you’re only allowed to have a certain opinion.
Option 2: An open place where everybody can expose their ideas and let the truth rise up to the surface, even though the truth might not be liked by the majority.
Yes, I can see where you’re coming from in setting up the options with this particular phrasing.
However, neither fits my notion of Right Speech, which, surely, if it is “Right”, should also promote freedom - and certainly “freedom” within a peculiarly Buddhist paradigm.
But certainly I respect where I believe you’re coming from.
I can relate to this
This is something I have struggled with from childhood I think. I don’t think it helped that I used to be - and occasionally can still see this within myself - quite fiery. But in a volcanic sort of way where it’s mostly pent up inside and then the build up of pressure would lead to a thoroughly spectacular explosion. 
But then, this is what I think most discussions around Speech miss.
That most important factor - our flawed humanity.
I guess this is where that intersection between Right Intention and Right Speech - on an individual level - becomes so crucial. And for me, this reframes the debate completely - indeed, the entirety of the 8 fold Path does this - actually, widen the context to the Four Noble Truths and you get a very different perspective on how to approach the matter.
The this versus that debate, the censorship or a free for all, all or nothing… To me, it misses something vital - something vitally Buddhist. 
2 Likes