Sometimes the Dhamma can be challenging and it would be a disservice to everyone if we watered it down so that no-one got offended. But it is also important to teach things at the appropriate time. At SN 44.10 the Buddha himself famously remained silent when asked by Vacchagotta whether there is a self, an attā, because he knew he would not get it.
So I would suggest the appropriate approach is a balance between kindness and compassion in the present and seeking to assist people for the long-term, which is just compassion on a broader scale, really. But one should never act from defilement.
Well I’m my case, what I meant is that I censor my speech because that is what I think right speech requires. If one’s opinions are likely to be annoying or upsetting to other people, then it is probably best to avoid expressing them, even if one is convinced they are true or well-founded.
Sure, that is part of being gentle, not harsh and so on isn’t it? Like in some of those suttas I quoted above.
But then in those same suttas, the Buddha talked about taking the right time and place into account and also whether something is beneficial - not in terms of whether it’s true/accurate (though of course that comes into it) or not (I think) but rather in terms of whether there’s any point in wasting one’s breath. So to speak!
But like I said, none of this is going to achieve perfection in our outer world. And so in the generally ensuing mess - at least we can fall back on self-honesty within Practise - at least we know what our intentions are.
However, I agree with you that the majority of the time, that if
Though for me, when thinking of the words “annoying and upsetting”, I tend to think of my own inconvenience more and more!
And when thinking of others as well, I find myself thinking in stronger terms and words like, “harmfulness” come to mind and I find myself asking if my speech is going to lessen or increase harm. Again, as you’ve pointed out, we must be our own censors on this very personal path, and thus, it is perhaps comforting to know that we are our own caretakers when it comes to Right Intention too.
With appreciation for the value that you place upon sensitivity and thus kindness.
It may be impossible for us ordinary non arhants to avoid all mistakes in this. But with compassion for others and self, i think we can all improve. Except arhants? cuz th e mistakes paths are perhaps closed or unavailable to them?
Well, what I’ve heard - and it makes sense to me - is that while an Arahant is perfect in terms of their realisation of the Dhamma, they are, while still alive, and still being a conditioned being, still being anatta, subject to making mistakes about non-Dhamma matters.
I didn’t vote for any choice, given the way the choices were defined.
Absolute free speech: Nope.
I’ve seen too many email lists, usenet groups, & web boards that were ruined for want of a moderator who would boot a troll off.
Free speech bounded by Right Speech: Nope
I’ve seen Buddhist forums where this kind of rule degraded into anything someone didn’t like being NOT considered “Right Speech”
Conflicts that would have stopped with one adult expressing clearly to another adult what they thought turned into ongoing passive aggressive conflicts & exchanges.
The term “Right Speech” is too often used as a tool of emotional blackmail and a self righteous dodge. Instead of someone admitting they aren’t emotionally prepared to hear a view, they accuse someone of not being a good Buddhist because what they are talking about isn’t “Right Speech”.
I’ve seen this all before on other Buddhist forums, some of the survivors of which I occasionally see here posting in the resulting passive-aggressive style instead of just being honest and receiving an honest point back without crying “Right Speech” or “the TOS!”.
Is that a necessary outcome of valuing right speech above free speech though? Or could it be just the product of human flaws that will necessarily pop up here and there and take root if the rules are poorly defined or the moderation does a suboptimal job?
Since none of the options appeared satisfactory, what should be the proper way then?
I think it is the outcome of the majority of situations, at least as far as Internet forums for Buddhists go.
No set of rules will be perfect. I think you just need mods with good emotional intelligence and a similar user base.
Some of the bulk of TOS will be needed to protect a forum legally. Beyond that keep the TOS small as possible. The longer it is, the less people will read. All you really need is “don’t be an ass to people”, which people already know.
Free speech should always be valued above Right Speech. Too many examples in contemporary times and history of speech rules being abused.
If someone is obnoxious, a moderator can always eject that person.
Otherwise, Right Speech works best for the person who feels someone else isn’t keeping it. They are better off setting an example with their own words. That prevents the abuse of trying to tell other people to shut up and prevents passive aggressive communication. It also serves them best by pointing them towards right effort in trying to prevent bad mental states and get into good ones.
In many respects the whole free/right speech question can be a very interesting one. There are a bunch of details wrapped up in the issue that in other instances I might poke into, but I’ll set all that aside here and only note that I think a helpful preliminary question to the one posed would be something along the lines of: why exactly it is that people what to talk with, or at other people anyway?
My estimation is that determining what one actually wants out of speaking (and maybe something even as peculiar as listening) is probably an important factor in identifying the kinds of parameters one wants to set (or throw out) around conversation.
I also didn’t answer the question, because it struck me as what in politics is called a “push poll.” With only a very narrow range of possible answers provided, people are going to get pushed into selecting the closest one to their own views, even if none of the answers very closely matches their own views.
Anyway, I assumed that on a Buddhist forum, where most people are Buddhists following the eightfold path, it is pretty obvious that most people are going to declare themselves in favor of right speech. It’s kind of like asking people on a Christian forum whether people should practice “free love” or the 6th commandment.
Blame it on my lack of imagination… I guess it’s a criticism one gets for almost every poll. This is why I put up a third option for people who want to express more nuanced positions
I hope so. But it’s interesting to see which percentage exactly. Hence the poll and the narrow range of options
But in all seriousness - okay that’s not accurate, in half seriousness - I’m wondering about a few things…
When we use the term “Right Speech” are we all referring to the same thing? I mean, I straight away think of what the Buddha said about being kind, timely, of benefit, true and correct and promoting of harmony.
At the end of the day, it’s my observation that the following is what moderation at D&D is about:
Remember everyone’s different - and be nice. Frankly, when the Buddha talked about Right Speech, that’s what it boiled down to.
“Free Speech” is an illusion. It’s a concept that can be manipulated by people with power, agendas of all kinds. To me, it makes people think they aren’t been censored, when they are in different ways. Is free speech in the US really free - free of manipulation and bias. Is “censored speech” in China really of benefit and welfare to it’s population, or does it become a tool for hiding things that should be made open?
Yeah sure, people who call themselves Buddhists often are too rigid because, reading or knowing a thing intellectually ain’t going to cut it! We get judgemental just as easily as any other human being.
But you have to have some guidelines and boundaries and I don’t think you can go past - what I understand as - Right Speech. Which to me, is neither “Free Speech” or “Censorship”.
For me, the central idea behind practicing right speech is to think always about not just whether what one is saying is true, but also about what kind of impact it is having on the hearer. Is it benefiting them to hear what you are saying or not?
We might wish that everybody was thick-skinned, resilient and confident, so that we might then freely express our opinions, so long as we think they are true, without regard to possible harmful effects on the hearer. But people are not they way.
Personally, this is what I think about, although it can never be surely timely on the internet as someone pointed out accurately earlier since you never know which state of mind your reader will be in. Also sometimes it is good to talk about things about which not everyone agrees, which may or may not weaken the harmony, but then it’s everyone’s practice to be able to disagree without harboring grudges.
Absolutely. Some have freer speech than others. Always those who cozy up to those who are pulling the strings and controlling the space. It’s better in that case if the values of those who pull the strings are selfless and based on right speech principles rather than the ideology they personally favor, sometimes against the will of the vast majority of users.
Exactly
Exactly. But I guess on a Buddhist forum you will always have newbies or people who haven’t cared so much to develop such qualities so we have to count on the fact that not everyone will stick to such principles.
It’s not only a matter of being "thick-skinned’, that’s the narrative that a partisan faction likes to push all the time. As if the reaction to misbehavers was always the result of an offense taken. Some things should not be said in a Buddhist place sometimes just for the sake of reputation if not to protect those who might be inclined to think such things are okay to say. If the choice is to not censor them, I think it should be made clear that they run against the spirit of the place.
I’m not sure I really understand what you are saying. What I was talking about specifically are things that are true, or for which there is at least an abundance of objective evidence or rational justification, but which some people for various reasons might not be prepared to hear, so that saying those true things disturbs their peace.
I was thinking mainly about matters of Buddhist belief or practice, not political factions.
th e mistakes paths are perhaps closed or unavailable to them?
