Free speech or Right speech?

Discussion
64

Sorry I hope you didn’t understand my remark as me trying to say you belong to such a partisan faction and/or are being disingenuous. Actually, your remark makes a lot of sense.

It’s just that your statement might be interpretable in ways you may not have intended. I have heard a lot said that the problem never lies with the person saying what they think, it lies solely on the side of those who are not tolerant enough to let others say whatever they want and if one reacts to a perceived misbehavior it is because one is not thick-skinned enough to not take offense as if the real problem was that one wouldn’t be able to handle the plain truth spoken by others. I have seen the results of favoring such a narrative. Statements like

Killing nutcases and malevolent people who threaten others is “wholesome and profitable”.

Yes of course I am a Buddhist … I would spare no enemy who threatened the Dhamma … that kind of Buddhist :smile:

I would protect the Dhamma by slaying its enemies if needed :smile:

running wild, and then, when speaking up about such behavior, or crass and preposterous islamophobia (like defending the idea that ISIS and the entire religion of Islam are the same thing, a crime against humanity), being told to stop getting offended and grow a thicker skin, when the problem is completely elsewhere, and this narrative serves only to deflect the issue (what some might call gaslighting). The real problems are that on one hand there is no point participating in a Buddhist forum if it’s not guided by Buddhist principles and one eventually finds there the same kind of insanity the rest of the internet is already full of, and on the other hand letting such things happen on an openly Buddhist place is a misrepresentation of what the Buddha taught, and

Then those without confidence do not gain confidence, while some of those with confidence change their minds.

But coming back on what you actually meant, the suttas do clearly distinguish between what is true and what is beneficial. For example, one could try to make a case that for a married male, hiring a prostitute is not technically a breach of kāmesu·micchā·cāra veramaṇī, but even if that is true, is it really a beneficial thing to say?

Also, there is an offense for monks insisting on an issue that divides the community if I remember properly. So even if one is objectively right it’s clearly not always a good thing to voice one’s opinion.

2 Likes
65

Well, I think the Buddha did say not to teach the Dhamma to those without faith. Though I’m not sure of the Sutta reference.

There’s no point. Some folks’ conditioning will close them off and others’ conditioning will open them up. I guess this is what I was alluding to when I said when I think of conversations that may upset and annoy, I would think mainly of myself and whether it’s inconvienient to me. I mean, the Buddha nearly chose not to teach at all - life would’ve been much easier for him.

But, like I said earlier, there are times in the suttas when the Buddha calls people out on their Wrong View. He would have to because otherwise, his wise and healing Dhamma is toothless and ineffective. So I guess there are times for being annoying. :slight_smile:

Indeed, I suggest, in his injunction to the Sangha, to wander here and there and teach the Dhamma, he is promoting the spread of the correct - often challenging - teaching. Really, I would imagine it has to be challenging. If it just fed into our cosy comfortable existing paradigms - well, what’s the point of it? Part of the very existence of the Sangha is to safe guard the Dhamma and Right View.

You know I feel like I would like to turn this whole notion of censorship and “free speech” on it’s head for a moment. I imagine, like myself, most people think of modern western democracies when we think of the term “free speech”. And we think of more autocratic societies when we think of “censorship” - perhaps we even think of some “Buddhist” eastern nations.

There are a few different perceptions that revolve - ever so quietly and in the background - around race (shhh!! did she actually say that!!!) as it relates to notions of speech and ideas about eastern and western Buddhism.

There sometimes seems to be an implicit subtext that goes something like this: Yeah, the “east” gave us Buddhism, but it didn’t really get it. It didn’t really understand it. But now that the “west” has it, we can sort out all the things that the “easterners” misunderstood.

It feels like a cultural theft almost. A religious appropriation. Emotionally it sometimes feels like someone has come into my home, without my leave and trashed the place and walked off with something precious.

We are never asked to “believe” in Buddhism. And we should be able to question and express what we do believe. But somehow, when someone tells me, like I’m stupid or something, that I don’t understand my own stuff, my own home and hearth and heart - it smacks of a type of paternalistic colonialism to me.

Is it attachment? Too right it is! Is it stupid? Absolutely. But there it is - that’s how I feel on rare occasions.

Luckily most of the time, in my own local Buddhist communities, most of the time, race is a non-issue - we just don’t see it. We’re just Dhamma Practitioners.

We’ve discussed gender an awful lot. But issues of race haven’t really been looked at, at all. I’m not saying they have to be. But I must say, very occasionally, some topics here on D&D have had a similar emotional tone as some of the other issues around race that I’ve faced in my life. Fortunately these have been few.

But I just thought I’d tease it out a bit. It’s another angle on the whole Speech thing. Things aren’t always black and white (no pun intended - I promise). There are many things to be taken into account when we speak/type and also when we listen/read. Most of the time we don’t though - because we can’t - our conditioning is just going to be what it is. It makes one want to forgive an awful lot when considered in this light, really. Even extending this forgiveness and indeed patience too, to oneself.

But yes, I agree with you Silence

2 Likes
66

This is almost the complete opposite of the kind of situation I was thinking about. But I guess we can all find something of value in the doctrine of right speech.

2 Likes
67

Well I disagree. To me, it’s exactly what I see (so it is my conditioned perception of course) you as referring to. But I think that’s because we probably disagree about what constitutes certain key components of Truth in the Dhamma. Which is a pretty fundamental point of disagreement. But that’s okay. I’m happy to have metta towards such a situation and I’m sure you are too. We’ll just have to continue to perceive each other’s “interpretations” as we do. :slight_smile: And also continue to wish each other well. :slight_smile:

Yes indeed. Sadhu to that! :anjal:

2 Likes
68

So here I am, learning about Right Speech through this very interesting thread! Sometimes it really is a sort of inconvenience to say what you feel or think. Because, if it’s just something based in my own perceptions or my own delusions even, the chances of it being interpreted (misinterpreted) through someone else’s perceptions/delusions is probably higher!!

So I would like to clarify something. In sharing my perspective on some aspects of the broadly inconsistent thing/population known as “Western Buddhism” (see above - I used terms like “paternalistic colonialism” :slight_smile: ) I am referring to a few rare moments when I’ve encountered this attitude and felt in this way.

I did think I had communicated that adequately in my comment, but perhaps it is worth making something like this clearer.

There are many weaknesses in “Western Buddhism”. But there are many weaknesses in “Eastern Buddhism” too. I shared a conditioned perspective about a few small slices of my personal experience. It is not meant to be taken as a general attack on anyone. How could it when I have clearly and often stood up for and indeed, simply adore many things that some might characterise at “Western Buddhism”?

But to paraphrase Ajahn Brahm, it’s not Thai Buddhism, or Chinese Buddhism, or Sri Lankan Buddhism, or Australian Buddhism, it’s just Buddhism. :slight_smile: So thank you to the kind, well intentioned person who sent me a PM seeking clarity. I hope this helps and I hope it helps anyone else who feels they needed to read this. :slight_smile:

With metta

3 Likes
69

How can you disagree with my statement about what I was thinking about, Kay? Are you saying they even though I think I was thinking about something different than you, I actually wasn’t thinking about something different than you? :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
70

Oh lol… of course not :slight_smile:

That’s why I put this bit in bold:

And also put this bit in brackets:

Lol and lol… :slight_smile:

71

Buddhism cannot belong to one nation, region, race, culture, gender, tradition or ‘occupation’ (the latter, as in lay vs ordained) -there maybe other categories you could include here. You could say it is a human teaching, or a ‘universal’ one if we include other beings as well. It regards itself as ‘the way things are’ and has certain unity to it. However It is possible to see multifaceted areas if we stop to see how it is practiced according various divisions.

Also an interesting question is why do we need to discuss this?

with metta

2 Likes
72

I can think of two reasons:

  1. Because some people need to share their stories and perspectives.

  2. This can encourage those of us who are on the listening/receiving side of things, to set ourselves aside and just be kind.

And then it can be the turn of the listeners to share and the speakers to be kind. Until someone realises in their own gentle way, that some conversations have reached their end point, and they eventually exit.

In the end, and ultimately, much of what we discuss - indeed even here on D&D :wink: - is superfluous. Ultimately, we need to sit down and well, “shut up”! :slight_smile:

But perhaps Right Speech, influenced as it is by Right Intention/Motivation, implicitly incorporates “Right Listening” too? Which can sometimes require the most monumental patience and the significant cultivation of understanding!!

4 Likes
73

Here’s a question- does ‘venting’ have recognition in the dhamma? I think not, despite its seeming usefulness, it might mire us in the samsaric cycle even more. This is not to say I have any say in those who might want to ‘get it off their chest’. There is temporary relief, but the medium term value is doubtful as those defilements rise to the surface and aren’t dealt with.

This is from a personal practice point of view and not from a social justice, legal, etc point of view. Of course you need to make your grievances heard and not only that, action taken.

It can be helpful in psychological therapies as it allows the intensity of some of those defilements or emotions to fade away and facilitates a wholesome interactive relationship with the therapist. In this latter sense it can be right speech, but constant complaints and/badgering like a intermittently discharging wound inclines the mind in a certain habitual pattern of thought. This leads to building a Self around the hurt both of which then becomes difficult to let go of. We can let go of some problems from the past but not others. Harbouring past Injustice, and wanting Revenge through anger, are common reasons for past wounds not to heal (again from a personal practice perspective and not about finding justice).

With metta

3 Likes
74

There is no justice to find, imo. Clinging to the idea of justice, the illusion of justice, is just making an investment in suffering. What has been done which should not have been done, cannot be undone, by anyone, anytime, anywhere. What has been undone which should have been done, cannot be done in the past by anyone anywhere. What has been done which should have been done, rises, persists, ceases. What has been undone which should not have been done… is a strawman’s argument!

There is no thing which can be identified as justice, when it is examined. But there is the Noble Eight Fold Path. Sometimes it seems subtle, sometimes “in your face” obvious. This is the training practice, yes? No matter what customs, traditions, laws, prejudices might stand in the way, every life has ability and responsibility in the present moment, to do what should be done, to not do what should not be done, and to extinguish greed, hate, delusion, until liberation.

Correct or educate me if appropriate, please and thank you.

2 Likes
75

So beyond the raw results of the poll, it is interesting to note that initially the vote was over 90% in favor of right speech, and then decreased as late voters cast their vote, which might be a sign that the bulk of our fellow users who favor absolute free speech are less frequent users on D&D.

One thing that has not been discussed yet and that I find interesting is the following: if I were to open publicly a space for discussion among Dhamma enthusiasts and allow anyone to emit and defend whatever view they cherish, even if said views are very obviously against the spirit of the Buddha’s teaching, and then

either some frequent users end up developing wrong views and supporting each other in wrong view

or some occasional users are appalled by what they read and it turns them away from the Dhamma

do I have to expect bad kammic results for letting it happen in a space that I enable, or is it just each separate poster’s action and even if I am the one who decides to let it be made public I am in no way responsible for what is said on my platform?

76

In my opinion, the administrators are somewhat responsible.

If one creates, manages or is involved in the management of a forum and that forum allows racism, anti-semitism, homophobic, misogynist, Islamophobic posts, being part of that management team makes one complicit.

1 Like
77

Its not always clear cut. From a Buddhist point of view, the poster is 98% responsible for expressing their defilements that give rise to bad kamma- no get out clauses here. Every other mitigating circumstances fall approximately into the 2%. Moderators do have a responsibility but we cannot expect them to read minds. A positive, relatively peaceful forum is conducive to attracting those who are drawn to like minded individuals, as well.

with metta

4 Likes
78

It looks like people have voted. But I can’t see how to vote. How do I do that?

I agree with ‘free speech bounded by Right Speech’ more than ‘Absolute free speech’. But I am not sure if all the rules of ‘Right Speech’ should be applied. ‘Idle speech’ for example - that would ban a lot of discussion that goes on here. Especially in ‘The Watercooler’, for example. But I think that should be allowed. For serious jhāna practitioners it would be not advised. But for ordinary folk, some friendly chat with no serious dhamma aim can be healthy, can increase a sense of relaxation and friendliness, and that can open the heart more, and give good results for general wellbeing, which may also be a prerequisite for some people to enable them to deepen further on the path.

I’ll give another example. I am an administrator the the Facebook group ‘Buddhism’. It has 170,542 members. Something like 30,000 active members apparently. I took some effort to clarify the rules and protocol, and made sure that it was not disallowed to share things believed to be ‘wrong view’. But also not disallowed to criticise teachings with an evidence-based approach, even if that meant criticising the doctrine of any particular school. For me, this is a good balance of free speech.

However, recently two admin and several moderators got together to decide whether to ban a particular member from the group, who is very articulate, and makes quite a few posts which they disagree with. They are of the opinion that he shares wrong view, and although that is not against the rules, they wanted to stop him. They even considered designing a special new rule targeted at him! I counselled them that if they were to do that, they would have to make the rule public, and inform him personally, and then not kick him off unless he breaks that rule after that.

They even allowed ad hominem attacks against him, including from one angry moderator. I even warned that moderator several times, following strict protocol but actually being more lenient, and being open about the whole process with the mod/admin team. And finally as he kept his aggression, public ad hominem attacks (which are absolutely against the rules), and failed to make a public apology, I banned him.

They un-banned him, and even made him a moderator again. And regarding the other guy who broke no rules? They banned him and then deleted many of his past posts (with hours worth of comments on them from dozens of contributors). With no warning. Even with no notification.

So this is an example of a group of people with an idea in their head about what Buddhism is, and enforcing compliance with their own idea. In this case the guy indeed did have many wrong views, even though he was 60, a professional teacher, a born Buddhist I think, and a good level of intelligence. But, I saw him learn a lot through the discussions. And it stimulated a lot of thought and discussion among other members.

I was thoroughly disgusted by the actions of those mods/admin. So much so that I may withdraw entirely from being involved with the group. Power and anger combined, in people who are supposed to be Buddhist, and supposed to be servants of the members - at least that is how I would look upon the role of a moderator or admin. But using power and anger and straying far away from the rules… this is not how a servant should behave. Taking the lowest place, holding love and compassion in the heart, and applying the rules and protocol for the aim of reducing the suffering of all, would be my idea of how a servant should behave. Never putting attachment to ones own views or position, above that devotion to the rules and protocol in service of the members one is there to serve.

There may be a case for limiting people posting too many wrong ideas, or perhaps with the way they are presented (perhaps the requirement of saying ‘I believe…’ rather than ‘… is so’, for such cases. But in my opinion is that in general people should be allowed to share views which are wrong. Even if it goes against Right Speech. This is a way for people to learn, and one of the very best things a person with wrong view can get, is the chance to express their view among people with right view. And have their ideas challenged. And maybe even find someone kind enough to lead them skilfully, step by step, out of their wrong view and into right view.

And sometimes challenging a wrong view even with an evidence-based approach, might be considered ‘Wrong Speech’. It might cause some division, for example. But, my personal opinion is that an evidence-based approach should be allowed. Even if it gives an heretical conclusion, such as ‘the Mahāyāna sūtras are inauthentic’. Why? Because for me Buddhism is about seeing the truth. And that can include, for me, seeing the truth about the things around me. Seeing through racism, for example. We could say it’s a mundane thing, just ‘relative reality’. But it is useful, in my opinion - useful for aligning us more with undistorted perception, which is an aspect of the aim of the path, in my opinion.

So also, seeing the truth of the inauthenticity of the Mahāyāna texts, allows the release of sectarianism. The abandonment of the rejection of the Buddha’s teachings - the path to arahantship. And anyway, whatever the evidence shows us to be true, my general approach is to be open to it, whatever it means. So from this perspective, I like the allowance of free discussion of evidence, and explorations of the consequences of that evidence. I believe that is good, and would be damaging to disallow, even on the basis of it potentially being against ‘Right Speech’.

But being cordial? Having a kind heart while speaking? Yes yes, these are good, and help discussion situations.

So I might have to vote for ‘Something else’ - perhaps it would be described as being in between the other two options. Discussion based on Buddhist principles of compassion and non-harm; but not so strict to rule out non-harmful discussion that might be against the strict definition of Right Speech, but nevertheless may be conducive to the Buddhist path in general.

3 Likes
79

When I’m around Westerners IRL (who are usually the liberal-minded kind, who are actually open to Buddhism), I find the only way to really connect with them is to be what Westerners refer to as “real”. That means being honest and open about things, even if it sometimes comes across as gritty, bordering on harsh. Nowhere as categorically non-confrontational as, say, Confucious would teach.

It’s been my experience that virtually all ethnic Asian monks I’ve met would pretty much rather die than act in this “real” way, as it runs counter to all their cultural upbringing (with a few awesome, notable exceptions, who have Westerner upbringings and educations, and actually inspire me).

When I spent 15 months in Sri Lanka, which is a staunchly conservative Buddhist (and lets face it, strongly Hindu-influenced) culture, I found pretty much the exact opposite: monks should never be “real”, they should rather be “ideal”.

A monk there should have an almost dour attitude, and I’ve even seen it formally stated on one Sangha-aimed publication that monks should act as if they were deaf, blind and dumb. To laugh is commonly seen as a flaw; it’s an obvious sign that they posess no attainment, pretty much. There are strong cultural expactations as to just how a monk should act and look, there is a set “ideal” they should fit into. For example, Ajahn Brahm is widely known there as “The Smiling Monk”, and that is not a compliment.

I don’t know about you, but if you’ve spent time in Western Buddhist monasteries, Westerner monks can be some of the most wide-ranging, eclectic bunch you’ll find anywhere (and I include myself as one of these eclectics). These places are people-watching paradises, I tell you, having lived in several myself. Good luck cramming them all into a rigid, characteristically ethnic Asian mold. Why not be content that they are at least interested in learning the Dhamma Vinaya (and I’m hinting towards the EBT’s here), as Westerners?

So if someone (probably a Westerner) speaks on this forum in a way that doesn’t sound cordial, could it be that they are just being true to their cultural conditioning to be “real,” which can have a characteristically gritty edge to it? Could it be that people (who expect, but do not observe “ideal” ethnic Asian monk behaviour) are trying to cram them into an Asian mold (that mold sometimes exceeding reasonable, common-sensical boundaries that the Buddha defined)?

I agree harsh, divisive speech (etc.) was taught against by the Buddha. But if Westerner Buddhist monks are not allowed to be “real” in the way that is totally normal among liberal-minded Weserners (as opposed to presenting a rather shallow facade of idealism and intense conformity that absolutely does not impress vast numbers of Westerners), then what hope does Buddhism really have in the West of spreading in any meaningful, widespread way?

For those who are lighting up their flamethrowers, having just read this, just remember that Westerners are very good at seeing through facades (and you might credit the whole Scientific revolution to attitudes such as these, which in turn permits you to read these very words right here and now). Ignore this at Buddhism’s peril.

5 Likes
80

Hi Mat

I think it is fairly clear cut. Administrators are somewhat responsible for this website which is an entity in its own right. That includes what is presented via the website.

Yes, each poster is responsible for their own actions.

Why would moderators need to be able to read minds? I don’t get the point you are trying to make with that comment.

I’m not sure how much moderation actually goes on here. Hopefully not too much and hopefully it will remain that way.

:evergreen_tree::smiley::evergreen_tree:

81

Text on forums can be easily misaprehended, as facial expression, tone, etc is missing from the overall message. Emojis help, but… maybe when in doubt, moderators should give the benefit of the doubt, and just see how the conversation unravels without arriving at a definite conclusion. Otherwise innocent comments get sat on.

with metta

3 Likes
82

I think an undercurrent in this debate is that there is a difference between the norms of discourse that are most appropriate for scholarly communities and the norms that are most appropriate for religious faith communities. If one of the goals of this forum is to attract scholars of many kinds who have scholarly expertise to share about early Buddhist texts, then it is unrealistic to expect their speech to be bound by the sectarian sensibilities and dogmas of the faithful. If, however, the goal is to provide a spiritual support community for the faithful that actively shields participants from critical, heterodox or discouraging ideas about their faith, that will put a chill on scholarly discussion.

7 Likes
83

Very well said. :slight_smile: