Free speech or Right speech?

Discussion
84

Wonderful post. I too have noted that Asian culture in general places a great emphasis on polite behaviour - it is considered better to be polite and not say anything that may be interpreted as controversial or confronting to others. As a westerner I prefer to be told straight up without any pretension to niceties - I value unadulterated honesty rather than polite euphemisms or silence. I see that as far more valuable than someone not saying something out of politeness or fear of offending me, that just comes across as dishonest dissembling and creates a lack of trust.

I know that I can come across as not being overly cordial online as I tend not to waste my time with niceties but instead waffle on with bullshit :smiley: I guess we all have our failings but I do agree with what you have said and with a few notable exceptions prefer talking with western monks as we have the same cultural background and I find that western monks are not so afraid to say what they think and are more direct and leave less ambiguity when they are telling you that you have it wrong.

Which is exactly what I want. I have no trouble with being told I am mistaken (once my wounded ego gets over it lol) and I want to understand how to practice properly and don’t want my own desires to run the show so sometimes you just need to be told straight out. It helps with right understanding and right view.

cheers

2 Likes
85

Westerners from a great deal of exposure seem allergic to dishonesty from religious sources. For many of us, finding the honesty which may be buried in layers of courteous well intention custom is a lot of work. Discouraging this comes across as defensiveness, and inspires questions of integrity, conflicts of self interests, or self deceptions/ delusions; that is a high hurtle, neh?

May all beings manifest compassion. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
86

I’m a little wary about statements about “Asian culture”. It’s as meaningless as saying “Western Culture”.

Just as there are obvious differences between “western” people, there are huge differences between the cultures in Sri Lanka, Thailand, China, Japan, etc. In my experience, there is much more overt confrontation and raised voices in China or Hong Kong than in Thailand or Japan. However this is not usually the case with someone considered one’s superior, or a visitor, so it can go unnoticed until you spend some time with people and see them intereacting with their peers. However, just getting on a plane to Hong Kong or China in Bangkok after spending time in Thailand, surrounded by people speaking quietly and calmly, can make the difference in behaviour rather obvious.

However, overt behaviour is, of course, not the whole story. When you are not familiar with the culture, it can be difficult to appreciate the subtle ways that points are got across. I vividely recall a visit that I made with my (now) wife to the mother of a friend of hers in Thailand about ten years ago. To me, the conversation seemed very amiable (my Thai isn’t good enough for me to follow the content), with smiles and quiet speech, but afterwards she told me that it was quite stressful, with her friend’s mother asking some rather pointed questions about her daughter.

If one is unfamiliar with a particualar culture, it’s very easy to misread what is really being said. I’ve heard plenty of stories about this misfiring on tourists, whose annoying behaviour might be initially greeted with smiles…

2 Likes
87

I would disagree here.

How can people engaging in harsh, divisive speech, spread in a meaningful way a teaching that is explicitly against harsh, divisive speech?

4 Likes
88

Perhaps the point is that “harsh” is very culture dependent. To completely oversimplify and cartoonify, Americans and Chinese can seem “brash” and “harsh” compared to English and Thai respectively…

6 Likes
89

This seems to me to be well stated. Actually, coming from a Quaker perspective, my initial reaction to mamy Buddhist forums was that dedicated experienced practitioners of any ethnicities could exhibit behavior and speech which seemed rude; almost sociopathic in some instances; unempathetic and selfish. It was very off putting at times.

But now that same sort of behavior or speech i understand as coming from a non self place at times; coming from compassion and Dhamma. But i understand this in this life perhaps only because i “came back”, as it were, not because i walked away. In my opinion, i lost no time, made no mistake; this life journey continues until it ceases; may all beings be liberated from suffering.

Being off putting to those who approach Buddhism… is that not, in some ways, the reasons behind many rules for monastics?

90

What if I were to accuse your very post as being harsh and divisive (even if that wasn’t your intention)? Wouldn’t my definitions of “harsh” and “divisive” be a little too exaggerated? Wouldn’t it be wrong of me to impute intention, accusing you of intending to come across harshly or divisively, when indeed that might not be the actual intention of your post? What if your intention was actually to try to bring about more general tolerance (across all Buddhist traditions), by trying to encourage the simmering-down of fundamentalist attitudes to a more moderate, open-to-investigation attitude, leading to a heal in divisiveness (which might be to the chagrin of a particular sect, who is ultra sensitive to anything counter to their views, calling any slight criticism “harsh speech”, heretical, etc)?

91

Looking at the results of the poll as of a few minutes ago, it was interesting to see how few voted for something else. =D i was one.

My reasoning, as i recall it, was like this: choice 1 “absolute free speech…” is not something i think most people are capable of. Everyone except perhaps arahants have triggers in their memories and beliefs, so toleration is very likely to fail. Everyone except arahants have views which are complicated, having opinions, filters, blind spots, over estimations of significance, etc. from defilements or life experience; one may believe one’s speech is “free” but the hinderances are there!

However choice 2 “Free speech bounded by Right speech…” involves judgement which (except possibly for arahants) might be faulty at times; one may think incorrectly that one’s own speech or another fits within the precept, yet be mistaken; or that it does not fit within the precept, but be mistaken. Additionally, speech on a forum is not to an individual; aside from lacking non textual communication mediators, a forum is almost by definition an unknown and unknowable audience/ set of participants. Thus one might chastize an ignorant person who stumbles into this virtual environment, and turn someone away from that approach to the Dhamma.

It seems to me generally better to err on the side of compassion, if one is not an arahant. That’s “something else”. As is recognizing one’s own potential for mistakes, due to being tired, or ill, or rushed, or distracted, or all that sort of “thing”. “Something else.”

But not a bad poll (though it might be improvable) or OP or thread, because it seems to be generating beneficial discussion… That is an opinion, “mine”, as of now; changes to this opinion may occur, without further comment… (That may be another reason for “Something else” votes

92

I don’t have a lot of experience with Asian monks, but the ones I have met from the Thai forest tradition all seem to smile quite a bit. But they don’t engage in a lot of chattering.

Personally, what l look to most from the world of monks, the only thing that makes me think from time to time that I need to visit the vihara and be around the monks, is the living example they sometimes provide of the holy life. That is a life of restraint of the senses, peace, quiet, seclusion and a harmless and inoffensive way of life. It’s something to witness and aspire to, not a lecture or a verbal representation of what one should aspire to.

Honestly, I am not that much interested in their theories of dhamma. There are 100,000 such theories, all now freely available on the internet. One can also download any number of “dhamma talks” for free, most of which say more or less the same things as the other dhamma talks. Nor do I think I really need monks for meditation instruction. Everything one needs to learn about the how of meditation can be taught in a few hours. From then on, you are on your own, and mentally proliferating attempts to compare the states you have attained with verbal-theoretical descriptions of those states are just a hindrance. You need to get the intellect out of the way.

I also avoid scenes where it appears to me that a bunch of followers have developed a cult of personality around some monk, teacher or guru, as though some hidden power is emanating from that teacher that can liberate the follower. Even the Buddha said he couldn’t liberate anyone.

All of the “doctrine” consisting of ancient cosmologies and world-views about realms, planes, gods, ghosts, demons, trolls, magic mountains, supernormal powers, past lives, future lives … it’s all extraneous. Just more worldly craving, fear and artistic exoticism to make one feel connected to a certain kind of community and “special” in some way. Ditch it.

4 Likes
93

Bhante, yes indeed I agree, all the more that I have in the past found myself in the kind of situation you describe. But in practice, people on Buddhist discussion boards who speak “harshly” (whether it would be recognized as harsh universally or only in some corners of the planet) do not all do so with a pure selfless heart looking only for the truth. Most of the time, at least in my experience, it’s to assert their own ego in the form of intellectual or moral superiority. So it does not seem there is a categorical answer either way. I understood (perhaps erroneously) that you were advocating for letting all harsh and divisive speech play out to avoid shutting down a legitimate debate that may occur some of the time, and I wanted to emphasize what happens the rest of the time. I may have misunderstood, in which case I apologize. :anjal:

4 Likes
94

Thanks for saying that. Yes, it’s true that sometimes people post from a mindstate that is less-than-brahmaviharic (myself included), but that is not an excuse to level an ad hominem attack at them, in an attempt to sweep the potentially logically consistent points (which might have a higher purpose in mind, beyond ego-aggrandizement) they made under the rug.

2 Likes
95

That’s exactly what I go there for, which is why I encourage people to not let the lack of English skills of monastics to cause them to think that a particular monastary doesn’t have anyhing to offer.

In fact, it can be a relief to be in a Buddhist community and NOT have to discuss technical details. Technicalities can be a real downside to Western-oriented groups, where meetings can descend inot philosophical discussions about esoteria, rather than practical instruction and inspiration. Of course, the better teachers will tell students that they have a lot to learn before they can really address the 4NT and dependent origination…

4 Likes
96

Maybe their views and beliefs are the very basis for their lives of purity and virtue…

1 Like
97

It’s possible, but the ones I know don’t seem to talk about doctrinal views very often. I think they have a general commitment to the idea that hostile and greedy mental states defile the mind, and cause as much suffering for the possessor of those mental states as they do for their victims and targets.

3 Likes
98

This is powerful teaching for me because I have been thinking and meditating on my communication with friends and acquaintances…wondering how to communicate the wisdom of the Buddha regarding the Eightfold Path. What tone of voice, which type of energy to employ, how to handle the blindness or disregard that I feel in so many people who suffer as if there is no hope or way out of their misery. There is such a fine line between kindly communicating these Buddhist principles, and trying to force it down there gullet.

2 Likes
101

Ahhhh, thanks for the clarification. And I think I musta been a monk in a previous incarnation, because my whole attitude is trying to teach or redirect friends and associates based on a compassionate attitude regarding how we all suffer. This reference to mn 103 [which I am having a difficult time locating] is so apt regarding an interaction I have with other people who are beset with impulse disorder demonstrated by their inability to stay present and focus on our conversation without being distracted.

My efforts to deal with their distraction is resolved perfectly by these directions from Buddha…especially the fourth which indicates that a person who cannot be redirected, or asks me to join their truck load of shit party by rubbing their shit all over my body is best helped by dispassionate detachment-if I understand it correctly.

Your wisdom is welcome…With Metta!

2 Likes
102

Mn 103 is above.
Thanks Rosie - Metta :smiley:

103

Right. I detest the impersonal non contextual essence of texting and emailing those whose faces I would not recognize.

104

Sorry to be so dense but when you wrote…

I got lost. And is it a productive practice to go to the index on the main page to find these references. I am still trying to find my way around so thanks again.

1 Like
106

I wasn’t thinking of online moderation. For example, one is not usually allowed to use hate speech or to threaten to kill someone. That kind of speech is widely proscribed, even in places where free speech is highly prized. One may say that the government is corrupt, but one my not say that it must be overthrown by violent revolution.

There is no such thing as “free” speech. Speech is always limited, it’s just a matter of how much and in what ways. And this can be highly context dependent. I free to say the Prime Minister is hopeless and should resign (true), but probably not at a Tory Party meeting. Also when her cabinet colleagues do so, against the expectations that they won’t, then this is also frowned on.

~

As it happens, I am now thinking of moderation of online forums. Yesterday I posted the single word response “XXXX” to a fine example of XXXX on Sutta Central. But XXXX is not an approved word so it got removed and I received a hectoring DM from a moderator.

What I had in mind was the modern philosopher, Harry G. Frankfurt, whose book On XXXX has become a modern classic. From the Wiki entry about this seminal book:

Frankfurt determines that XXXX is speech intended to persuade (a.k.a. rhetoric), without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the XXXXer doesn’t care if what they say is true or false, but rather only cares whether or not their listener is persuaded (Emphasis added).

Sorry, I can’t link to this because the link has XXXX in the title.

Someone had written some XXXX about me: i.e. something that was obviously not true but with a complete disregard for whether or not it was true. They simply sought to persuade others that I was in a particular class (and not a protected class or they would be in more trouble than I am). This is XXXX, plain and simple. By openly calling it “XXXX”, I was drawing attention to the XXXX and the author of it as a XXXXer.

People often write XXXX about me, for obvious enough reasons: what I write provokes fear and the way I write it provokes anger, and no one is taking responsibility for their mental states.

But apparently, I cannot use the word XXXX, even though it was entirely appropriate. Ironically the XXXX thing that the XXXXer wrote is still sitting there stinking up the forum.

What can one do when XXXX is a protected form of speech, but naming XXXX as XXXX is prohibited and draws sanctions?

Here is the lesson of most of modern Buddhist ethics: politeness matters more than truth. Where “politeness” is a contrived social constraint modelled, I would say, on Evangelical Christian Puritanism.

The power structures inherent in Buddhism only emerge when you do something unapproved. From time to time it is worth testing those limits and deciding whether you are still happy to subject yourself to their power, or not (sort of like a GDPR audit). Personally I’m quite ambivalent about it, but I have other venues for my writing.

3 Likes