SuttaCentral
There existed this particular monk who was an Arhath. This monk would regularly abuse people. When asked the Lord Buddha explained about an attribute called the “Gathi” i.e. past habits.
There are words coloured by Gathi. They are not intentionally used to hurt people, although many might perceive it as wrong speech in a conventional sense.
I agree with this idea. We’re all just a bunch of habits in one sense!
Like I said, I’m sure your intention was pure. Your intention is not under attack. Nor are your habits. Nor are you. And it’s okay if your habits of speech are casual in this manner.
But now that it’s been pointed out to you that this particular moment of speech may have offended (regardless of your intention) you don’t need to defend your intention, you can just make a decision about whether or not you wish to modify your speech. That’s up to you.
Habits can be changed, slowly, gradually. It’s part of the purification of Virtue to have a gentle, tolerant and very patient habit re-program as an ongoing part of Practice! And we’ll continue to make mistakes. It’s okay to say they’re just habits or a way of talking influenced by personality. That’s fine. But it’s also okay to look at something from somebody else’s perspective and say, “hmmm…yes, I can see your view too…perhaps you have a point.” No harm acrrues to anyone in such an admission and indeed, you may find that all these interactions ease considerably.
With metta
I doubt Arahants would be resistant to taking on feedback. My guess is that they would be so peaceful and calm that any feedback given, would be something they would be open to. So while this particular Arahant may have been criticised and the Buddha may have talked about ‘habits’…I bet, the Arahant in question wouldn’t have minded about the feedback/criticism. He may even have taken on board some of the feedback. Afterall, having certain habits doesn’t mean that they are fixed, just tricky to change.
I often think, that in general, it’s good to be relaxed, natural and easy around our ways of being; to just “be ourselves” so to speak. However, as a practicising Buddhist, I’m finding more and more in my own life, that this works best, (for my benefit and others’ benefit) when I do so within the boundaries of courtesy. (Which is not to say that I don’t get impassioned from time to time! But I’m finding that this is the risk one takes when one gets too involved or cares too much about something! And of course, that’s partly habit too…fortunately, while it’s difficult to change, it’s also very prone to change.)
Well, yes most certainly, I shall try to apply more restraint with words.
In Western countries, often fundamentalist Christians engage in extreme behaviours, such as aggressive speech & even military war, because they believe their faith (belief) will save them rather than their actions.
Sometimes, I have noticed some Buddhists to be similar, in that some Buddhists seem to believe just because they believe in reincarnation they will automatically have a favourable reincarnation.
I posted before I have not found this doctrine in the suttas; where a person is saved by belief alone.
The suttas state harsh speech leads to ‘rebirth’ in the lower worlds (loka).
Pharusāpharusa, bhikkhave, vācā āsevitā bhāvitā bahulīkatā nirayasaṃvattanikā tiracchānayonisaṃvattanikā pettivisayasaṃvattanikā. Yo sabbalahuso pharusāya vācāya vipāko, manussabhūtassa amanāpasaddasaṃvattaniko hoti.
Harsh speech — when indulged in, developed & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from harsh speech is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to unappealing sounds.
AN 8.40
Good on you Rajitha! Much respect for this gracious response; it comes across as being given with both kindness and renunciation. 
Well, I think you need to understand the Suthra first. The Suthra says.
Harsh speech, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being harsh speech at minimum conduces to disagreeable sounds.
I think you are not using the Suttacentral ones. In any case, did you see “when indulged in” ? That suggest if harsh words are repeatedly pursued.
I use it sparsely only when the occasion calls for a heightened sense of urgency or focus.
I wasn’t questioning his intention, but his action. I’m sure he didn’t mean to speak unkindly. Your encouragement to reconsider the phrasing, to me shows you may have a similar concern, or you consider there may have been something amiss with the speech.
As I understand it, the Buddha allows and encourages us to criticise behaviour, if we think it is adhammic. See MN139.
The PTS dictionary gives the first meaning of attā is soul:
Meanings:
The soul as postulated in the animistic theories held in N India in the 6th and 7th cent. B. C. It is described in the Upanishads as a small creature, in shape like a man, dwelling in ordinary times in the heart. It escapes from the body in sleep or trance; when it returns to the body life and motion reappear. It escapes from the body at death, …
Oneself, himself, yourself. Nom. attā, very rare. S I.71, 169; III.120; A I.57, 149
So, it is not just my thought. It would certainly be one possible meaning.
best wishes
I think you will find that it is scrutiny by noble lay people. Could you provide the reference?
= ethical voidness, imo. if intention were all that mattered, I thing the Path would end there, Right View, Right Intension, but no, it actually goes to Right Action also. As the popular saying goes ‘the path to hell is paved by good intentions’.
I just read one of Kay’s responses. Seems to make a very similar point.
They certainly were not by me.
I understand it is the responsibility of others in the community of disciples to speak up against wrong action and I believe that is what Rajitha was trying to do. That is what I was trying to do and in that sense, I would say, I do attack wrong action, as I believe the Buddha did, out of compassion, but I do not then start name calling vis MN139 and assuming negative motivation.
Attacking action would be equated with attacking a person, when there is identity view.
I disagree.
best wishes
So how would you define harsh speech? Hopefully not simply something that is unpleasant to hear.
You have just made 6 posts in a row here that are not related to the original thread’s meaning. What are you trying to achieve here?
Please try to be succinct and prudent in your replies and avoiding taking this too far off topic.
As it is, due to the length and proliferative nature of this thread, I move that it should be set to close as no-one seems to be getting anything useful out of it at this point.
Hi Cara
thanks for pointing that out
As I said, I was addressing what I thought was wrong (unkind/adammic) speech.
Maybe I should start a new thread on right speech?
best wishes
Opinions on such things vary, it’s difficult to change someone else’s mind about them, especially over the internet.
Otherwise, I might suggest it could be better to discuss issues privately or with the moderators.
Thank you.
Of course, but surely it is only our opinions or views that we can discuss and whether they accurately reflect the Buddha’s or not and it takes time and patience, to listen to others.
Surely this public forum the place for that?
Of course, I’m just saying if you have to do it, please post in the relevant place, and if your queries address just one or two users, they might be best done privately.
ok, thanks very much for your direction
Rajitha spoke to harshly in his manner of speaking to Brother_joe. Just because someone has new ideas doesn’t call for a bashing. This type of attitude has held the world back from advances a 100 times over. The moderators have been very gentle with Rajitha and many other online forums would not have been so kind - thankfully we are Buddhist.
It was the moderator before Brother_joe’s six comments that were discussing something ‘off topic’ and with numerous posts. To attack Brother_joe with such a comment; “You have just made 6 posts in a row here that are not related to the original thread’s meaning. What are you trying to achieve here?”… This is totally uncalled for when the subject had been changed before hand. I’d recommend to message him personally as well.
There are a lot of harsh words going on in this thread and many others for that matter - this should be monitored much more carefully. I have never come across a forum where people are so harsh in a general sense - it needs to be controlled - many people are just trying to learn and study and don’t deserve to be dealt with in such a manner.
In terms of this topic, it shows us how important this subject of ‘no self’ is, and how strongly people feel about it. Closing the thread is not a mature response. In the end, all of these harsh words come about when thinking that ones ‘SELF’ ideas are correct.
I recommend the monitors to talk to a person via private messages when a post has been flagged and secondly not to speak harshly to people who are trying to stand up for themselves in a PUBLIC forum. Brother_Joes initial response to Rajitha was very mature and gentle
With Metta