“Sir, what do you do with a person in training who doesn’t follow these forms of training?”
“In that case, Kesi, I kill them.”
“Sir, it’s not appropriate for the Buddha to kill living creatures. And yet you say you kill them.”
- Right speech is first and foremost not to tell deliberate lies and to mislead others.
With actual wrong speech one has no problem whatsoever with telling various lies that leads to discriminating, belittling, ridiculing, hating and persecuting fellow human beings.
Actual harsh & divisive rhetoric usually incite acts of violence.
The thing is, only liars filled with greed, hatred and delusion promote violence.
- Surely one is allowed to point out that certain people in power are greedy liars who lack any conscience?
They couldn’t care less how much suffering they create for others when spewing their hateful lies or when making decisions out of greed that leads to misery for others.
So as buddhists we should take a closer look at AN 4.111:
But sir, the Buddha is the supreme guide for those who wish to train. Just how do you guide a person in training?”
“Kesi, I guide a person in training sometimes gently, sometimes harshly, and sometimes both gently and harshly.
The gentle way is this: ‘This is good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. This is the result of good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. This is life as a god. This is life as a human.’
The harsh way is this: ‘This is bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. This is the result of bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. This is life in hell. This is life as an animal. This is life as a ghost.’
The both gentle and harsh way is this: ‘This is good conduct … this is bad conduct …’”
“Sir, what do you do with a person in training who doesn’t follow these forms of training?”
“In that case, Kesi, I kill them.”
“Sir, it’s not appropriate for the Buddha to kill living creatures. And yet you say you kill them.”
“It’s true, Kesi, it’s not appropriate for a Realized One to kill living creatures. But when a person in training doesn’t follow any of these forms of training, the Realized One doesn’t think they’re worth advising or instructing, and neither do their sensible spiritual companions. For it is killing in the training of the Noble One when the Realized One doesn’t think they’re worth advising or instructing, and neither do their sensible spiritual companions.”
I can see why you think that we as buddhists should be very welcoming of all kinds of people.
In one way I totally agree with you and fully understand what this notion is based on.
But in another way I also disagree.
The reason being that there is still no certainty whatsoever that any individual will actually benefit from buddhism.
Aṅgulimāla did benefit, as you pointed out, but on the other hand Devadatta obviously didn’t.
- So if one has to harshly let fools know that their harmful intentions will lead them to rebirth in hell, the animal kingdom or as ghost - so be it!
Kamma/Rebirth is very real.
Please, Kālāmas, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned contemplation, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after consideration, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think ‘The ascetic is our respected teacher.’ But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering’, then you should give them up.
What do you think, Kālāmas? Does greed come up in a person for their welfare or harm?”
“Harm, sir.”
“A greedy individual, overcome by greed, kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?”
“Yes, sir.”
“What do you think, Kālāmas? Does hate come up in a person for their welfare or harm?”
“Harm, sir.”
“A hateful individual, overcome by hate, kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?”
“Yes, sir.”
“What do you think, Kālāmas? Does delusion come up in a person for their welfare or harm?”
“Harm, sir.”
“A deluded individual, overcome by delusion, kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?”
“Yes, sir.”
“What do you think, Kālāmas, are these things skillful or unskillful?”
“Unskillful, sir.”
“Blameworthy or blameless?”
“Blameworthy, sir.”
“Criticized or praised by sensible people?”
“Criticized by sensible people, sir.”
“When you undertake them, do they lead to harm and suffering, or not? Or how do you see this?”
“When you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering. That’s how we see it.”
If the reality of rebirth/kamma is met with ridicule instead of reflection, one knows one is dealing with a fool not worth advising or instructing.
Likewise:
When a wise man hears of the Tao,
he immediately begins to live it.
When an average man hears of the Tao,
he believes some of it and doubts the rest.
When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud at the very idea.
If it were not for that laugh,
it would not be the Tao.
I assure you, I’m relaxed. Confusion usually doesn’t make me feel uptight. Sorry if it came off that way. I’m still trying to gather data about what the OP is talking about, and then all this other stuff comes at me, yet I don’t have even have enough information to know what the heck they’re talking about.