"Well spoken" speech (MN 58, SN 8.5, & AN 5.198)

Discussion
1

We’re currently covering “right speech” in my Sutta Study course. As part of that, we’ve read MN 58, SN 8.5, and AN 5.198.

MN 58 lists when the Buddha would say a thing:

  • The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is disliked (appiyā amanāpā) by others.
  • The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is liked (piyā manāpā) by others.

In SN 8.5, the Buddha says well spoken speech is:

  • It’s when a mendicant speaks well, not poorly; their speech is principled, not unprincipled; they speak pleasantly (piyaṃyeva), not unpleasantly (appiyaṁ); and they speak truthfully, not falsely.

And in AN 5.198 the Buddha says well spoken speech is:

  • It is speech that is timely, true, gentle (saṇhā), beneficial, and loving.

These are not the same things. The main conflict that I’m seeing is the Buddha explicitly saying that he will say things that are disliked by others in MN 58 and saying in SN 8.5 that well spoken speech should be pleasant. My understanding is that people see things that are said that they don’t like as “unpleasant”. So there is a contradiction here. Also, I cannot imagine the Buddha telling someone not to say a thing that reduced harm just because it was unpleasant for someone to hear.

I’m wondering if the relative ages of these texts might shine some light on how the meaning might have changed over time? Is there are sense of the relative ages here? Or is there some other relevant frame of analysis that I’m ignorant of?

I was also just reading AN 10.211. Here the sixth quality that will send you to hell is:

  • They speak harshly. They use the kinds of words that are cruel, nasty, hurtful, offensive, bordering on anger, not leading to immersion.

Whereas the sixth quality that will send you to heaven is:

  • They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, endearing, going to the heart, polite, and likable and agreeable to the people.

I’ve seen similar formulations elsewhere, though I don’t have them at my fingertips. This makes me wonder if there was drift over time from right speech being “not harsh” to right speech being “gentle” to right speech being “likeable and agreeable” to right speech being “pleasant”?

Thoughts? Knowledge to share? Thank you!

2

It’s only a contradiction if your understanding is correct, which I’m not sure it is.

If you have to say something that may be unwanted by the hearer, wouldn’t you try to say it in a way that was as pleasant as possible?

In general I recommend reaching for the “maybe one text is older” explanation as a very last resort, considering that there is no way to prove it either way. At least when we are looking at suttas in the first four nikayas.

1 Like
3

MN 58 and SN 8.5 talk about different aspects of speaking. The former concentrates on the content of what is said, the latter deals with the form in which it is expressed. There is a huge difference between saying something which the listener at that moment does not agree with (which makes it “unpleasant”) in a nice, non-hurting way and couching it in denigrating, ridiculing, condescending or aggressive language.

4

I see it as “speaking pleasantly” as speaking without the conceit, arrogance and irritation behind it. In this wat, one can certaily speak with nice words and even then speak unpleasantly.

Now, when the Buddha said to speak pleasantly it cannot mean to speak in a way that the person feels pleasant, because then no one would say nothing ever again, since the feeling of unpleasant to that person will depend on the already present feeling, not on the words being said (so there will always be a danger to “speak unpleasantly” by this definition). So, you can speak with nice words and pleasantly, but if that person is irritated or annoyed, those words will be felt unpleasant.

There is an other discourse where the Buddha explain the proper time to “rebuke” someone, MN 103:

As you train in harmony, appreciating each other, without dispute, one of the mendicants might commit an offense or transgression.

In such a case, you should not be in a hurry to accuse them. The individual should be examined like this:

‘I won’t be troubled and the other individual won’t be hurt, for they’re not irritable and acrimonious. They don’t hold fast to their views, but let them go easily. I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.

’If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.

But suppose you think this:

‘I will be troubled and the other individual will be hurt, for they’re irritable and acrimonious. However, they don’t hold fast to their views, but let them go easily. I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.But for the other individual to get hurt is a minor matter.

It’s more importantthat I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.

’If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.

[and so on …]

So, there is a case where what you said above might apply:

But suppose you think this:

‘I will be troubled and the other individual will be hurt, for they’re irritable and acrimonious. And they hold fast to their views, refusing to let go. I cannot draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.

’Don’t underestimate the value of equanimity regarding such an individual.

1 Like
5

From the Pali-English side, there may be conflation with “pleasant” in the vedanā / feeling tone sense (SN 22) (adukha) and “pleasant” (paya) as:

dear, beloved; liked, cherished, favourite; precious
~ Margaret Cone Pali Dictionary

where paya can also serve as a noun referring to someone’s spouse.

The fact that paya appears in the familiar sutta device where the Buddha uses multiple synonyms to describe what he’s getting at … this tells me that the reader might not invest too much in a strict or categorical meaning of the word in isolation.

Good question for study!

2 Likes
6

There is a clue in Ven Sujato’s notes to MN 58 which is worth considering.

Mahāvīra is quoting from the Buddha at AN 8.7:1.7 = Kd 17:4.7.1. This dates this sutta to the last years of the Buddha’s life, after the rebellion of Devadatta and the ascension of Ajātasattu, and shortly before Mahāvīra’s passing.

As far as I can see, the Buddha tried his best to avoid confrontational speech.

So, for example when quizzed by his maternal uncle Dandapani in MN 18 about his doctrine he replied that

Respectable sir, my doctrine is such that one does not argue with anyone in this world

Keep in mind the backstory as explained by Ven sujato in the notes to this sutta

Daṇḍapāṇi was said to be the brother of the Buddha’s birth mother Māyā and foster mother Mahāpajāpatī (Mahāvaṁsa 2.19), or else the father of the Buddha’s former wife Yasodharā (or Gopā, Lalitavistara 12.15). Both could be true, making Siddhattha’s wife his cousin. Reading between the lines, it seems Daṇḍapāṇi nursed a grudge against the Buddha. This would be understandable if Siddhattha’s birth resulted in the death of one of Daṇḍapāṇi’s sisters, while the other sister was left distraught when he went forth; and even more so if he abandoned Daṇḍapāṇi’s daughter with their newborn son.

We see a similar response in the events at Kosambi (MN 48) when the Buddha, faced with quarrelling monks who refused to heed his advice to reconcile, simply left for Parileyya.

Devadutta, IMO was a special case. The Buddha was faced with a devious person- a close relative - who was trying to split the Sangha and wrest control for himself. Devadutta even attempted to assassinate the Buddha!

Its only in such an exceptional case that the Buddha used speech that might be disliked.

And how disagreeable was it? When you read AN 8.7, AN 4.68 and SN17.35 and Iti 89, you can see that it is a well reasoned, logical warning, not based on anger in the least.

7

What about the coutless times the Buddha called someone useless, inept, worthless, futile etc.?

“Is it really true, Ariṭṭha, that you have such a harmful misconception:‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them’?”

“Indeed, sir. As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them.”

“Futile man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way?

Haven’t I said in many ways that obstructive acts are obstructive, and that they really do obstruct the one who performs them?

[…]

When this was said, Ariṭṭha sat silent, dismayed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say.

As I said above, one cannot take on account if someone will like or dislike something as a way to decide whether something should or not being said, since the reaction that someone has is not your responsability, you cannot control. In this case, for example, the Buddha is obviously trying to remove this pernicious view of this mendicant, and since he is the Buddha, clearly he is not irritated and has no ill intention towards this monk.

In the sutta AN 5.7, although is not exactly related to this discussion, it came into my memory:

Suppose there was a little baby boy who, because of his nursemaid’s negligence, puts a stick or stone in his mouth.

The nursemaid would very quickly noticeand try to take it out.

If that didn’t work, she’d cradle his head with her left hand, and take it out using a hooked finger of her right hand, even if it drew blood.

Why is that?

I admit she’d know, ‘This will distress the child,

there’s no denying.’

Still, it should be done by a nursemaid who wants what’s best for him, out of kindness and sympathy.

And when the boy has grown up and has enough sense, his nursemaid would not be concerned about him, thinking:

‘The boy can look after himself. He won’t be negligent.’

1 Like
8

image
image393×179 3.04 KB

MN58
this is a graph I use when confronted with a do I speak or do I shut up situation. I may have plagiarised it from a clear mountain commentary . If so may all merit go to them :folded_hands:. Non pleasing speech is not synonymous with “harsh” The simile of the child with a stick in its mouth speaks to this. So if it’s true, beneficial but not pleasing, that is the right time. Beneficial and true trumps feeling displeased and it doesn’t have to constitute harshness. As you, yourself have highlighted “The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is disliked by others.”
Metta to all, may you be well.

1 Like
9

I think what I’m hearing is a number of people arguing that the word “pleasant” (piyā) is being used differently in different contexts with @Taohua summing it up as a difference between when the Buddha is talking about the content of speech vs when he is talking about the form of speech. And that taken together, we can see the Buddha saying that while the content of speech may well need to be unpleasant, even the most unpleasant things should be said without anger or unnecessary harshness.

On the one hand, that tracks and maintains an internal consistency. And certainly over a 45 year teaching career, even if the context of what you teach never changes as all, you are going to say some things that at least on a surface level sound contradictory. On the other hand, I think what I’m struggling with is that I’ve watched people use the idea that speech “should always be pleasant” to not speak up when they had knowledge of harm and it would have been an appropriate moment to share that knowledge. So I think I want the Buddha to have “clarified” his teaching over time to make it clear that a person should say unpleasing things when necessary. And it feels sloppy to me to use language that at least in this current time and place gets misinterpreted so often. Though that may well have not been the case two and a half millennia ago. And then on the third hand (I have a lot of hands), I find instances where the Buddha changed his mind or refined his teachings really interesting and I wonder if we sometimes put too much emphasis on interpreting his teachings as completely unchanging over time.

10

Looking back at almost six decades of involvement with Buddhist places/organizations, I think I can understand what TeddyBearButch means when he says:

My humble suggestion is to try to understand how things are analyzed according to the teaching and rather not be confused by individual interpretations. In terms of clarifying, for example,what is regarded as “right speech” or “the four aspects of verbal acts”, the motivation is (as always) of paramount importance.

The opposite of the mentioned “pleasant” speech would probably be “harsh” speech. Well, for a number of years I lived on the same floor as some battle hardened veterans who peppered every sentence, even the most trivial one, with at least one expletive. For the refined ear of some High Society person, that might have sounded like a torrent of obscenities while for the speaker it was simply his way of emphasizing something he wanted to express. I would not regard this as “harsh” speech since there was no intention at all to hurt anyone. How many lies, how much deception is spread with sweet words. It’s poison, but it sounds pleasant.

As far as I understand, the Buddha taught us to be kind, which includes to protect others if we are in the position to do so. Of course, in each situation, countless complex changing factors are involved but basically, if you could help someone avoid being harmed but don’t do it, well, you end up not following the Buddha’s advice. That, at least, is my admittedly very superficial understanding at the moment.

2 Likes
11

I think the sutta I quoted, MN 103, is what you are looking for. It deals in detail when it’s the best time to correct someone’s wrong views based on the trouble one would have, if the individual will be hurt, if the individual hold fast to their views and how easily they let them go, and if the person is confident that they can draw them away from unskillful to skillful. What the Buddha does best, however, is that is not in ANY occasion where it is appropriate to “save someone from their wrong views”.

But suppose you think this:

‘I will be troubled and the other individual will be hurt, for they’re irritable and acrimonious. And they hold fast to their views, refusing to let go. I cannot draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’

Don’t underestimate the value of equanimity regarding such an individual.

Regarding your point about the Buddha being more clear about it, or about any other subject, I think that the teachings should be seen in the light of the general principles, instead of the specificalities. People sometimes only needed the teaching in brief, literally two phrases, and they became enlightened while people would need a detailed teaching to do so. Even today, where we have a whole canon with the teachings in brief and the detailed ones, one still don’t become enlightened.

In this case, the general principle is “acting wholesomely, not acting unwholesomely”. In the case of the 5 precepts no situation a breach of the 5 precepts is wholesome, but in the case of harsh, idle, useless speech, there is no way to indicate that externally, only internally. And people miss that. The only person who truly knows their intention is oneself. So, suppose someone see another person with wrong view, they know how to help, they know that the person would listen, but they also know that it may sound harsh, but they know that their intention is not embedded in unwholesome reasons. If they don’t help that person, that would be an unwholesome action, an action rooted in unwholesome, like they are doubtful that that should be said, in the best of the scenarios. Another one can be that they don’t want to give themselves that work, that is, slothful etc.

Obviously, speaking lots of curse words, even with the best of the intentions is improper speech, but in this case, it is only improper externally, not internally.

2 Likes
12

One should definitely intervene when one can see that harm is occurring!

AN 5.166
Then the Buddha said to Venerable Ānanda,
“Ānanda! How can you just watch while a senior mendicant is being harassed?
Don’t you have any compassion for a senior mendicant who is being harassed?”

1 Like