What is Right-Speech in practice?

I have some questions about what’s regarded as right speech.

About idle chatter: is it just pointless talk, or is it any talk that’s other than the Dhamma?
In AN 10.176:

They talk nonsense. Their speech is untimely, and is neither factual nor beneficial. It has nothing to do with the teaching or the training. Their words have no value, and are untimely, unreasonable, rambling, and pointless. This is the fourfold impurity by way of speech.

They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial.

The sutta seems to clearly state that anything that isn’t connected to the teaching is idle chatter, and in other suttas it’s even said that idle chatter is one of the factors conducive to rebirth in Hell (AN 10.211).

In my case, I’m following the eight precepts today, which include abstaining for idle chatter. Shouldn’t I talk about anything other than the Dhamma? What if one needs to work or talk to relatives?

About divisive speech, the same suttas says:

They speak divisively. They repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. And so they divide those who are harmonious, supporting division, delighting in division, loving division, speaking words that promote division.

They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony.

Does divisive speech include any type of speech aiming at dividing people? For example, if you have a friend who is in an abusive relationship, is it divisive speech to tell them that it’s better to break up? If someone is bad company to somebody you care, is it divisive speech to tell them to stop their friendship? If you know that your friend’s partner cheated on them, would it be harsh speech if you told them that?

Since the Buddha would need to banish monks sometimes, I guess the answer to these questions is no; maybe the problem is that divisive speech aims at making people dislike and be against each other, not just stop interacting. Looking for other people’s ideas on this too.

About harsh speech:

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

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

MN 58 also clarifies the topic of harsh speech, by expressing it as unbeneficial:

Now at that time a little baby boy was sitting in Prince Abhaya’s lap. Then the Buddha said to Abhaya, “What do you think, prince? If—because of your negligence or his nurse’s negligence—your boy was to put a stick or stone in his mouth, what would you do to him?”

“I’d try to take it out, sir. If that didn’t work, I’d hold his head with my left hand, and take it out using a hooked finger of my right hand, even if it drew blood. Why is that? Because I have compassion for the boy, sir.”

“In the same way, prince, the Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be untrue, false, and harmful, and which is disliked by others. The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be true and substantive, but which is harmful and disliked by others. The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, substantive, and beneficial, but which is disliked by others. The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be untrue, false, and harmful, but which is liked by others. The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be true and substantive, but which is harmful, even if it is liked by others. The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, substantive, and beneficial, and which is liked by others. Why is that? Because the Realized One has compassion for sentient beings.”

After reading all of this, I concluded that harsh speech is speech that’s spoken with the intention to hurt, that is intended to be unbeneficial. Here’s my question: what about bad words? If it’s intended to hurt or offend, then it’s clearly harsh speech, but what if it’s intended to demonstrate surprise or greatness? Expressions like “sh*'t! I dirtied my shoes” or “this meal is f*cking great” include words that aren’t very polite, but they aren’t intended to hurt anyone. Are they harsh speech? Are they wrong speech?

This is not a proper answer, sorry in advance.
I‘m not sure your question can be properly answered, though, since every aspect of this is very sensitive to cultural context. In order to function in society, you‘ll have to engage in some idle chatter; even members of the Noble Sangha exchanged pleasantries. The suttas won‘t be able to tell you at which point the usual chit-chat with your co-workers and roommates becomes wrong speech (if it doesn‘t turn into malicious gossip or such), and I‘d look out for any hangups that might develop around that, because they might make you unpleasant to be around. I know they‘ve had that effect on me.
In fact, the strictness with which the rules of speech are laid out in the suttas has been puzzling me for a while, as this is an area with some black, some white, and a lot of grey, and the texts aren‘t all that helpful with the grey areas. Modern societies‘ increase in social complexity might also have something to do with that.

2 Likes

Right Speech leads to Right Action. So formulate your Speech in that Way!

This is one of the best talks I’ve EVER heard on right speech

1 Like