It is many weeks since Bhante Sujato’s original essay appeared, and I am still quite glad that he posted it. I wonder if western Buddhism is becoming so comfortable with a kind of neutered or sterile gloss in terms of discussion and advocacy, that we are almost afraid to really engage vigorously on important issues? The Buddha that I see in the Nikayas is a vigorous man, not afraid to take on conventions of his time, or tackle views that were inconsistent with his Dhamma. I’ve never understood the sensibility that we want our monks and nuns to be pious, and quiet, afraid to step into the light and really advocate for a Dhamma that is true to the original teachings.
I am also troubled by the use of Right Speech as a hammer, to create a chilling effect on monastics (or anyone) that speak with the same vigor and conviction that the Buddha displays in the Canon. The Samaññaphala Sutta states that a part of a monk’s virtue is that “he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world.” Further, "the Buddha thus explains right speech in the Pali Canon, according to Ganeri, as never speaking something that is not beneficial; and, only speaking what is true and beneficial, “when the circumstances are right, whether they are welcome or not”. J Ganeri (2007). The Concealed Art of the Soul: Theories of Self and Practices of Truth in Indian Ethics and Epistemology.
Perhaps what Bhante Sujato is pointing to is not welcome, but if you’re going to be a scholar, and an advocate for the Dhamma in the western world, some of your ideas and approaches might not be welcome. But this does not mean that the essay was not consistent with Right Speech, at least as the Canon defines it. What we need is this vigorous scholarship, this energetic debate, in order to address the problems of interpretation in the west as to what the Dhamma is, and what the Buddha actually was trying to teach. Right Speech should be used as a shield against poorly intentioned speech that harms others, not as a sword to cut down writers that are advocating passionately and correctly for ideas that need to be expressed. I suppose Dr. King should have just kept quiet. Maybe Noam Chomsky should just shut up. Maybe Bhikkhu Bodhi needs to stop walking. Maybe Bhante Sujato should just abandon the positive energy and the scholarship of the likes of Sujato’s Blog, and just be a “good monk,” do his chanting quietly and meditate, and observe a right speech that does not risk offending or ruffling some well preened feathers.
Can’t we all agree that his essay perhaps accomplished precisely what his intention may have been? To raise the issues? To invite comment, and to draw thoughtful discussion?
Can we also agree that it is fair, if you’re going to call something a “Buddhism,” that it’s fair to question whether the historical Buddha taught it? I respect what Secular Buddhism represents and I enjoy Ted’s perspectives, even when he, at times, gets testy with those that oppose his thoughtful points of view. Maybe the point is that we need to decide whether something is a “Buddhism” or not, if the principles or views do not derive from the Buddha? After all, in 2017, what is the point of embracing the Buddha, and knowing the Canon, and agreeing that the Buddha taught rebirth, and then dismissing this teaching as unimportant, or denying that the Buddha taught something that we know he did in fact teach? Is that Right Speech, at the end of the day?
What Bhante Sujato wrote is at the heart of intellectual freedom. It was first rate well intentioned advocacy, IMO. Its presence here had, in fact, what I beleiev to be the desired effect; it has cultivated over 300 posts of thoughtful, vigorous, and beneficial discussion. We should be celebrating that, and not throwing water on a fire that has illuminated its readers, and warmed the audience to the actual teaching of the Buddha.