GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin Solway wrote:

Here is a link to excerpts from the teachings of the Buddha regarding Right Speech: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... index.html .

The definition on that page was actually wrong.

Any form of speech that is evasive is wrong speech, and that page conveniently ignored this fact.

The definition of Right Speech, reported to have been spoken by Buddha, that you labeled “actually wrong” is:

"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech."

But aside from you stated objection that the definition failed to include evasive speech, you did not state what was wrong with the definition.

And if you would scroll-down you could read many other teachings of the Buddha regarding Right Speech, such as

"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."

or

"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these — 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' — he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."

Do no harm,
clyde

I've been reading various pages there all day. It's a very informative site.

Clyde quoted:

"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these — 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' — he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."

Translation: "You must accept my points without questioning them."

-

Hmm, I thought Clyde's quote basically said "no cat-fighting."

That's right. "If you accept what I say, there will be no more cat-fighting."

-

clyde wrote:The definition of Right Speech, reported to have been spoken by Buddha, that you labeled “actually wrong” is:

"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech."

It is wrong because it didn't draw proper attention to evasive speech. And evasive speech is one of the main forms of wrong speech.

One does not need to accept another's argument to avoid disputing it. There is another option - keeping silent. That seems to be what the cited text is suggesting in most cases.

"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these — 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' — he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."

I think the Buddha made two points.

The first point is to avoid becoming “addicted to debates”; i.e., one does not need to argue every point and may remain silent.

The second point is not to see debates as contests to be won or lost. There are other approaches. One can avoid proclaiming “I’m right. You’re wrong.” One can say: “This is my practice. This is my view. This is my understanding.”

clyde

Unidian wrote:One does not need to accept another's argument to avoid disputing it. There is another option - keeping silent. That seems to be what the cited text is suggesting in most cases.

So if one religious group thinks that they should kill all people who allow their women to show their ankles, everyone should keep silent about that? What about the nazi camps - is the suggestion that no one should have disputed the nazi's argument that all Jews and all of the people caught silently hiding Jewish people (5 million of them) should be exterminated?
.

Right Speech, as in all the "precepts" of the so-called "eightfold path" are, in my view, products of the development of the Sangha and - perhaps I would just prefer to think this - not directly attributable to the Buddha. If they are, then they are examples of his religious errors. The Eigthfold Path is nothing but platitudinous religious dogma [Confucianist Moralism], designed for community rather than individual thought.

To me Eightfold Pathitudinism represents the genesis of the degradation of Dharmic teaching....

Dan;

I don’t believe that all words in all the suttas are the spoken words of the Buddha. It is for each person to determine which words were actually spoken by the Buddha or express the teaching of the Buddha, and it for each person to interpret and understand the words of the Buddha.

That said, the Noble Eightfold Path (NEP) was introduced in the very first teaching of the Buddha, the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html ), well before the establishment of the Sangha and, as my previous link shows, is referred to in many suttas.

I understand the NEP, not as a cause of awakening, but as the result of awakening. I believe the Buddha encouraged others “to follow” (emulate) the NEP, because it resulted in less suffering, and taught that awakened human being naturally live the NEP.

clyde

Elizabeth;

I don’t believe the teachings of the Buddha require one to be silent in the presence of harm. The Buddha’s teaching in the quote above was about debating Buddhist doctrine and practice. But generalizing from that, it is one thing to debate one’s beliefs and quite another to advocate harming other human beings.

clyde

E,

So if one religious group thinks that they should kill all people who allow their women to show their ankles, everyone should keep silent about that? What about the nazi camps - is the suggestion that no one should have disputed the nazi's argument that all Jews and all of the people caught silently hiding Jewish people (5 million of them) should be exterminated?

No, "right speech" allows for saying something "when the time is right." I think that in these cases, the time is pretty unequivocally right. The holocaust was not an internet argument.

Dan,

Right Speech, as in all the "precepts" of the so-called "eightfold path" are, in my view, products of the development of the Sangha and - perhaps I would just prefer to think this - not directly attributable to the Buddha. If they are, then they are examples of his religious errors. The Eigthfold Path is nothing but platitudinous religious dogma [Confucianist Moralism], designed for community rather than individual thought.

To me Eightfold Pathitudinism represents the genesis of the degradation of Dharmic teaching....

This seems to be a consistent theme with you guys' approach. All understanding, no practice. The emphasis around here seems to be hugely slanted toward acquiring an intellectual grasp of Buddhist philosophy without any need for structured practice. I question the value of this approach. Granted, it may make its adherents feel like enlightened Geniuses, but does it lead to a better life beyond this particular psychological benefit?

Um, would you like to reconsider that post, Nat? It's headed for a serious beating if you don't :)

Knock yourself out.