What Is The Buddhist Path?

[camerata]

Given the number of forum readers who interested in Buddhism but haven't had much exposure to the doctrine, I thought I'd post this definition of "the path" (magga) that serious Buddhists follow. It's from Ven Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary :

The 8-fold path is the path leading to the ceasing of suffering, i.e. the last of the 4 Noble Truths, namely:

Wisdom paññā III.

1. Right view sammā-ditthi

2. Right motivation sammā-sankappa

Morality sīla I.

3. Right speech sammā-vācā

4. Right bodily action sammā-kammanta

5. Right livelihood sammā-ājīva

Concentration samādhi II.

6. Right effort sammā-vāyāma

7. Right awareness or mindfulness sammā-sati

8. Right concentration sammā-samādhi

1. Right view or right understanding is the understanding of the 4 Noble Truths about the universality of suffering unsatisfactoriness, of its origin, its cessation, and the path leading to that cessation. - See the Discourse on 'Right Understanding'

2. Right motivation: thoughts free from sense-desire, from ill-will, and cruelty.

3. Right speech: abstaining from lying, tale-bearing, harsh language, and foolish babble.

4. Right bodily action: abstaining from killing, stealing, and unlawful sexual intercourse.

5. Right livelihood: abstaining from a livelihood that brings harm to other beings, such as trading in arms, in living beings, intoxicating drinks, poison; slaughtering, fishing, soldiering, deceit, treachery soothsaying, trickery, usury, etc.

6. Right effort: the effort of avoiding or overcoming evil and disadvantageous things, and of developing and maintaining advantageous things.

7. Right awareness or mindfulness: awareness or mindfulness and awareness in contemplating body, feelings, mind, and mental-objects.

8. Right concentration: concentration of mind associated with advantageous kusala consciousness, which eventually may reach the absorptions jhāna.

[phetaroi]

I'm curious which definition of doctrine you are using (obviously, #3 does not apply):

1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.

3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.

4. Archaic Something taught; a teaching.

[camerata]

If I had to choose it would be:

"a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject"

from dictionary.com (Random House).

[rockyysdt]

Would you say that "Right Awareness or Mindfulness" & "Right Concentration" are vital in facilitating the others.

Without #7 & #8 we react, think, & behave in conditioned mode.

[camerata]

Would you say that "Right Awareness or Mindfulness" & "Right Concentration" are vital in facilitating the others.

Without #7 & #8 we react, think, & behave in conditioned mode.

Most teachers say they all complement each other. 7 and 8 seem to be the most advanced, though. According to Ajahn Brahm, Right Concentration is essential for Right Mindfulness, but not everyone agrees.

[sabaijai]

Yes, many views on 'correct' order, interconnected nature of the eight steps, etc. Abhidhammists, for example, believe that once sammā-ditthi (right view) is achieved, all the other 7 fall into place.

[BusyBee123]

my wife say, 'can take your pick for buddha everything ok, no think to much' good people lead good life and evertyhing ok, people think to much not see about life for real, to much for study....

[phetaroi]

my wife say, 'can take your pick for buddha everything ok, no think to much' good people lead good life and evertyhing ok, people think to much not see about life for real, to much for study....

In other words, moderation in all things.

[camerata]

my wife say, 'can take your pick for buddha everything ok, no think to much' good people lead good life and evertyhing ok, people think to much not see about life for real, to much for study....

Sounds very folksy but "can take your pick" isn't really Buddhism because it doesn't "go against the worldly stream" (patisotagami) - a characteristic of the Dhamma. In my experience, when Thais say "Don't think too much" it either means don't get upset over minor problems (which is a good attitude) or it means avoid problems by not thinking about them at all - which isn't so good. Anyone who's worked in a Thai company will know that Thais often tend to ignore problems until it's too late to do anything about them and disaster is unavoidable. There are plenty of Thai who refuse to see a doctor because they are afraid of hearing bad news, when getting timely treatment could save their lives.

In his talk last Friday, Ajahn Tiradhammo pointed out that avoiding suffering is not the right way to go. It has to be investigated and understood. This is more a matter of meditation/contemplation than study.

"Suffering, he said, can be divided into three main kinds. ‘Real’ suffering mostly from the body, but also including the mind. Then a second level [the 'second arrow' as it is known] which is the mental suffering we pile on to our situation. It is the tendency to make small things very big to ourselves. Then there is existential suffering, as the third level.

Echoing the Ajahn Chah tradition, he said that suffering is not to be avoided, but that you must find the real cause. Then you find that you can have suffering, but there is noONE who is suffering from it."

[phetaroi]

Sounds very folksy but "can take your pick" isn't really Buddhism...

But there really are only two choices (that I see):

1. Buy it all, lock, stock, and barrel and without question.

2. Take your pick.

To buy it all, lock, stock, and barrel, I have to believe that Buddha was all knowing and all seeing...and you know what that implies.

[camerata]

But there really are only two choices (that I see):

1. Buy it all, lock, stock, and barrel and without question.

2. Take your pick.

Well, you're ignoring the third option, which is to do the step-by-step practice formulated by the Buddha (which is simply a form of self-administered psychotherapy) and "accept" what you can verify with your practice while remaining agnostic about the supernatural stuff until you are able to go beyond conceptual thinking. This is a logical progression of acceptance rather than your options 1 or 2.

The problem with "taking your pick" is your pick is based on intellectual argument and/or personal preference rather than the results of practice. This was the point of the story of the man shot with the poisoned arrow. You never get anywhere if you want the answers before doing the practice.

[phetaroi]

But there really are only two choices (that I see):

1. Buy it all, lock, stock, and barrel and without question.

2. Take your pick.

Well, you're ignoring the third option, which is to do the step-by-step practice formulated by the Buddha (which is simply a form of self-administered psychotherapy) and "accept" what you can verify with your practice while remaining agnostic about the supernatural stuff until you are able to go beyond conceptual thinking. This is a logical progression of acceptance rather than your options 1 or 2.

The problem with "taking your pick" is your pick is based on intellectual argument and/or personal preference rather than the results of practice. This was the point of the story of the man shot with the poisoned arrow. You never get anywhere if you want the answers before doing the practice.

You're supposing I mean that #2 means you take your pick and thereafter never evolve your thinking.

What "supernatural stuff" do you feel Buddhism includes?

[camerata]

You're supposing I mean that #2 means you take your pick and thereafter never evolve your thinking.

What "supernatural stuff" do you feel Buddhism includes?

I'm just suggesting that Buddhists start with the Eightfold Path advocated by the Buddha and see if the practice verifies it, rather than making decisions in advance to do something different. For example, when you listed your practice, at the very top you had "mostly contemplate what I see and hear when I visit Buddhist temples." It seems to me that that would just give you some opinions about institutional Buddhism in Thailand rather than provide the mental cultivation that leads to the cessation of suffering. In fact, as Ajahn Tiradhammo pointed out in his recent talk, "contemplation" has a special meaning in Buddhism. It doesn't mean thinking with the intellect, it means investigation of your own mental/physical states through meditation.

Supernatural stuff is what we can't verify in this life - rebirth in celestial realms, etc.

[rockyysdt]

You're supposing I mean that #2 means you take your pick and thereafter never evolve your thinking.

If you took your pick how would you then evolve your thinking?

[phetaroi]

You're supposing I mean that #2 means you take your pick and thereafter never evolve your thinking.

What "supernatural stuff" do you feel Buddhism includes?

I'm just suggesting that Buddhists start with the Eightfold Path advocated by the Buddha and see if the practice verifies it, rather than making decisions in advance to do something different. For example, when you listed your practice, at the very top you had "mostly contemplate what I see and hear when I visit Buddhist temples." It seems to me that that would just give you some opinions about institutional Buddhism in Thailand rather than provide the mental cultivation that leads to the cessation of suffering. In fact, as Ajahn Tiradhammo pointed out in his recent talk, "contemplation" has a special meaning in Buddhism. It doesn't mean thinking with the intellect, it means investigation of your own mental/physical states through meditation.

Supernatural stuff is what we can't verify in this life - rebirth in celestial realms, etc.

I believe you make several errors in your response. The most important error, at least in regard to this dialog, is your taking a sentence from one of my previous posts, and jumping to the conclusion that it summarizes my experience with Buddhism...a philosophy that I have contemplated at varying levels since July of 1987. In that time I have made every effort to compare my life experiences with what the Buddha has taught in the Eightfold Path. I fully understand that there is a wide difference between the philosophy of Buddhism and the religion of Buddhism. I happen to disagree that the ultimate goal in life -- as many seem to see it -- is to escape from suffering. I do not agree that all suffering is as black-and-white as saying it is bad, so let's escape from the reality of it. There are few schools of life where one learns more than one learns from the school of suffering.

It appears, based on the recent talk you mention of Ajahn Tiradhammo's, that he puts "investigation of your own mental/physical states through meditation" above experiencing the Eightfold Path, which is based in real life. Some Buddhist monks essentially live in an ivory tower called a monastery and have very little contact with the real world. Others, such as the Dali Lama live in the real world and experience not only their own lives, but also the lives of a wide spectrum of other people. I have no idea which of those paths Ajahn Tiradhammo walks.

It is only when a man is open to various philosophies that is he treating his mind like a compass to discover a way through the maze life and onto...well, we just don't know onto what. Some people in this forum have decided that Buddhism is "it". Case closed. Mind closed. Some have decided that only Theravada Buddhism is "it". Case closed. Mind closed. I am one who believes one only sees accurately when one sees from various angles.

Since you specifically mention the Eightfold Path, let me comment about my reactions to it based on my readings about it, my application of it in a life of public service, and my contemplations of it from my experiences.

I fully accept that Right View means to see and to understand things as they really are. I accept that virtually all things we humans typically experience during our life are impermanent and usually imperfect. I accept the concept of karma, although I cannot yet understand the mechanism by which it operates. I have learned fairly well to judge the value of something and determine whether or not it is worth suffering for, and the way in which I learned that was ironically very Buddhist. Once I have determined the value of something, I can be quite effective in setting it aside if it is not worth suffering for.

I believe I have come to the right Right Intention because I am committed to living an ethical life based on self-improvement, although there are many ways in which I still must improve myself. As I said previously, I have learned to renounce desires that lead to something of no significant value. I rarely display anger, aggression, cruelty, or violence, and as I have stated in other posts I think Theravada Buddhists do not actively engage in real compassion to the extent needed. As a school system executive once said to a teacher who complained about me (I was the principal), "If you can't get along with Vince Lynch, then there is probably no one on earth with whom you can get along."

In terms of Right Speech, I abstain from false speech unless it is to save another person's feelings, I abstain from slanderous speech, I am not malicious. I do sometimes fail in abstaining from harsh words, and need to do better in abstaining from gossip.

In terms of Right Action, I have learned to be quite successful in abstaining from harming sentient beings. I don't steal. I am honest almost to a fault. I have learned to keep sexual relationships harmless to others.

Right Livelihood -- well, a well-respected career as a teacher and school administrator. Enough said.

Right Effort -- here is where the dogmatists will throw up their hands. I will not close my mind to wisdom outside of Theravada Buddhism. I will not close my mind to wisdom outside of Buddhism. And, because he was an intellectual, I think Buddha would be far more open-minded than some in this forum. But, as I seek wisdom, I don't think it will ever be in an unwholesome manner.

If I fail anywhere, it is in regard to Right Mindfulness, at least to the extent to which some see it as only following the Buddhist path. I hope what I see I see clearly. And it certainly won't be with blinders on. I will not look only through the glasses of Buddhism. This connects with what I said about Right Effort.

In terms of Right Concentration, it has been said that "The Buddhist method of choice [is to] develop right concentration...through the practice of meditation." Where I am, as mentioned in another post, is at the point where I am thinking seriously about different topics related to the truth of life (for wont of a better phrase). I have successfully meditated, although not often. But I also believe that I have learned to apply elevated levels of concentration to everyday situations.

[phetaroi]

You're supposing I mean that #2 means you take your pick and thereafter never evolve your thinking.

If you took your pick how would you then evolve your thinking?

If you just accept it all without serious question, then you haven't been thinking at all.

[camerata]

The most important error, at least in regard to this dialog, is your taking a sentence from one of my previous posts, and jumping to the conclusion that it summarizes my experience with Buddhism

I thought it was clear when I said "For example..." that this was just an example of something that is not part of the normal Buddhist path. It certainly wasn't a summary of your experience.

It appears, based on the recent talk you mention of Ajahn Tiradhammo's, that he puts "investigation of your own mental/physical states through meditation" above experiencing the Eightfold Path, which is based in real life.

Investigation is part of the Eightfold Path, i.e. Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. His point was that you only move towards nibbana by investigating yourself - not by investigating anyone or anything else. It's your own illusion that causes suffering and the answer lies within your own mind. Ajahn Tiradhammo practised in the jungle with Ajahn Chah. Hardly an Ivory Tower.

It is only when a man is open to various philosophies that is he treating his mind like a compass to discover a way through the maze life and onto...well, we just don't know onto what.

Exactly - we don't know what. With Buddhism we know what the maze is, what the goal is and the way to reach it. Trying different philosophies with no specific goal or path doesn't necessarily lead to anything. As someone much wiser than me once said: If you are looking for water and bore 100 holes 6 feet deep, you won't find any. If you bore one hole 200 feet deep, you will. Buddhism is "it" if you want a serious reduction in suffering, but it may not be "it" if you want something else or don't know exactly what you want.

[rockyysdt]

You're supposing I mean that #2 means you take your pick and thereafter never evolve your thinking.

If you took your pick how would you then evolve your thinking?

If you just accept it all without serious question, then you haven't been thinking at all.

I agree with you P.

Accepting things on face value can lead one into traps & false paths.

That's why I take the third option indicated by camerata which is to practice what the Buddha taught (eight fold path) & learn through personal experience.

I was still interested to learn how you would evolve your thinking?

Edited March 23, 2010 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

I agree with you P.

Accepting things on face value can lead one into traps & false paths.

That's why I take the third option indicated by camerata which is to practice what the Buddha taught (eight fold path) & learn through personal experience.

I was still interested to learn how you would evolve your thinking?

I think your real question is how I do I evolve my Buddhist thinking. However, the question that is important to me is how I evolve my thinking.

For much of my younger years I was a Protestant. Like most people in the world, I guess you could say I was just born into it, but the fit was not quite right.

In my late teens and early 20s I converted to Catholicism. It seemed a better fit for me, except that to me the Catholic religion tells you...no, orders you...what to believe, and I rebel against such thinking.

So, I sort of drifted for a long while.

Then in 1987 I came to Thailand for the first time and was introduced to "Buddhist-temple-behavior" (for wont of a better term). I found it interesting. Over the next two visits I began to think more deeply about why the relatively poor have-nots in Thailand seem, if not happy, at least more content. For me the answer had something to do with Buddhism. So over several years I sorted out my thinking about myself and also began exploring more about Buddhism, particularly through visiting temples and, when possible, having conversations with monks. I guess I must have shown a genuine interest, because an abbot in Thonburi invited me to undergo the ordination ceremony (which I did not), and at Wat Bowornivet I was invited to sit with the monks once while they were being ordained. At the same time I continued learning about various aspects of the Christian religion, and although some consider him a pop-evangelist, I particularly liked Robert Schuller. About five years ago, at the urging of my adopted son, I spent several months reading long sections of the Koran. So while I focus primarily on Buddhism, I still seek other insights to "truth". I was quite interested, for example, with Thomas Jefferson's thinking about Christianity, which led him to write the tiny "Jefferson Bible".

Occasionally I'll read some book on Buddhism, although I have come to rather appreciate the resources online. While I feel more in line with Theravada Buddhism, there are aspects of Mahayana Buddhism that I find quite wise, particularly aspects of it that deal with compassion.

However, I still go back to the very first book I read about Buddhism. I don't have it anymore. I don't even remember its title or author, although it was published right here in Thailand. And what I remember most about it was its preface that said something to the effect of: "As you read this book think carefully about what is being said. Take those things which seem logical and incorporate them into your thinking. Don't reject, but set aside those things that do not seem logical to you; you may come back to them at a later time."

[eggomaniac]

I'm curious which definition of doctrine you are using (obviously, #3 does not apply):

1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.

3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.

4. Archaic Something taught; a teaching.

not hang up on 'self', what about not anchor on 'sophism'?

Instead of nitpicking on a 'word' why not try to understand what the person meant, instead of being the definition police? for C... sakes

[lawyer in past life?]

YOU actually used the word 'religion', in a following post, to describe Buddhism. Who was it a few weeks ago that was a 'mistake' too.

Channel on thoughts and try avoid snagging on words. If the writer is well intentioned and 'making' sense, forgive the odd vocabulary imperfection!

[camerata]

To clarify, in the OP I used the word "doctrine" to distinguish between what the Buddha taught in the Pali Canon and the cultural accretions of later ages and the New Age pseudo-Buddhism often found on the Internet.

As I said somewhere else, the Buddha's teachings were just advice on how to reach the cessation of suffering. No point in getting attached to (or feeling aversion to) a word. In Mahayana, the teachings are often referred to as "The Law" - see for example the old lama in Rudyard Kipling's Kim talking about "The Wonderful Law" - but that doesn't mean they are a law as we normally understand the word.

I read somewhere that the Thai word sasana does not mean religion in the Western sense. It means a "dispensation," i.e. the teachings the Buddha (or Christ, etc) distributed.

[phetaroi]

Instead of nitpicking on a 'word' why not try to understand what the person meant, instead of being the definition police? for C... sakes

[lawyer in past life?]

YOU actually used the word 'religion', in a following post, to describe Buddhism. Who was it a few weeks ago that was a 'mistake' too.

Channel on thoughts and try avoid snagging on words. If the writer is well intentioned and 'making' sense, forgive the odd vocabulary imperfection!

In a forum where we post words in discussing/debating issues related to Buddhism, understanding the meaning of the words one is using is paramount.

I'm not arguing with Camerata. Occasionally he and I disagree, although I know he has studied Buddhism to a deeper extent than have I. And he's probably the best poster on the forum. And its because of that, that when he speaks, I listen. But when I listen I want to make sure I understand what he is saying.

In terms of whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy, my position has always been that it is a religion. I've never wavered on that, but I understand the point others are making when they say it is a philosophy.

Since you so dislike my posts, you may want to put me on ignore. I truly won't be a bit insulted.

You may want to consider the concept of "right speech".

[eggomaniac]

well they say. "never engage a sophist; they will only say you don't know what sophism is.'

[that IS a belly chuckle statement]

Silly me, when I was enjoying reading the well intentioned and educational OP I hadn't even 'noticed' the WORD doctrine had been used. Otherwise, I guess I should have stopped right there, huh?

If you really think you have to Post about a 'word', what about at least having the wherewithall to offer an alternate?

example.

"Camereta, thanks for the really good outline. There is one small point i might suggest. Is the term 'doctrine' too 'heavey' should you have said 'teachings' or 'scripture' or something?"

THEN, when he supplied a perfectly good dictionary meaning, which he was polite enough to do, instead of just removing an off topic post; did you apologise for the monkey wrench, or just go into another bunch of uninteligable nonsense?

'Schuller was a goof but I liked him' I once read a book but lost it and don't know the title' ' admitadely I know little of Buddhism but listen to THIS'

I really am just trying to be 'helpful' old man. Try? to see it that way, huh?

Try "Right Listening"!

Instead of nitpicking on a 'word' why not try to understand what the person meant, instead of being the definition police? for C... sakes

[lawyer in past life?]

YOU actually used the word 'religion', in a following post, to describe Buddhism. Who was it a few weeks ago that was a 'mistake' too.

Channel on thoughts and try avoid snagging on words. If the writer is well intentioned and 'making' sense, forgive the odd vocabulary imperfection!

In a forum where we post words in discussing/debating issues related to Buddhism, understanding the meaning of the words one is using is paramount.

I'm not arguing with Camerata. Occasionally he and I disagree, although I know he has studied Buddhism to a deeper extent than have I. And he's probably the best poster on the forum. And its because of that, that when he speaks, I listen. But when I listen I want to make sure I understand what he is saying.

In terms of whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy, my position has always been that it is a religion. I've never wavered on that, but I understand the point others are making when they say it is a philosophy.

Since you so dislike my posts, you may want to put me on ignore. I truly won't be a bit insulted.

You may want to consider the concept of "right speech".

[eggomaniac]

my wife say, 'can take your pick for buddha everything ok, no think to much' good people lead good life and evertyhing ok, people think to much not see about life for real, to much for study....

In other words, moderation in all things.

Whoa whoa big fella....Point of order.

If I had to choose it would be:

"a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject"

from dictionary.com (Random House).

Did this Reply meet 'your standards' for proper Forum conduct? or not?

I'm dead curious how the Thread can even move on without 'closure' until this important, earth rattling interjection is decided.

Edited March 29, 2010 by eggomaniac

[phetaroi]

If you really think you have to Post about a 'word', what about at least having the wherewithall to offer an alternate?

example.

"[/size]Camereta, thanks for the really good outline. There is one small point i might suggest. Is the term 'doctrine' too 'heavey' should you have said 'teachings' or 'scripture' or something?"

THEN, when he supplied a perfectly good dictionary meaning, which he was polite enough to do, instead of just removing an off topic post; did you apologise for the monkey wrench, or just go into another bunch of uninteligable nonsense?

Once again, you are positing that I was arguing with Camerata and his original post. In the original exchange I simply asked him which meaning of the word "doctrine" he was using. Since I wasn't arguing a point, there was no need to post an alternate phraseology.

[phetaroi]

my wife say, 'can take your pick for buddha everything ok, no think to much' good people lead good life and evertyhing ok, people think to much not see about life for real, to much for study....

In other words, moderation in all things.

Whoa whoa big fella....Point of order.

If I had to choose it would be:

"a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject"

from dictionary.com (Random House).

Did this Reply meet 'your standards' for proper Forum conduct? or not?

I'm dead curious how the Thread can even move on without 'closure' until this important, earth rattling interjection is decided.

In the spirit of this forum, I'm going to step back and say no more to you.

[camerata]

Those members who arrived here after mid-2008 might want to have a look at my topic on Right Speech, and how it can illuminate the ego-driven intention behind a lot of what we say.

[phetaroi]

Those members who arrived here after mid-2008 might want to have a look at my topic on Right Speech, and how it can illuminate the ego-driven intention behind a lot of what we say.

Well written.

I think one of the difficulties of "right speech" online is that people can still read things into what you have written...that aren't there. As a former principal I often had to send out "all staff" emails. No doubt about it, I could be very forceful if I wanted to come across as "the boss". Other times I would say to myself -- okay, now this email needs to just be straight forward, no tone, just factual. I'd write it. Set it aside for a day. Reread it. Maybe edit it. Send it out. For example: "Please refer to your faculty handbook about staff working hours." "Why do you always have to be so heavy handed in your emails?"

After having been at that school for 20 years as an AP, and sitting through faculty meetings by the "old" principals once every 2-3 weeks, I decided to do something different. Some faculty meetings were "optional"; if the topic was something that interested you, you could come and participate and be part of the decision making process; if it was on a topic that didn't interest you, have an early day out. And, some faculty meetings were "mandatory" for all to attend. I reduced required faculty meetings by about half. "You have no right to call a meeting 'mandatory'".

Sigh.

[camerata]

I think one of the difficulties of "right speech" online is that people can still read things into what you have written...that aren't there.

True enough. But one advantage is that you (theoretically) have all the time you need to check your intentions and prepare what you write. In that respect it's easier than Right Speech in real life when everything happens so fast and you might also observe hostile body language from the person you're talking to or feel the need not to lose face in front of observers.

In Thailand, if someone attacks you in a business meeting you can get out of it by smiling and saying nothing. I doubt that would work in the West, though.

[phetaroi]

I think one of the difficulties of "right speech" online is that people can still read things into what you have written...that aren't there.

True enough. But one advantage is that you (theoretically) have all the time you need to check your intentions and prepare what you write. In that respect it's easier than Right Speech in real life when everything happens so fast and you might also observe hostile body language from the person you're talking to or feel the need not to lose face in front of observers.

In Thailand, if someone attacks you in a business meeting you can get out of it by smiling and saying nothing. I doubt that would work in the West, though.

I used to have an ongoing disagreement with a principal colleague who believed one should never put anything in writing.

My view was that I would rather be held responsible for something I did write, than for something I did not say.

I think sometimes we have as much a responsibility for "right listening".