Speech

[huli]

Buddha is well-known for a certain characteristic of his communication. Namely, he tailored his communication for his audience, whether an individual or a group. Perceiving or understanding so much about his audience, he was able to choose the best words to pursue a certain desired effect. His had purposeful reason for speaking, with the focus on the listener.

I believe it has been reported also that Buddha said there are three requirements for speech. It should be true, useful, and welcome or pleasant to hear. All three of these characteristics would benefit the listener, not the speaker.

So, it can be said, that Buddha used speech for the benefit of the listener.

Now let us consider some aspects of speech in society today. Much of speech today falls under the guise of individual freedom. People think they have a right to say what they want to say. Expressing one’s emotions or thoughts is considered to be always good. In this case, there is typically little consideration of the effect on the listener. It seems to me self-evident that this speech is selfish and actually based on a selfish desire.

It is interesting to analyze the speech we hear. Is it for the benefit of the speaker or the listener? Is there really something inherently positive about an individual expressing himself, or not?

[healthcaretaker]

You are quite right, otherwise he will not be a Buddha.

Of the 3 characteristics you mentioned, I usually always qualify for the 1st 2 but hardly the 3rd.

[huli]

You are quite right, otherwise he will not be a Buddha.

Of the 3 characteristics you mentioned, I usually always qualify for the 1st 2 but hardly the 3rd.

I bet that your speech is often pleasing to hear, even if not always.

Unpleasant words are reacted to with aversion, and the listener might well miss your point.

If memory serves me, it was said that only a Buddha would know those few cases where unpleasant words are necessary.

It does seem to me that parents need to break this 3rd characteristic in order to do their job of teaching and protecting their children. Sometimes it is necessary to raise our voices, for example, to make a point that was not learned the first go around. Scolding, et cetera.

[healthcaretaker]

Personally, if forced to choose between the 2, I prefer to speak to teach rather than to please.

Of course, being able to achieve both together is better but then I am not going to be the next Buddha.

Back on your OP, I think not everyone like the Buddha's words too. There are stories of him being betrayed or some don't follow his teachings.

I believe the main reason his teachings are liked by many is because of his believable knowledge. I have followed others to church before and I think the priests or fathers are very nice people too but unfortunately what they said are simply unbelievable so I don't listen to them anymore.

It's also up to the listener's standard and character. If the listener is an unreasonable person or a not-so-smart one to understand you, he probably don't like what you speak even if you speak correctly.

[weary]

Adaptability is the primary goal. For ourselves and for our children - the ability to deal ad hoc with surprising, unpleasant or difficult situations, so we don't let our emotions rule our actions. So we learn the rules and strive to apply them, and by doing so we gradually learn where the rules don't work.

It's true that with kids, and possibly with some adults, raising one's voice is sometimes necessary, the trick is to be mindful and not let fear, anger or other emotions limit our view of the most skilful behaviour in each situation. Maintaining a relaxed awareness, we are much more able to adapt quickly.

[healthcaretaker]

Adaptability is the primary goal. For ourselves and for our children - the ability to deal ad hoc with surprising, unpleasant or difficult situations, so we don't let our emotions rule our actions. So we learn the rules and strive to apply them, and by doing so we gradually learn where the rules don't work.

It's true that with kids, and possibly with some adults, raising one's voice is sometimes necessary, the trick is to be mindful and not let fear, anger or other emotions limit our view of the most skilful behaviour in each situation. Maintaining a relaxed awareness, we are much more able to adapt quickly.

Very true. One must use both the right brain and left brain together well-balanced. Unfortunately, most people are simpler-minded and tend to use their right brain while reading, listening and responding, eg, god-believing religions have new followers even today when science have proven many of their beliefs and claims wrong. If everyone use their left brain well enough, I believe there is no need for any religions, not even Buddhism.

[fabianfred]

Buddha said... when talking about others, mention only their good points, but when talking about ourselves mention only our bad points....

Nowadays the reverse is often true....bragging about oneself whilst finding fault with others.

[healthcaretaker]

Buddha said... when talking about others, mention only their good points, but when talking about ourselves mention only our bad points....

Nowadays the reverse is often true....bragging about oneself whilst finding fault with others.

You are right but Buddha also said nothing is permanent; and let's not forget what Buddha said is 2500 years ago, at that time, people's intelligence level is totally different. Today, people are more intelligent, quick and sharp. Sometimes, you need to hit their mind to wake them up.

I think there is no harm in bragging as long as it don't hurt others, but then also depends on how one defines "bragging" or "hurting".

I think "finding faults" on others is really nothing bad but good for them to improve.

[huli]

Buddha said... when talking about others, mention only their good points, but when talking about ourselves mention only our bad points....

Nowadays the reverse is often true....bragging about oneself whilst finding fault with others.

You are right but Buddha also said nothing is permanent; and let's not forget what Buddha said is 2500 years ago, at that time, people's intelligence level is totally different. Today, people are more intelligent, quick and sharp. Sometimes, you need to hit their mind to wake them up.

I think there is no harm in bragging as long as it don't hurt others, but then also depends on how one defines "bragging" or "hurting".

I think "finding faults" on others is really nothing bad but good for them to improve.

IMO when Buddha said that nothing is permanent he was referring to conditioned things, mainly physical and mental states. That does not mean that truths are impermanent. For example, the Noble Truths.

A case can be made that people are more confused today than in the past because of the complexity of the world. In any case, it is impossible for us to know how sharp, quick, or intelligent people used to be.

It is not a person's responsibility to "wake up" another person or to find faults with them. We are only responsible for ourselves.

I do however agree that there is no harm to others done by bragging, it just makes a person universally disliked as self-centered.

[healthcaretaker]

Buddha said... when talking about others, mention only their good points, but when talking about ourselves mention only our bad points....

Nowadays the reverse is often true....bragging about oneself whilst finding fault with others.

You are right but Buddha also said nothing is permanent; and let's not forget what Buddha said is 2500 years ago, at that time, people's intelligence level is totally different. Today, people are more intelligent, quick and sharp. Sometimes, you need to hit their mind to wake them up.

I think there is no harm in bragging as long as it don't hurt others, but then also depends on how one defines "bragging" or "hurting".

I think "finding faults" on others is really nothing bad but good for them to improve.

IMO when Buddha said that nothing is permanent he was referring to conditioned things, mainly physical and mental states. That does not mean that truths are impermanent. For example, the Noble Truths.

A case can be made that people are more confused today than in the past because of the complexity of the world. In any case, it is impossible for us to know how sharp, quick, or intelligent people used to be.

It is not a person's responsibility to "wake up" another person or to find faults with them. We are only responsible for ourselves.

I do however agree that there is no harm to others done by bragging, it just makes a person universally disliked as self-centered.

This I got to disagree with you. You read my message all wrong.

I never think the Noble Truth is impermanent. I meant nothing is impermanent and this "thing" includes human's physical and mental stated as well. I think the Buddha meant that too, only that at that time, the word "evolution" don't exists yet.

Being "nothing bad" and "good" do not mean it's a responsibility. Please don't misquote me. 2ndly(based on yours) "not a person's responsibilty" don't mean that we can't do it. Isn't it rather too selfish not to help others at all ?

True that the world is more complex now and due to that, people also tend to be more selfish or self-centered but there are exceptions or exceptional ones.

Being a chat forum, our words should more "helpful" or "teachful" rather than to "please".

[huli]

Buddha said... when talking about others, mention only their good points, but when talking about ourselves mention only our bad points....

Nowadays the reverse is often true....bragging about oneself whilst finding fault with others.

You are right but Buddha also said nothing is permanent; and let's not forget what Buddha said is 2500 years ago, at that time, people's intelligence level is totally different. Today, people are more intelligent, quick and sharp. Sometimes, you need to hit their mind to wake them up.

I think there is no harm in bragging as long as it don't hurt others, but then also depends on how one defines "bragging" or "hurting".

I think "finding faults" on others is really nothing bad but good for them to improve.

IMO when Buddha said that nothing is permanent he was referring to conditioned things, mainly physical and mental states. That does not mean that truths are impermanent. For example, the Noble Truths.

A case can be made that people are more confused today than in the past because of the complexity of the world. In any case, it is impossible for us to know how sharp, quick, or intelligent people used to be.

It is not a person's responsibility to "wake up" another person or to find faults with them. We are only responsible for ourselves.

I do however agree that there is no harm to others done by bragging, it just makes a person universally disliked as self-centered.

This I got to disagree with you. You read my message all wrong.

I never think the Noble Truth is impermanent. I meant nothing is impermanent and this "thing" includes human's physical and mental stated as well. I think the Buddha meant that too, only that at that time, the word "evolution" don't exists yet.

Being "nothing bad" and "good" do not mean it's a responsibility. Please don't misquote me. 2ndly(based on yours) "not a person's responsibilty" don't mean that we can't do it. Isn't it rather too selfish not to help others at all ?

True that the world is more complex now and due to that, people also tend to be more selfish or self-centered but there are exceptions or exceptional ones.

Being a chat forum, our words should more "helpful" or "teachful" rather than to "please".

Hi HCT,

I appreciate your reply, and think I understand you better now. It seems to me that in daily life it often takes feedback and corrections back and forth to get the intended message across. This is the course of normal communication.

I assume that is a typo where you say "nothing is impermanent", since what we are discussing is that all conditioned things are impermanent. Just to correct that rather glaring slip.

I think your ideas on the role of speech are very interesting. I certainly agree that speech is properly used to help people, and this is fully acceptable, being useful speech, one of Buddha's requirements, as previously discussed. People commonly speak of their problems to their friends, for example, and to me that usually prompts some suggestion on what might help with the problem. Keep in mind that this is after a friend brings the problem, however, asking for help implicitly.

If a person decides on his own that another person should do something or other, and tells them so, that is very shaky ground. While it might be true, and useful, to the other person, there is the big question if the person would find the advise welcome, and therein lies the rub. If the advise is not given in such a way that it is pleasing to hear, it may well be rejected, and the purpose of the communication therefore thwarted.

There is definite food for thought in your comments on the purpose of the communication in this forum. I don't think it can be fully characterized without considering the enjoyment of banter with like-minded individuals. It is certainly not just to please the reader as it's purpose.

Thank you for the interesting dialogue.

[healthcaretaker]

huli,

Thanks for highlighting my typo mistake.

Your last para in your OP and my 1st reply already summed it all.

Certainly the "speaker" care for his own before the "listener", especially so in a forum chat when the the 'speaker" is not paid to do so. Don't you think so ?

It boils down to the fact that peole are "selfish", regardless of their background, profession, character; or any purpose in doing so, even in charity. When a speaker start to speak, he certainly care for himself first before the listener. Just like any OP starter here, won't you agree ?

You are right about some banters in speech. Even that is a selfish act, as the speaker enjoyed it.

There are different characters; and styles & ways in communications and speeches but as I mentioned earlier, people are selfish and it is up to the "listener" how and what to take or gain out of it depending on his own character, attitude, maturity and intelligence level.

As for me(in a chat forum especiallyt), I seldom pay attention to the "bantering" or "offensive" part of the speech that may reflects the speeker's character. I will only accept the "usefulness" part of the speech like new knowledge, for example.

You already written well in your OP, shall a speech be true, useful or wlecome and pleasant to the listener and you think the Buddha covered all 3 areas area. All 3 areas are related to some degrees of selfishness. The 1st is medium, the 2nd is lightest, the 3rd is the most, what do you think ?

I think parents and teachers will will do better on the first 2(especially 1st), lawyers and estate agents on 2nd, while salesmen and businessman do better in the 3rd especially in a business talk.

As for friends and casual chats, it depends......I made myself quite clear in post #2.

Thank you for starting such an interesting and fresh topic. I wonder why this forum has been quiet recently. Please start more topics

Edited June 11, 2012 by healthcaretaker

[huli]

huli,

Thanks for highlighting my typo mistake.

Your last para in your OP and my 1st reply already summed it all.

Certainly the "speaker" care for his own before the "listener", especially so in a forum chat when the the 'speaker" is not paid to do so. Don't you think so ?

It boils down to the fact that peole are "selfish", regardless of their background, profession, character; or any purpose in doing so, even in charity. When a speaker start to speak, he certainly care for himself first before the listener. Just like any OP starter here, won't you agree ?

You are right about some banters in speech. Even that is a selfish act, as the speaker enjoyed it.

There are different characters; and styles & ways in communications and speeches but as I mentioned earlier, people are selfish and it is up to the "listener" how and what to take or gain out of it depending on his own character, attitude, maturity and intelligence level.

As for me(in a chat forum especiallyt), I seldom pay attention to the "bantering" or "offensive" part of the speech that may reflects the speeker's character. I will only accept the "usefulness" part of the speech like new knowledge, for example.

You already written well in your OP, shall a speech be true, useful or wlecome and pleasant to the listener and you think the Buddha covered all 3 areas area. All 3 areas are related to some degrees of selfishness. The 1st is medium, the 2nd is lightest, the 3rd is the most, what do you think ?

I think parents and teachers will will do better on the first 2(especially 1st), lawyers and estate agents on 2nd, while salesmen and businessman do better in the 3rd especially in a business talk.

As for friends and casual chats, it depends......I made myself quite clear in post #2.

Thank you for starting such an interesting and fresh topic. I wonder why this forum has been quiet recently. Please start more topics

Hi HCT,

I thank you for your reply. Indeed, it would be depressing to post something and not have any replies. I think that people on this forum share a common interest in Buddhism, and the interchange of ideas herein is mainly for fun, in this case a mental stimulation, and pondering.

My OP was intended to point out that Buddha spoke totally for the benefit of the listener. You correctly, I think, observed that only a Buddha can do that. However, I think that people often do speak for the benefit of the listener only, as when giving information that is requested, for example. When a person asks another for help with a problem, the reply seems to me free of any selfish motive. I do not see, as you suggest, that giving true, helpful, and welcome information is selfish, quite the contrary.

I believe that people would be well-served to consider, like Buddha, the effect of their words on the listener, before speaking. Seems like Buddha had a lot to say about selfish desires and the havok they reap, and the motivation for speech is a prime example.

BTW, concerning the word "banter", I may have caused some misunderstanding there, I meant it as an exchange of light, playful, good natured conversation, nothing offensive.

Although people seem to be usually selfish, it's not 100%, and if we believe Buddha, overcoming this is the ultimate challenge, so lets not define ourselves or others as only selfish.

Just a few more ideas to throw out there, take 'em for what they're worth, whatever that is.

[healthcaretaker]

Yes, thank you.

I understand the "banter" part well. English is not my usual language, so I googled it and got the meaning :-)

Thanks to chat forum & you, I learnt a new word.

I don't agree with you totally that people discussed Buddhism here for "fun". Are they really here for fun ? From everyone's contents, it don't appear so. If people discuss Buddhism here for "fun", then you offended "Buddhism". Pardon me if I got you wrong.

What I meant on the "selfishness" part is more so for most people when they speak, not so much for the Buddha, we all know he was different and did it to get the answers on sufferings to benefit mankind, that's why he was the Buddha and we are not(yet).

Whether a person speak for just "fun" or for the sake of "helping others"(in the case of offering answers or opinions), "selfishness" is involved.

a) If I feel good to provide answers to others - I am selfish.

If I enjoy the fun in my speeches or words - I am selfish

c) If I offer charity or help others because I feel good for having done a good deed - I am selfish. Why people of a certain religion do charity only do others of the same religion ? Why some people only help those of the same race ?

All human acts actually have some "selfishness" involved but different people have a different views over it, that makes the difference; just like different listeners take the speaker's words differently as I mentioned earlier but the speaker's words and intentions are same and unchanged.

[huli]

Yes, thank you.

I understand the "banter" part well. English is not my usual language, so I googled it and got the meaning :-)

Thanks to chat forum & you, I learnt a new word.

I don't agree with you totally that people discussed Buddhism here for "fun". Are they really here for fun ? From everyone's contents, it don't appear so. If people discuss Buddhism here for "fun", then you offended "Buddhism". Pardon me if I got you wrong.

What I meant on the "selfishness" part is more so for most people when they speak, not so much for the Buddha, we all know he was different and did it to get the answers on sufferings to benefit mankind, that's why he was the Buddha and we are not(yet).

Whether a person speak for just "fun" or for the sake of "helping others"(in the case of offering answers or opinions), "selfishness" is involved.

a) If I feel good to provide answers to others - I am selfish.

If I enjoy the fun in my speeches or words - I am selfish

c) If I offer charity or help others because I feel good for having done a good deed - I am selfish. Why people of a certain religion do charity only do others of the same religion ? Why some people only help those of the same race ?

All human acts actually have some "selfishness" involved but different people have a different views over it, that makes the difference; just like different listeners take the speaker's words differently as I mentioned earlier but the speaker's words and intentions are same and unchanged.

I do not agree with your assertion that all behavior is selfish. It seems that I have rebutted this claim repeatedly, without convincing you.

It might be interesting for you to consider the difference between selfish behavior and the selfish desire that causes suffering. Is it selfish to bathe, or get dressed? Or to breathe? Taken further, to be generous? Is not the 8 Fold Path intended for self-improvement, and so selfish by definition, have the goal of overcoming selfish desire? It can be clearly seen, it seems to me, that selfish behavior is unavoidable, but that selfish desire is the only problem.

I admit that the word "fun" for this forum sounds childish at first, but what I mean is adult fun, stimulating conversation about something so interesting, Buddhism. Some of the superior members of this forum are able to speak dharma-like with the ring of truth explained, and they could be considered teachers. But for the rest of us, I don't think we are teachers, we are just having a dialogue. Yes, it is selfish to enjoy this, but if there is no craving or attachment, I don't see any violation of Buddhist principals.

[rockyysdt]

I do not agree with your assertion that all behavior is selfish. It seems that I have rebutted this claim repeatedly, without convincing you.

It might be interesting for you to consider the difference between selfish behavior and the selfish desire that causes suffering. Is it selfish to bathe, or get dressed? Or to breathe? Taken further, to be generous? Is not the 8 Fold Path intended for self-improvement, and so selfish by definition, have the goal of overcoming selfish desire? It can be clearly seen, it seems to me, that selfish behavior is unavoidable, but that selfish desire is the only problem.

I admit that the word "fun" for this forum sounds childish at first, but what I mean is adult fun, stimulating conversation about something so interesting, Buddhism. Some of the superior members of this forum are able to speak dharma-like with the ring of truth explained, and they could be considered teachers. But for the rest of us, I don't think we are teachers, we are just having a dialogue. Yes, it is selfish to enjoy this, but if there is no craving or attachment, I don't see any violation of Buddhist principals.

Agreed.

It is like a small pond Sangha.

We learn & grow with discussion.

We also learn how others think, and we achieve inspiration from them, to continue.

As to what is selfish or not, eventually, through practice, we will come to know.

Edited June 12, 2012 by rockyysdt

[healthcaretaker]

Yes, thank you.

I understand the "banter" part well. English is not my usual language, so I googled it and got the meaning :-)

Thanks to chat forum & you, I learnt a new word.

I don't agree with you totally that people discussed Buddhism here for "fun". Are they really here for fun ? From everyone's contents, it don't appear so. If people discuss Buddhism here for "fun", then you offended "Buddhism". Pardon me if I got you wrong.

What I meant on the "selfishness" part is more so for most people when they speak, not so much for the Buddha, we all know he was different and did it to get the answers on sufferings to benefit mankind, that's why he was the Buddha and we are not(yet).

Whether a person speak for just "fun" or for the sake of "helping others"(in the case of offering answers or opinions), "selfishness" is involved.

a) If I feel good to provide answers to others - I am selfish.

If I enjoy the fun in my speeches or words - I am selfish

c) If I offer charity or help others because I feel good for having done a good deed - I am selfish. Why people of a certain religion do charity only do others of the same religion ? Why some people only help those of the same race ?

All human acts actually have some "selfishness" involved but different people have a different views over it, that makes the difference; just like different listeners take the speaker's words differently as I mentioned earlier but the speaker's words and intentions are same and unchanged.

I do not agree with your assertion that all behavior is selfish. It seems that I have rebutted this claim repeatedly, without convincing you.

It might be interesting for you to consider the difference between selfish behavior and the selfish desire that causes suffering. Is it selfish to bathe, or get dressed? Or to breathe? Taken further, to be generous? Is not the 8 Fold Path intended for self-improvement, and so selfish by definition, have the goal of overcoming selfish desire? It can be clearly seen, it seems to me, that selfish behavior is unavoidable, but that selfish desire is the only problem.

I admit that the word "fun" for this forum sounds childish at first, but what I mean is adult fun, stimulating conversation about something so interesting, Buddhism. Some of the superior members of this forum are able to speak dharma-like with the ring of truth explained, and they could be considered teachers. But for the rest of us, I don't think we are teachers, we are just having a dialogue. Yes, it is selfish to enjoy this, but if there is no craving or attachment, I don't see any violation of Buddhist principals.

Maybe we are conversing at different levels. I gather that from yr last post you are refering to "only" Buddhism. I am not. My reference to "selfisness" may not be what Buddhism meant. Whether it is selfish behaviour or selfish desire, both are act of selfishness, otherwise it won't be described as selfish. Don't you agree ?

On your "teachers and teaching" part, I don't quite agree that others who know Buddhism more are better teachers and we are not. I have seen people who claimed to be Buddhist but knows less about the right way of life as well as Buddhism.

Although this is forum is titled "Buddhism", let's not be so small as to confined our knowledge to Buddhism as it was 2500 years ago or as it is today. Buddhism is a way of life and in times to come when everyone understands and accept it, it will no longer be named Buddhism.

Let's get more advanced or be more broadminded, shall we ?

Yes, I admit I am selfish because I wish my knowledge to be known by more people as I feel happy to have contributed it.

[huli]

Yes, thank you.

I understand the "banter" part well. English is not my usual language, so I googled it and got the meaning :-)

Thanks to chat forum & you, I learnt a new word.

I don't agree with you totally that people discussed Buddhism here for "fun". Are they really here for fun ? From everyone's contents, it don't appear so. If people discuss Buddhism here for "fun", then you offended "Buddhism". Pardon me if I got you wrong.

What I meant on the "selfishness" part is more so for most people when they speak, not so much for the Buddha, we all know he was different and did it to get the answers on sufferings to benefit mankind, that's why he was the Buddha and we are not(yet).

Whether a person speak for just "fun" or for the sake of "helping others"(in the case of offering answers or opinions), "selfishness" is involved.

a) If I feel good to provide answers to others - I am selfish.

If I enjoy the fun in my speeches or words - I am selfish

c) If I offer charity or help others because I feel good for having done a good deed - I am selfish. Why people of a certain religion do charity only do others of the same religion ? Why some people only help those of the same race ?

All human acts actually have some "selfishness" involved but different people have a different views over it, that makes the difference; just like different listeners take the speaker's words differently as I mentioned earlier but the speaker's words and intentions are same and unchanged.

I do not agree with your assertion that all behavior is selfish. It seems that I have rebutted this claim repeatedly, without convincing you.

It might be interesting for you to consider the difference between selfish behavior and the selfish desire that causes suffering. Is it selfish to bathe, or get dressed? Or to breathe? Taken further, to be generous? Is not the 8 Fold Path intended for self-improvement, and so selfish by definition, have the goal of overcoming selfish desire? It can be clearly seen, it seems to me, that selfish behavior is unavoidable, but that selfish desire is the only problem.

I admit that the word "fun" for this forum sounds childish at first, but what I mean is adult fun, stimulating conversation about something so interesting, Buddhism. Some of the superior members of this forum are able to speak dharma-like with the ring of truth explained, and they could be considered teachers. But for the rest of us, I don't think we are teachers, we are just having a dialogue. Yes, it is selfish to enjoy this, but if there is no craving or attachment, I don't see any violation of Buddhist principals.

Maybe we are conversing at different levels. I gather that from yr last post you are refering to "only" Buddhism. I am not. My reference to "selfisness" may not be what Buddhism meant. Whether it is selfish behaviour or selfish desire, both are act of selfishness, otherwise it won't be described as selfish. Don't you agree ?

On your "teachers and teaching" part, I don't quite agree that others who know Buddhism more are better teachers and we are not. I have seen people who claimed to be Buddhist but knows less about the right way of life as well as Buddhism.

Although this is forum is titled "Buddhism", let's not be so small as to confined our knowledge to Buddhism as it was 2500 years ago or as it is today. Buddhism is a way of life and in times to come when everyone understands and accept it, it will no longer be named Buddhism.

Let's get more advanced or be more broadminded, shall we ?

Yes, I admit I am selfish because I wish my knowledge to be known by more people as I feel happy to have contributed it.

I agree with you that we seem to be conversing at different levels.

I am surprised to hear that you say that you are not talking about Buddhism. After all, this is a Buddhist Forum.

I do not consider that having a dialogue about Buddhism is "small" or not "advanced".

I see that you consider yourself a prophet and a teacher. I don't believe in prophesy, and I do believe in humility.

That said, I wish you well.

[healthcaretaker]

Yes, thank you.

I understand the "banter" part well. English is not my usual language, so I googled it and got the meaning :-)

Thanks to chat forum & you, I learnt a new word.

I don't agree with you totally that people discussed Buddhism here for "fun". Are they really here for fun ? From everyone's contents, it don't appear so. If people discuss Buddhism here for "fun", then you offended "Buddhism". Pardon me if I got you wrong.

What I meant on the "selfishness" part is more so for most people when they speak, not so much for the Buddha, we all know he was different and did it to get the answers on sufferings to benefit mankind, that's why he was the Buddha and we are not(yet).

Whether a person speak for just "fun" or for the sake of "helping others"(in the case of offering answers or opinions), "selfishness" is involved.

a) If I feel good to provide answers to others - I am selfish.

If I enjoy the fun in my speeches or words - I am selfish

c) If I offer charity or help others because I feel good for having done a good deed - I am selfish. Why people of a certain religion do charity only do others of the same religion ? Why some people only help those of the same race ?

All human acts actually have some "selfishness" involved but different people have a different views over it, that makes the difference; just like different listeners take the speaker's words differently as I mentioned earlier but the speaker's words and intentions are same and unchanged.

I do not agree with your assertion that all behavior is selfish. It seems that I have rebutted this claim repeatedly, without convincing you.

It might be interesting for you to consider the difference between selfish behavior and the selfish desire that causes suffering. Is it selfish to bathe, or get dressed? Or to breathe? Taken further, to be generous? Is not the 8 Fold Path intended for self-improvement, and so selfish by definition, have the goal of overcoming selfish desire? It can be clearly seen, it seems to me, that selfish behavior is unavoidable, but that selfish desire is the only problem.

I admit that the word "fun" for this forum sounds childish at first, but what I mean is adult fun, stimulating conversation about something so interesting, Buddhism. Some of the superior members of this forum are able to speak dharma-like with the ring of truth explained, and they could be considered teachers. But for the rest of us, I don't think we are teachers, we are just having a dialogue. Yes, it is selfish to enjoy this, but if there is no craving or attachment, I don't see any violation of Buddhist principals.

Maybe we are conversing at different levels. I gather that from yr last post you are refering to "only" Buddhism. I am not. My reference to "selfisness" may not be what Buddhism meant. Whether it is selfish behaviour or selfish desire, both are act of selfishness, otherwise it won't be described as selfish. Don't you agree ?

On your "teachers and teaching" part, I don't quite agree that others who know Buddhism more are better teachers and we are not. I have seen people who claimed to be Buddhist but knows less about the right way of life as well as Buddhism.

Although this is forum is titled "Buddhism", let's not be so small as to confined our knowledge to Buddhism as it was 2500 years ago or as it is today. Buddhism is a way of life and in times to come when everyone understands and accept it, it will no longer be named Buddhism.

Let's get more advanced or be more broadminded, shall we ?

Yes, I admit I am selfish because I wish my knowledge to be known by more people as I feel happy to have contributed it.

I agree with you that we seem to be conversing at different levels.

I am surprised to hear that you say that you are not talking about Buddhism. After all, this is a Buddhist Forum.

I do not consider that having a dialogue about Buddhism is "small" or not "advanced".

I see that you consider yourself a prophet and a teacher. I don't believe in prophesy, and I do believe in humility.

That said, I wish you well.

You are not so unreasonable, are you ? Are you here for a "fight" with me and opt to be out when you "lost" ?

Just because I made a little mistake by using the word "small" as a figure of speech and you are unhappy ?

If it is because that word "small" offended you, I apologise but how about your mistakes(at least 2) of "misquoting" me ? Do you need me to highlight it to you ?

Anyhow, thanks for the compliment of describing me as a teacher and prophet(both !!). I am flattered.

Edited June 18, 2012 by camerata
Inflammatory comment deleted.

[Xangsamhua]

Where's this discussion going? I haven't been following it closely, but dropped in today.

The OP spoke about what I would understand as "right speech" and "skillful means" in communicating for a purpose. He was concerned that many people see free speech as free from being responsible for the outcomes of what we say. This is contrary to right speech or skillful means.

Now it seems to be all about Healthcaretaker and the rightness of his point of view. Dissent from it is dismissed as incomprehension, dishonesty, manipulativeness or plain stupidity.

I don't know how a discussion could continue on these terms. The irony is that they demonstrate the very concerns Huli expressed in his OP.

[rockyysdt]

Yes, it's so easy to misinterpret speech, particularly on a forum.

A perfect example.

I've been treated extremely poorly by a person close to me.

So much so, that our relationship had been pushed to the edge.

Relentless was the coldness and distant attitude directed to me.

Language and culture played their part.

After challenging this behavior with a heated discussion, it turned out that an ever increasing chasm had begun with the misinterpretation of öne" word.

It escalated from there.

Once the other party understood their error, the realization dawned that we had always been on the same page.

Delusion (misunderstanding) had clouded reality.

Individuals conditioning will always lead to differences of opinion.

Most importantly, awareness of our own conditioning is as important as awareness in others.

Edited June 17, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

One inflammatory, insulting and paranoid post has been deleted. It's truly sad that in a Buddhist Forum some members cannot discuss Right Speech without engaging in Wrong Speech themselves.

If you don't like a member's point of view, put forward a counter-argument. If you don't like a member's attitude, just ignore him.

Any more personal remarks, attacks or baiting in this topic will result in the entire post being deleted.

[camerata]

It's interesting that the various components of Right Speech don't include "criticism," which would appear to be one of the most common ways to hurt others while at the same time puffing up one's ego. I assume this omission is because of the need for what we call "constructive criticism," especially between parent and child or teacher and student.

But when is criticism truly and solely constructive? Maybe only an arahant knows. Children have to be told over and over to do the right thing for their own good. On the other hand, my ex-gf used to tell me over and over to do things, because she was a control-freak and needed the world to conform to her wishes.

I don't see how gaining satisfaction from speech diminishes it in any way. Did the Buddha say anything like that? When I wrote my guide to getting permanent residence I did it so that others wouldn't go through the hassle I did, but if I had done it to gain praise would it be invalidated as Right Speech?

[Xangsamhua]

I don't see how gaining satisfaction from speech diminishes it in any way. Did the Buddha say anything like that? When I wrote my guide to getting permanent residence I did it so that others wouldn't go through the hassle I did, but if I had done it to gain praise would it be invalidated as Right Speech?

I understand right speech in Buddhist terms as speech that is constructive and does not cause harm or suffering.

Constructive criticism is hard to give though. It has to be done with tact, at the right time and in the right circumstances, so it requires skillful means.

One has to be the right kind of person to give it, too. "Constructive" criticism by girlfriends, boyfriends, etc may not be accepted in the spirit intended, but if given, say, by an older sister to a younger sister, it may be, though perhaps grudgingly at first.

In what circumstances would one provide constructive and beneficent advice where the primary intention is to receive praise? I just don't think that happens. If one produces, say, a guide to the resident visa process in order to help people avoid unnecessary setbacks, I would think the primary motive is to be helpful, not to gain plaudits. However, anticipating that people may be grateful for the advice you give, you might anticipate their compliments. That could be a pleasant prospect; however, you're not asking for praise, so if it comes it's freely given. It seems an innocent pleasure to bask in the warmth of others' acclaim where it's deserved, as long as one is not attached to it.

[huli]

Individuals conditioning will always lead to differences of opinion.

Hi Rocky,

You really got me thinking.

As I understand your statement, it follows that, since we all have different conditioning, we will always have some different opinions.

However, it seems apparent to me that much discourse, such as this forum, is intended to change another's opinion, in spite of their conditioning.

I think that there are such things as correct views or opinions, and incorrect views or opinions. Further, it is possible to correct one's opinions if they are incorrect. This personal transformation could result from a logical dialogue, or self-examination, but would be impossible in either case if the attachment to the incorrect conditioned views or opinions is too strong.

Opinions can not be just the result of different conditioning, they are subject to other factors also. But I do agree with you that much opinion is just conditioning.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Rocky,

You really got me thinking.

As I understand your statement, it follows that, since we all have different conditioning, we will always have some different opinions.

However, it seems apparent to me that much discourse, such as this forum, is intended to change another's opinion, in spite of their conditioning.

I think that there are such things as correct views or opinions, and incorrect views or opinions. Further, it is possible to correct one's opinions if they are incorrect. This personal transformation could result from a logical dialogue, or self-examination, but would be impossible in either case if the attachment to the incorrect conditioned views or opinions is too strong.

Opinions can not be just the result of different conditioning, they are subject to other factors also. But I do agree with you that much opinion is just conditioning.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I've been examining conditioning quite a bit.

I do quite a lot of observation of others and their life interactions.

Our conditioning is probably partly environmental and partly genetic.

Perhaps even influenced by the fruits of Kharma.

Things I've noted:

• Most people have already made up their minds and do not listen in an open manner.
  
• Rather than be open, discussion is directed towards convincing the other of their view.
  
• The depth and type of Conditioning controls ones level of inflexibility.
  

My personal "opinion " is that ones ability to overcome conditioning relates directly to ones ability to succeed in practicing Dharma successfully in this life.

Our obstacles are our conditioning.

Our conditioning for most is inescapable.

First obstacle is awareness of your conditioning.

Second obstacle is being able to escape from its control.

Most aren't aware and therefore cannot even contemplate escaping.

Edited June 24, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

Hi Rocky,

You really got me thinking.

As I understand your statement, it follows that, since we all have different conditioning, we will always have some different opinions.

However, it seems apparent to me that much discourse, such as this forum, is intended to change another's opinion, in spite of their conditioning.

I think that there are such things as correct views or opinions, and incorrect views or opinions. Further, it is possible to correct one's opinions if they are incorrect. This personal transformation could result from a logical dialogue, or self-examination, but would be impossible in either case if the attachment to the incorrect conditioned views or opinions is too strong.

Opinions can not be just the result of different conditioning, they are subject to other factors also. But I do agree with you that much opinion is just conditioning.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I've been examining conditioning quite a bit.

I do quite a lot of observation of others and their life interactions.

Our conditioning is probably partly environmental and partly genetic.

Perhaps even influenced by the fruits of Kharma.

Things I've noted:

• Most people have already made up their minds and do not listen in an open manner.
  
• Rather than be open, discussion is directed towards convincing the other of their view.
  
• The depth and type of Conditioning controls ones level of inflexibility.
  

My personal "opinion " is that ones ability to overcome conditioning relates directly to ones ability to succeed in practicing Dharma successfully in this life.

Our obstacles are our conditioning.

Our conditioning for most is inescapable.

First obstacle is awareness of your conditioning.

Second obstacle is being able to escape from its control.

Most aren't aware and therefore cannot even contemplate escaping.

I used to think about "determinism", the idea that people are destined to follow their conditioning, and that is all.

However, if that is true, there is no such thing as free will, or insight, no Path leading to improvement in a person, or any qualitative difference in people. So, I reject Determinism.

But, I agree with you, for many people, that is all there is.

I would hope, not us....

[Xangsamhua]

Hi Rocky,

You really got me thinking.

As I understand your statement, it follows that, since we all have different conditioning, we will always have some different opinions.

However, it seems apparent to me that much discourse, such as this forum, is intended to change another's opinion, in spite of their conditioning.

I think that there are such things as correct views or opinions, and incorrect views or opinions. Further, it is possible to correct one's opinions if they are incorrect. This personal transformation could result from a logical dialogue, or self-examination, but would be impossible in either case if the attachment to the incorrect conditioned views or opinions is too strong.

Opinions can not be just the result of different conditioning, they are subject to other factors also. But I do agree with you that much opinion is just conditioning.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I've been examining conditioning quite a bit.

I do quite a lot of observation of others and their life interactions.

Our conditioning is probably partly environmental and partly genetic.

Perhaps even influenced by the fruits of Kharma.

Things I've noted:

• Most people have already made up their minds and do not listen in an open manner.
  
• Rather than be open, discussion is directed towards convincing the other of their view.
  
• The depth and type of Conditioning controls ones level of inflexibility.
  

My personal "opinion " is that ones ability to overcome conditioning relates directly to ones ability to succeed in practicing Dharma successfully in this life.

Our obstacles are our conditioning.

Our conditioning for most is inescapable.

First obstacle is awareness of your conditioning.

Second obstacle is being able to escape from its control.

Most aren't aware and therefore cannot even contemplate escaping.

I used to think about "determinism", the idea that people are destined to follow their conditioning, and that is all.

However, if that is true, there is no such thing as free will, or insight, no Path leading to improvement in a person, or any qualitative difference in people. So, I reject Determinism.

But, I agree with you, for many people, that is all there is.

I would hope, not us....

Rationally, you can only reject determinism if it fails to meet the criteria for logical argument. Unfortunately, I tend to believe the logic for determinism is very strong, following the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

It seems we have to live with the logic of determinism, but put it aside in order to have a rationale for striving to improve our spiritual development. This may be a matter of cognitive dissonance, of wishful thinking or simple acknowledgement that our intellects are limited and logic is not enough.

It's interesting that the philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, was fiercely deterministic in his logic, and wrote a book on the Principle of Sufficient Reason, but was also a lifelong student of the Upanishads, which are deeply rooted in belief in free will. In fact he said of the Upanishads that they were the consolation of his life.

I find determinist arguments compelling - I don't reject them - but I accept the possibility of free will, perhaps as an act of faith, or of wishful thinking, but mainly because it would be hard to have a practice or any energizing worldview without it.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[Several]

I find right speech to be a deep subject to consider. In the first post something was said about speaking was for the benefit of the listener, but as I am fighting an uphill struggle (not always successfully) to maintain right speech it requires mindfulness and knowledge, the aquisition of which are beneficial to me.

Also there is difficulty with speaking pleasantly and truthfully at the same time. Living in a small monastery exposes one to others who can be immature, selfish and socially myopic. The quiet word won't cross the language barrier and saying nothing will not improve matters for either party.

And there is a major conundrum for me when a senior monk is making totally inaccurate assumptions and advising action completely against the teachings. How do you tell him he is wrong?

Right speech, therefore, is a work that will only be perfected with enlightenment as was said in another post. But it is a work we cannot neglect regardless. It must come from right thought, right view and right effort. Ours IS to reason why and to do or die.

I hope I said that right.

[Xangsamhua]

I find right speech to be a deep subject to consider. In the first post something was said about speaking was for the benefit of the listener, but as I am fighting an uphill struggle (not always successfully) to maintain right speech it requires mindfulness and knowledge, the aquisition of which are beneficial to me.

Also there is difficulty with speaking pleasantly and truthfully at the same time. Living in a small monastery exposes one to others who can be immature, selfish and socially myopic. The quiet word won't cross the language barrier and saying nothing will not improve matters for either party.

And there is a major conundrum for me when a senior monk is making totally inaccurate assumptions and advising action completely against the teachings. How do you tell him he is wrong?

Right speech, therefore, is a work that will only be perfected with enlightenment as was said in another post. But it is a work we cannot neglect regardless. It must come from right thought, right view and right effort. Ours IS to reason why and to do or die.

I hope I said that right.

This post is a good example of right speech, I think.