Does censorship contravene the buddhist philosophy?

[NormanChomsky]

would an enlightened person want to silence another?

[fabianfred]

how about some examples to show your line of thought?

[rockyysdt]

Under Rightful Speech of the Eightfold Path one gets of flavour of what can be said, what shouldn't and when.

1. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, yet unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
2. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, yet unendearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
3. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.
4. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, but unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them. this is up to them.
5. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

Not saying something can be construed as a form of censorship.

Can you give examples of the censorship you speak of?

Edited June 13, 2013 by rockyysdt

[NormanChomsky]

eg the locking of a thread on thaivisa

hi rockyystd do you not think that the truth is not always beneficial to know then?

i guess that many feel that ignorance is bliss, personally i believe the truth however painful is always best.

also the problem with points 1-5 is that it implies that the tathagata knows what is best for others, which comes down to opinion in the end. which is why censorship is wrong, let people decide for themselves what is junk/factual/spam.

imflammatory post which criticise thai buddhism should be allowed to remain and the thread unlocked.

[camerata]

Public discussion of moderation isn't allowed under forum rules, so let's talk about Buddhist attitudes to censorship in general or drop the subject altogether.

[steinghan]

Under Rightful Speech of the Eightfold Path one gets of flavour of what can be said, what shouldn't and when.

1. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, yet unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
2. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, yet unendearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
3. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.
4. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, but unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them. this is up to them.
5. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

I'm a little confused by the appearance "Tathagata" here. Isn't that the name Buddha calls himself? Have you picked this version of the forms of right speech from somewhere where Buddha speaks of himself? - Anyway, neither here or elsewhere, is right speech (in 8-fold path) about censorship (of others) but about proper self-restraint with respect to one's own speech.

[rockyysdt]

hi rockyystd do you not think that the truth is not always beneficial to know then?

i guess that many feel that ignorance is bliss, personally i believe the truth however painful is always best.

also the problem with points 1-5 is that it implies that the tathagata knows what is best for others, which comes down to opinion in the end.

The truth is extremely important.

However there is a time and a place.

Rightful speech gives a flavour of this.

One must consider that everyone is in a state of individual conditioning.

Conditioning, much subconscious and so powerful, it will dictate the shape of our lives.

So powerful that when we look at the same object we all see something different.

Expressing the truth to someone who is blinded by conditioning is pointless.

[rockyysdt]

Under Rightful Speech of the Eightfold Path one gets of flavour of what can be said, what shouldn't and when.

1. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, yet unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
2. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, yet unendearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
3. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.
4. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, but unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them. this is up to them.
5. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

I'm a little confused by the appearance "Tathagata" here. Isn't that the name Buddha calls himself? Have you picked this version of the forms of right speech from somewhere where Buddha speaks of himself? - Anyway, neither here or elsewhere, is right speech (in 8-fold path) about censorship (of others) but about proper self-restraint with respect to one's own speech.

Siddhartha Gautama never referred to himself as the Buddha.

This term came later.

Yes, rightful speech does not cover censorship of others but gives a flavour on the subject.

If I am a body which operates censorship, if my principals align with rightful speech then l might be on the right track.

[bigbamboo]

I don't think Buddha was big on censorship.

[rockyysdt]

I don't think Buddha was big on censorship.

That;s the biggest problem big bamboo.

Thinking or believing is all about belief.

Belief is conditioning and nothing to do with reality.

Much better to have actual experience.

Actual experience without colored eyes.

One way of achieving this is by practicing sitting meditation for 20 minutes a day increasing to what you can spare coupled with daily mindfulness from the time you awake until the time you fall asleep.

Continue this until it becomes part of your daily normal routine.

Over time such practice will yield insights and actual experience which will become lifer altering.

Wisdom will grow and then you will know for certain what the Buddha was big on.

[steinghan]

Under Rightful Speech of the Eightfold Path one gets of flavour of what can be said, what shouldn't and when.

1. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, yet unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
2. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, yet unendearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
3. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.
4. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, but unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them. this is up to them.
5. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

I'm a little confused by the appearance "Tathagata" here. Isn't that the name Buddha calls himself? Have you picked this version of the forms of right speech from somewhere where Buddha speaks of himself? - Anyway, neither here or elsewhere, is right speech (in 8-fold path) about censorship (of others) but about proper self-restraint with respect to one's own speech.

Siddhartha Gautama never referred to himself as the Buddha.

This term came later.

Sorry for being unclear in my question. I wasn't asking wether the Buddha called himself Buddha - I was asking wether he called himself Tathagata. Actually, it was a rhetorical question. The term appears in numerous texts e.g. in Buddhadasas book on Dependent Origination http://buddhasociety.com/online-books/buddhadasa-bhikkhu-paticcasamuppada-21-2#footnote4 where it is explained as:

"Tathagata: lit., 'one who has thus gone.' Used by the Buddha when speaking of himself..."

That's why I got curious about your source for the 5 forms of right speech, because that's the first time I've seen them expressed as Buddhas words about himself - usually they are expressed plainly as advices to whomever is striving to follow the 8-fold path.

Edited June 14, 2013 by steinghan

[cup-O-coffee]

The question is a Zen riddle.

Unless he or she were omniscient, then any person who considered themselves A] enlightened, B] on the path to enlightenment, or C] having achieved the goal of total enlightenment; would spend so much time thinking about their next course of action that they would never accomplish anything.

Enlightenment isn't being perfect. It is understanding that we aren't perfect and instead seeking humility, the ability to make amends and to ask forgiveness when it knocks on our door. I think it has to be this way because even if you think you are A, B or C, you still cannot overlook how your judgment of yourself or your behavior reflects upon those around you. And you can't please everyone if that is a requirement of enlightenment.

Summary, there's always going to be someone who is angry at you or who wants to cut your throat just because you are you; and isn't being enlightened being you?

So, to answer your general question; any solution you engage is acceptable only if you are content in your mind afterwards, and what other people think of you is none of your business.

[rubberduck]

eg the locking of a thread on thaivisa

 

hi rockyystd do you not think that the truth is not always beneficial to know then? 

i guess that many feel that ignorance is bliss, personally i believe the truth however painful is always best.

 

also the problem with points 1-5 is that it implies that the tathagata knows what is best for others, which comes down to opinion in the end. which is why censorship is wrong, let people decide for themselves what is junk/factual/spam.

 

imflammatory post which criticise thai buddhism should be allowed to remain and the thread unlocked.

Since when Thaivisa is a religious forum acting following Buddhist rules ? Forum admins have very different things to worry about !

Beside this how many locals have you seen living by the pureness of Buddhist rules ? A true Buddhist doesn't do things by his own funny way with self made rules and doesn't have thousands of bad habits such as greed and poor life management.

But this are different issues then forum management.

[bankei]

What a strange question! "westerners" have strange ideas about Buddhism.

Bankei

[winstonc]

you dont need meditation,buddhism or any form of religeon,if you are a good human dont hurt others,etc,etc,you are already enlightened,,,,if you need preaching to or whatever,your not very bright in my opinion,life is easy to figure out really,,ISNT IT,,,,

[winstonc]

What a strange question! "westerners" have strange ideas about Buddhism.

Bankei

maybe true but lets not forget buddhism isnt a religon,,,,

[bankei]

What a strange question! "westerners" have strange ideas about Buddhism.

Bankei

maybe true but lets not forget buddhism isnt a religon,,,,

Why are there so many temples? And priests?

[SOTIRIOS]

...if a government was robbing the country blind...wouldn't it be beneficial to say something....

....if any person was robbing another...wouldn't it be beneficial.....and virtuous...to say something.....

[rockyysdt]

...if a government was robbing the country blind...wouldn't it be beneficial to say something....

....if any person was robbing another...wouldn't it be beneficial.....and virtuous...to say something.....

It depends.

If you lived in Zimbabwe would you publicly declare Robert Mugabe a thief?

[dutchguest]

The Buddha's focus was not so much on what other people had to do or not to do but more on what you yourself should do or do not. So Buddha's concern was not so much on censure of other people but more on self-censure. His approach was to teach others to censure themselves in the way mentioned above as “right speech” in order to develop oneself and make progress on the path towards liberation.

In the west may be freedom is sometimes misunderstood as being able and allowed to say what you want to say, but this certainly is a different kind of freedom then the liberation Buddha is talking about. This last concept includes responsibility, knowing what you say, what are the consequences of it, when and where to speak etc. So f.e. on a public forum -if you have to talk about others- sometimes you can not say the same things as you might do in a personal conversation, or if you are in Thailand and you know there are certain sensitive areas you adapt your talking.

[Kronenbernicus]

What a strange question! "westerners" have strange ideas about Buddhism.

Bankei

I have met a lot of Thai "Buddhists" who have no understanding of Buddhism too. They go to a temple when they want something beneficial to happen in their life "I give him [buddha]100 eggs and he make good lucky for me".