right speech and "real" compassion

[konchog uma]

i was listening to gil fronsdal give a nice talk on right speech today, and vmarco's ideal of insulting a person's ego to wake them up came to mind. I wanted to post this, because according to gil, shakyamuni gave clarification on what was right speech twice in his teachings.

 

the first time he said that right speech was not lying, not using divisive speech, not using harsh speech, and not chattering idly.

 

the second time he said that right speech could be measured by asking these questions before we communicate: is what we are going to say true? is it timely? it is beneficial? does it contribute to greater harmony? is it kind?

 

i found that to be helpful, and i hope you all do too. especially vmarco it would be nice to hear something that contributed to greater harmony, or something kind... yknow just for buddhas sake

 

also ran across this today: "When we talk about compassion, we talk in terms of being kind. But compassion is not so much being kind; it is being creative to wake a person up." -chogyam trungpa rinpoche (bolding mine)

 

so i think being creative, not destructive, is the key to really being able to awaken beings and effect positive change in the world, which is the bodhisattva's ideal.

[deci belle]

This kind of right speech commendable, but still within the realm of conventional formative moralities of student buddhism.

 

mr V's deal is fire. In his infrequent monologues touching on compassion, I sense a shortcoming couched in what I call "arrested"— and it's not what you think. He is afraid of it. His sense of compassion is weak. It is not within his lexicon. He is not conversant with buddhas in any sense of the imagination because he has not stepped over eternity yet.

 

If mr V has technique, it is wholly unsuitable and I have never been intoxicated, much less impressed with his repertoire or his method. Actually, I never knew ego-blasting by quote-bombing was what he was trying to do. You mean he is trying to help people? I thought he was only trying to personify ego-intellect by a poorly conjured, Let us clearly hear transcendent wisdom being likened to an enormous mass of fire.

 

As for Chogyam Trungpa, I have a term which is applicable as it is suited to the time and situation, not technique—that is ruthless compassion. Expertise is beyond the creative, which includes destructive transformation based on the potential inherent within the evolving situation itself. It is not what you do, but what you don't do that matters in terms of the body of reality.

 

Unless ruthless compassion is first applied to one's own life in order to see one's own nature first, there is no way to recognize its application in terms of assisting others' awakening.

 

mr V has no such application or experience in his repertoire as he has yet to drop his sickness of attachment to teachings and he has only the vaguest intellectual yet personally advocated imaginings rampantly infused in them in that regard— I loved his "Energy does not exist in the present" pronouncement. If it made sense that only proves his understanding can only be expressed rationally. Reality, suchness-as-is, has no such attributability accessible to thought. Reality is what you see before you with your own eyes. The Dharma-eye enables selfless adaption without karmic ramification, that's all.

 

If your reference to the bodhisattva's ideal is in response to V's thread on that subject, I can only say that mind is one, people become buddhas, and buddhas become people. The term bodhisattva is a certain tradition's teaching device. Learn from it, but try not to set yourself apart from it as a thing— remember, the awakened state is what is you already. Seeing your own essence is planting the seed of buddhahood …gone, gone, beyond gone, gone beyond.

 

Sudden enlightenment does not immediately confer buddhahood. Even the buddha had to sit it out after his realization.

 

I can only imagine V's subsequent difficulty in dropping the sickness of attachment to the absolute in the aftermath of sudden realization should that singular event ever come to pass…❤

 

 

ed note: break up last paragraph into two.

Edited January 12, 2013 by deci belle

[Jeff]

Can "judging others" with a group of others, ever be an example of "right speech"?

 

Best wishes, Jeff

[RongzomFan]

Can "judging others" with a group of others, ever be an example of "right speech"?

 

Best wishes, Jeff

 

Historically yes, considering that all Madhyamaka texts do is attack the now extinct religious systems of Ancient India.

 

Also Vajrayana literature attacks Hinduism. And on and on.

[sati]

There is a difference between attacking a thinking content and attacking people. Tibetan Buddhists are very fond of dissecting systems and refute them but, as far as I have read, I have never seen any insult-like attack in any traditional buddhist text. 'Right speech' can include some clear and sharp words in order to awaken a student, but it is always contextual and adapted to the particular nature of the student.

[RongzomFan]

There is a difference between attacking a thinking content and attacking people. Tibetan Buddhists are very fond of dissecting systems and refute them but, as far as I have read, I have never seen any insult-like attack in any traditional buddhist text. 'Right speech' can include some clear and sharp words in order to awaken a student, but it is always contextual and adapted to the particular nature of the student.

 

One traditional story is Vajrapani killing Shiva and his wife, but then subsequently reviving them by pressing them with his feet (which is extremely insulting in Indian culture).

[Jeff]

 

Historically yes, considering that all Madhyamaka texts do is attack the now extinct religious systems of Ancient India.

 

Also Vajrayana literature attacks Hinduism. And on and on.

 

That is the intellectual debate on the value/merits of various paths. Not the commenting of the traits of individuals to others.

 

Best, Jeff

[sati]

One traditional story is Vajrapani killing Shiva and his wife, but then subsequently reviving them by pressing them with his feet (which is extremely insulting in Indian culture).

 

Yes of course, but these are symbolic stories with various layers of interpretations. Shiva was in this story associated with evil deeds and He is killed during a magical fight.

As far as I can see, this is quite different from the 'right speech' topic. But I am curious and open to learn more about the connexion you make between the two.

 

sati

[RongzomFan]

Yes of course, but these are symbolic stories with various layers of interpretations. Shiva was in this story associated with evil deeds and He is killed during a magical fight.

 

There was no fight in what I'm reading on page 47 of Cakrasamvara Tantra by Gray.

 

And there are further stories of stealing the girls of the Hindu gods and enjoying sexual yogas pg. 52 or using their corpses for seats pg. 53

 

Now I don't take these stories literally, but I DO believe Vajrayana masters have subdued the Hindu gods at one point.

Edited January 12, 2013 by alwayson

[sati]

There was no fight in what I'm reading on page 47 of Cakrasamvara Tantra by Gray.

 

And there are further stories of stealing the girls of the Hindu gods and enjoying sexual yogas pg. 52 or using their corpses for seats pg. 53

 

Now I don't take these stories literally, but I DO believe Vajrayana masters have subdued the Hindu gods at one point.

 

I agree with you that the whole stories are about how Buddhist deities/ emanations subdued Hindu gods.

There are various versions of the story of Vajrapani.It is said that after Shiva was killed, and since he woudn't submit to Vajrapani's power, his life was transferred to another realm where he became a Buddha - Bhasmesvara-nirghosa.

see Indian esoteric Buddhism by Ronald M Davidson (http://books.google....epage&q&f=false) p 150 and sq

Edited January 12, 2013 by sati

[RongzomFan]

see Indian esoteric Buddhism by Ronald M Davidson (http://books.google....epage&q&f=false) p 150 and sq

 

This is a great book. I'm surprised someone cited it on this Mara forum.

[RongzomFan]

There is a sequel to this book called "Tibetan Renaissance"

[sati]

This is a great book. I'm surprised someone cited it on this Mara forum.

 

 

There is a sequel to this book called "Tibetan Renaissance"

 

Thanks! I will order it.

 

sati

[konchog uma]

There is a difference between attacking a thinking content and attacking people. Tibetan Buddhists are very fond of dissecting systems and refute them but, as far as I have read, I have never seen any insult-like attack in any traditional buddhist text. 'Right speech' can include some clear and sharp words in order to awaken a student, but it is always contextual and adapted to the particular nature of the student.

 

the buddha rebuked his monks in the sutras.. he called them fools when they were fools. You could call that an insult, but then again, it was always followed by kindly advice on how to remedy ones folly.

 

So i agree basically, whether you look to Tibet for cues or to the pali sutras, it seems the same

[konchog uma]

There was no fight in what I'm reading on page 47 of Cakrasamvara Tantra by Gray.

 

And there are further stories of stealing the girls of the Hindu gods and enjoying sexual yogas pg. 52 or using their corpses for seats pg. 53

 

Now I don't take these stories literally, but I DO believe Vajrayana masters have subdued the Hindu gods at one point.

 

The right speech that i am talking about here is more literal and person to person, not within the stories or teaching tools which use metaphor, but in the way we set the example for each other of how to talk to one another on this forum.

 

thanks tho, i didnt know that ... funny

Edited January 13, 2013 by konchog uma

[deci belle]

Objective observation is the prerequisite to right anything.

 

Objectivity is the boon of seeing your nature— this is precisely what is outside the doctrines of sudden illumination.

 

The necessity of formative moralities is laying the framework for development of virtues to acquire wisdom to gain energy to transcend the very reason for being a student in the first place …obliterating self-identity by seeing your nature.

 

Objectivity is the result of selfless knowledge of one's pristine natural nonoriginated aware nature.

 

When you see, you can say. It's not even judging as much as it is describing.

 

Nobody likes to be in a buddha's crosshairs …but who should be so lucky?

 

I don't offer advice, I pronounce directives based on the personality involved.

 

Everybody is not on their own path as the path does not even appear until one sees their nature. How else is it possible to see the intent of the authentic teachings without the perspective of those enlightening beings who compassionately left clues for later illuminates to follow.

 

If one is so disposed to stumble around essentially blind anyway, why bother to bump into other blind people on their path and nod appreciatively? That's called the blind leading the blind.

 

If I was blind, I'd stay the hell away from everybody else who was in the same condition. But this pastime of picking and choosing is absolute nonsense. The matter of life and death is your own mind. What is the point of talking and nodding in agreement? Sudden enlightenment is spontaneous release from words, meaning, teachings and person.

 

Afterwards, talking and defecating, raging and daydreaming are all in perspective of the real and if understanding takes place in a word— it is not in terms of right speech, it is in terms of immediate knowledge.

 

 

 

 

ed note: apostrophe in buddha's crosshairs

Edited January 13, 2013 by deci belle

[Jeff]

Right speech is found flowing through the heart based on loving intent. The mind often remembers past insults and unconsciously reacts (and justifies oneself) in the absence of the heart.

 

In this example, if one can look deeply into their heart and see that the "true" intent was to help Vmarco and they believe that such a post would be effective, then it would be "right speech". Judging another's true intent is not possible, one must decide in their own heart.

 

Best wishes, Jeff

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I don't see how insulting someone does anything to reduce their ego - it only puts their ego on high alert and confirms its necessity.

If someone points out an error in me and I see they actually have good intentions, I'm glad they mentioned it. This method of debasing someone is just trying to control their mind, and it's usually done with anger. This is what cults do.

 

How can being angry and hating and debasing someone lead them to compassion? If anything, this method drives someone to self-pity which is only a more ego-centered state of mind than they started with.

 

One would think this to be blatantly obvious, but somehow some people have managed to avoid(?) seeing this.

 

There can be a bit too much suspension of disbelief for the sake of seeing the truth, or tolerance for the obviously malicious. I think some people here must have entity issues to be so full of shit and so unable to see it.

[Aaron]

Right Speech has nothing to do with intent. It has to do with the effects of your speech. The criteria of questions to ask yourself is only there to help ensure that you practice right speech. So you are either practicing right speech or not, simply intending to practice is not enough.

 

Aaron

[三江源]

I don't see how insulting someone does anything to reduce their ego - it only puts their ego on high alert and confirms its necessity.

If someone points out an error in me and I see they actually have good intentions, I'm glad they mentioned it. This method of debasing someone is just trying to control their mind, and it's usually done with anger. This is what cults do.

 

How can being angry and hating and debasing someone lead them to compassion? If anything, this method drives someone to self-pity which is only a more ego-centered state of mind than they started with.

 

One would think this to be blatantly obvious, but somehow some people have managed to avoid(?) seeing this.

 

There can be a bit too much suspension of disbelief for the sake of seeing the truth, or tolerance for the obviously malicious. I think some people here must have entity issues to be so full of shit and so unable to see it.

 

Hi Harmonious Emptiness - terrific username you have chosen.

 

Couple of things I wonder if you could clarify.

 

One is, what you hope to contribute with the last line of your post, the other question I have is about this :

If someone points out an error in me and I see they actually have good intentions, I'm glad they mentioned it

my concern here is the inherent weakness in having to see the others intentions as good, in order to find benefit for oneself.. so if the other fails to have good intent, then we add to the failiure by failing to benefit? I am unclear as to the benefit of double failiure, why compound fail with more fail? Would be interested to hear your clarity on this.

 

Surely our aim should be benefit, regardless of the others intent?

[Tibetan_Ice]

Harmonious Emptiness, on 13 January 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

 

I don't see how insulting someone does anything to reduce their ego - it only puts their ego on high alert and confirms its necessity.

 

<snip>

 

How can being angry and hating and debasing someone lead them to compassion?

 

 

You just voiced my thoughts.

 

Hi,

You should read the book "Daughter of Fire: A Diary of a Spiritual Training with a Sufi Master"

 

http://www.amazon.com/Daughter-Fire-Spiritual-Training-Master/dp/0963457454

 

Irina Tweedie's unique account of the slow and painful grinding down of the personality at the hands of a Sufi Master. This diary spans five years, making up an amazing record of spiritual transformation. From a psychological perspective, this diary maps the process of ego dissolution, gradually unveiling the oneness and love that reside beneath the surface of the personality. Mrs. Tweedie is the first Western woman to be trained in this ancient yogic lineage.

 

Yes, the guru really gave her a hard time, left her standing outside, took all her money.. I wouldn't have put up with him. The approach of dissolving the ego may work, but it is probably one of the most painful methods out there.

 

Machiavelli. "The end justifies the means". Not..

 

TI

[Jeff]

Right Speech has nothing to do with intent. It has to do with the effects of your speech. The criteria of questions to ask yourself is only there to help ensure that you practice right speech. So you are either practicing right speech or not, simply intending to practice is not enough.

 

Aaron

 

True Intention defines the act and the merit (or not) of the act. Right speech is in the framework of karma.

 

In the Nibbedhika Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya 6.63) the Buddha said:

 

"Intention (P. cetana, S. cetanā) I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

 

Best wishes, Jeff

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

Yes, the guru really gave her a hard time, left her standing outside, took all her money.. I wouldn't have put up with him. The approach of dissolving the ego may work, but it is probably one of the most painful methods out there.

 

Machiavelli. "The end justifies the means". Not..

 

TI

 

Yes, but in this case, the master had a plan and program that could take place over time, and also had the commitment of the student. This can work, but is not the same as just debasing someone off hand with an air of superiority and thinking it will somehow enlighten them.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

One is, what you hope to contribute with the last line of your post, the other question I have is about this :

 

 

Just speaking my truth, and bringing to light that there may be a deeper reason to the behaviour in discussion.

 

 

my concern here is the inherent weakness in having to see the others intentions as good, in order to find benefit for oneself.. so if the other fails to have good intent, then we add to the failiure by failing to benefit? I am unclear as to the benefit of double failiure, why compound fail with more fail? Would be interested to hear your clarity on this.

 

Surely our aim should be benefit, regardless of the others intent?

 

Note the intent that I was referring to:

 

This method of debasing someone is just trying to control their mind, and it's usually done with anger. This is what cults do.

 

If someone insults me in hopes that I will see my error, this is one thing. When someone insults me in an attempt to make me accept their superiority and take on their belief in my own worthlessness, then I have nothing to learn from them in this respect.. Though I still might learn something from the event, it's not likely to be what they hoped.

 

Believing I'm the greatest or believing I'm worthless, there is still an ego-affliction to be dealt with.

 

edit:

This said, I'm all for playfully insulting someone to make them examine their behavior, but as I said in post #24 here, anything more serious than this needs more of a plan to be effective.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Jetsun]

If a master can use an insult in such a way that the student can see that he is insulting their false persona rather than their entire being then it is useful. For example Gurdjieff would often call his students pieces of shit and other things, but it wasn't just thrown at them in anger with harmful intent, rather it was done in a situation where the student signed up for the whole deal and was practising self observation so in that situation the insult is a potential gift so that the student can observe in himself what part of him gets angry and flares up in defence and which parts remain calm and detached, so it can bring defensive patterns into consciousness if worked with properly which are very difficult to observe with detachment in day to day life. Yet few masters have the skill to do this, most of the time insults just cause harm as it just provokes people into painful places without much chance for any growth of consciousness.