right speech and "real" compassion

[Birch]

Jetsun, that's one of the reasons I didn't go for a G group. I didn't have faith that the people running them would be able to do this skillfully (and I've read a few horror stories about this type of setup).

[Jetsun]

Jetsun, that's one of the reasons I didn't go for a G group. I didn't have faith that the people running them would be able to do this skillfully (and I've read a few horror stories about this type of setup).

 

There are thousands of groups these days and although I haven't been to any myself I spoke to someone who is part of the official Gurdjieff foundation about this subject and he said that they generally aren't run like that any more, they are run as equal groups with a coordinator rather than with a guru or master who insults peoples ego's.You might get given demeaning work on a retreat like cleaning the toilets and you will probably get more honest straight talk than you get in real life, but unlike normal life you are meant to see where things are coming from in yourself and look in the mirror first before blaming things from coming from the outside world or needing to attack other people for "causing" something to arise in you.

[Birch]

 

 

There are thousands of groups these days and although I haven't been to any myself I spoke to someone who is part of the official Gurdjieff foundation about this subject and he said that they generally aren't run like that any more, they are run as equal groups with a coordinator rather than with a guru or master who insults peoples ego's.You might get given demeaning work on a retreat like cleaning the toilets and you will probably get more honest straight talk than you get in real life, but unlike normal life you are meant to see where things are coming from in yourself and look in the mirror first before blaming things from coming from the outside world or needing to attack other people for "causing" something to arise in you.

 

Great info, thanks Jetsun!

[sati]

Hi all

 

From what I read, the Buddha said that Right Speech has 4 aspects:

-always truthful

-inspirational,neither malicious nor futile

-gentle, neither rude, nor harsh

-moderate

 

The root of Right Speech is intent,the practice of Right Speech is in accord with the above.I really like the simplicity of this Buddha's teaching.

 

Sati

[konchog uma]

"The longest road you'll ever have to walk is between your mind and your heart" -indigenous (American) saying

 

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/architects-of-peace/Lane/essay.html

this link doesn't have anything directly to do with this thread, but since i started it i can derail it muahaha

its just an inspirational read focused on Phil Lane Jr.'s accounts of things elders have told him

 

i've always found the indigenous traditions of the world to place an unfathomably greater emphasis on respectful and appropriate (for all intents and purposes "right") speech than modern cultures.. its amazing to contemplate. I am often times told what a "nice" or "good" person i am, but in the face of the average indigenous of almost any tribe in the world, i would be an entitled, temperamental, mouthy dickasaurus. Almost every time i come into contact with native americans or indigenous people of any part of the earth i am humbled in a beautiful way, not a humiliating way, but a gentle reminder that a person's virtue can go bone deep and emanate from the natural state of their being.. that speech intentions actions etc can be respectful to all without measure or judgement... that we are all related, that thats not some philosophical talking point or a "view" but a truth that forms the foundation of every action.

 

oh well i don't mean to bore anyone waxing native.. just pointing out something that has both affected me profoundly, and been completely forgotten at times. Maybe im writing to myself... lol dear sir, wake up, your friend, self.

[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

 

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this passage. I'm not particularly fond of Theravada Buddhism's sutras to be honest. If you can find a Mahayana or Tibetan Buddhist sutra that says the same thing, I'd be more prone to discuss this further, otherwise, for me, it's effect, not intent.

 

Aaron

Edited January 14, 2013 by Aaron

[Simple_Jack]

Right Speech has nothing to do with intent.

According to how Buddha teaches karma:

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma1.htm

 

Understanding the Law of Kamma

a. Kamma as intention

 

Essentially, kamma is intention (cetana), and this word includes will, choice and decision, the mental impetus which leads to action. Intention is that which instigates and directs all human actions, both creative and destructive, and is therefore the essence of kamma, as is given in the Buddha's words, Cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami: Monks! Intention, I say, is kamma. Having willed, we create kamma, through body, speech and mind.[2]

At this point we might take some time to broaden our understanding of this word "intention." "Intention" in the context of Buddhism has a much subtler meaning than it has in common usage. In the English language, we tend to use the word when we want to provide a link between internal thought and its resultant external actions. For example, we might say, "I didn't intend to do it," "I didn't mean to say it" or "she did it intentionally."

But according to the teachings of Buddhism, all actions and speech, all thoughts, no matter how fleeting, and the responses of the mind to sensations received through eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, without exception, contain elements of intention. Intention is thus the mind's volitional choosing of objects of awareness; it is the factor which leads the mind to turn towards, or be repelled from, various objects of awareness, or to proceed in any particular direction; it is the guide or the governor of how the mind responds to stimuli; it is the force which plans and organizes the movements of the mind, and ultimately it is that which determines the states experienced by the mind.

One instance of intention is one instance of kamma. When there is kamma there is immediate result. Even just one little thought, although not particularly important, is nevertheless not void of consequence. It will be at the least a "tiny speck" of kamma, added to the stream of conditions which shape mental activity. With repeated practice, through repeated proliferation by the mind, or through expression as external activity, the result becomes stronger in the form of character traits, physical features or repercussions from external sources.

A destructive intention does not have to be on a gross level. It may, for example, lead to the destruction of only a very small thing, such as when we angrily tear up a piece of paper. Even though that piece of paper has no importance in itself, the action still has some effect on the quality of the mind. The effect is very different from tearing up a piece of paper with a neutral state of mind, such as when throwing away scrap paper. If there is repeated implementation of such angry intention, the effects of accumulation will become clearer and clearer, and may develop to more significant levels.

Consider the specks of dust which come floating unnoticed into a room; there isn't one speck which is void of consequence. It is the same for the mind. But the weight of that consequence, in addition to being dependent on the amount of mental "dust," is also related to the quality of the mind. For instance, specks of dust which alight onto a road surface have to be of a very large quantity before the road will seem to be dirty. Specks of dust which alight onto a floor, although of a much smaller quantity, may make the floor seem dirtier than the road. A smaller amount of dust accumulating on a table top will seem dirty enough to cause irritation. An even smaller amount alighting on a mirror will seem dirty and will interfere with its functioning. A tiny speck of dust on a spectacle lens is perceptible and can impair vision. In the same way, volition or intention, no matter how small, is not void of fruit. As the Buddha said:

"All kamma, whether good or evil, bears fruit. There is no kamma, no matter how small, which is void of fruit."[

3

]

In any case, the mental results of the law of kamma are usually overlooked, so another illustration might be helpful:

There are many kinds of water: the water in a sewer, the water in a canal, tap water, and distilled water for mixing a hypodermic injection. Sewer water is an acceptable habitat for many kinds of water animals, but is not suitable for bathing, drinking or medicinal use. Water in a canal may be used to bathe or to wash clothes but is not drinkable. Tap water is drinkable but cannot be used for mixing a hypodermic injection. If there is no special need, then tap water is sufficient for most purposes, but one would be ill-advised to use it to mix a hypodermic injection.

In the same way, the mind has varying levels of refinement or clarity, depending on accumulated kamma. As long as the mind is being used on a coarse level, no problem may be apparent, but if it is necessary to use the mind on a more refined level, previous unskillful kamma, even on a minor scale, may become an obstacle.

 

http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/khema/hereandnow/kamma_is_intention.php

 

VI. Kamma is Intention

 

Kamma, actually, just means action. In the India of the Buddha, that's how it was understood. In order to make people aware of what it really implies, the Buddha said: "Kamma, oh monks, I declare, is intention," which arises first in our thoughts, then generates speech and action. This was the new interpretation that the Buddha gave to kamma, because it was largely misunderstood and used as predetermined destiny. There were teachers in his day that taught it that way, which was denounced by the Buddha as wrong view, misleading and liable to have unwholesome results. This view of pre-determined destiny is just as rampant today as it was at the Buddha's time. It is often voiced like this: "There's nothing I can do about it, it's my kamma." This is the greatest folly one can adhere to, because it puts the onus of one's own intentions on some nebulous previous person whom one doesn't even know. In other words, one doesn't take responsibility for one's own actions, which is a very common failing.

[konchog uma]

according to the buddha, it was intention that directed the karmic force of the action.

 

most of those teachings are first turning and as such will be found in the pali cannon.

 

i think its funny that he quoted the buddha in a correct and appropriate way, but you disagree, not because you refute the assertion, but because you don't like theravada. At least you admit your bias... but thats about all i can say for that approach.

 

i will give an example. suppose you buy someone who is hungry some food out of good intentions, but they choke on the food and have to go to the hospital, running up a horrible bill they can't afford, and being injured on top of that. the intention to help was goodwill, but the effect was very negative. according to the view of effect being primary, the person who fed the hungry would lose merit and acquire a karmic stain because someone else choked and they enabled it. according to the buddha and the idea of intention being primary cause, the person would accumulate merit because they acted with positive intentions in spite of the karma which the recipient of the virtue carried, which would cause them to choke and suffer.

 

just something to think about. intentions and effects often differ for many reasons, most of which are out of the control of the person with the intentions.

[RongzomFan]

Which one of the 12 links of D.O. is karma?

[konchog uma]

i dont think its a link itself. i would guess that its the process by which the links evolve into the next

[RongzomFan]

My point is that Buddha boiled down karma into something like intention.

 

Although I'm not a specialist in this Hinayana stuff.

[Jeff]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this passage. I'm not particularly fond of Theravada Buddhism's sutras to be honest. If you can find a Mahayana or Tibetan Buddhist sutra that says the same thing, I'd be more prone to discuss this further, otherwise, for me, it's effect, not intent.

 

Aaron

 

Interesting that you "disagree" with Sutra. What "criteria" do you use to pick and choose Sutra?

 

On the Tibetan Buddhist front... Here are the words of Anyen Rinpoche in "The Union of Dzogchen and Bodhicitta"...

 

"Thus, the karma accumulated by any action we perform, whether it virtuous or non virtuous, depends upon our motivation"

 

I assume you can agree that the definition of "motivation" in this quote is the same as "intent".

 

Best, Jeff

 

(edit - spelling)

Edited January 14, 2013 by Jeff

[Simple_Jack]

i dont think its a link itself. i would guess that its the process by which the links evolve into the next

From Rahula Wapola's "What the Buddha Taught:"

 

http://buddhasociety.com/online-books/what-buddha-taught-walpola-rahula-9-7

....Before we go into the question of Anatta proper, it is useful to have a brief idea of the Conditioned Genesis. The principle of this doctrine is given in a short formula of four lines:

When this is, that is (

Imasmim sati idam hoti

);

This arising, that arises (

Imassuppādā idam uppajjati

);

When this is not, that is not (

Imasmim asati idam na hoti

);

This ceasing, that ceases (

Imassa nirodhā idam nirujjhati

).

[3]

On this principle of conditionality, relativity and interdependence, the whole existence and continuity of life and its cessation are explained in a detailed formula which is called Paticca-samuppāda 'Conditioned Genesis', consisting of twelve factors:

1. Through ignorance are conditioned volitional actions or karma-formations (Avijjāpaccayā samkhārā).
   
2. Through volitional actions is conditioned consciousness (Samkhārapaccayā viňňānam).
   
3. Through consciousness are conditioned mental and physical phenomena (Viňňānapaccayā nāmarūpam).
   
4. Through mental and physical phenomena are conditioned the six faculties (i.e., five physical sense-organs and mind) (Nāmarūpapaccayā salāyatanam).
   
5. Through the six faculties is conditioned (sensorial and mental) contact (Salāyatanapaccayā phasso).
   
6. Through (sensorial and mental) contact is conditioned sensation (Phassapaccayā vedanā).
   
7. Through sensation is conditioned desire, 'thirst' (Vedanāpaccayā tanhā).
   
8. Through desire ('thirst') is conditioned clinging (Tanhāpaccayā upādānam).
   
9. Through clinging is conditioned the process of becoming (Upādānapaccayā bhavo).
   
10. Through the process of becoming is conditioned birth (Bhavapaccayā jāti).
    
11. Through birth are conditioned (12) decay, death, lamentation, pain, etc. (Jātipaccayā jarāmaranam…).
    

This is how life arises, exists and continues. If we take this formula in reverse order, we come to the cessation of the process: Through the complete cessation of ignorance, volitional activities or karma-formations cease; through the cessation of volitional activities, consciousness ceases; … through the cessation of birth, decay, death, sorrow, etc., cease.

It should be remembered that each of these factors is conditioned (paticcasamuppanna) as well as conditioning (paticcasamuppāda). [4] Therefore they are all relative, interdependent and interconnected, and nothing is absolute or independent; hence no first cause is accepted by Buddhism as we have seen earlier. [5] Conditioned Genesis should be considered as a circle, and not as a chain. [6]

 

Like the song from the "Lion King"..."The cirrrclllee offf liiiiffeee"...Is a nexus of affliction, yay!

[三江源]

~ moderator message ~

 

Discussing right speech sounds useful. Please keep the thread on topic and please avoid pursuing personal vendetta. Avoiding making it personal would be the most constructive way forward and failiure to do this will result in moderator action.

 

Messages that have been reported are currently off board, and in the concierge area for consideration.

[Simple_Jack]

~ moderator message ~

 

Discussing right speech sounds useful. Please keep the thread on topic and please avoid pursuing personal vendetta. Avoiding making it personal would be the most constructive way forward and failiure to do this will result in moderator action.

 

Messages that have been reported are currently off board, and in the concierge area for consideration.

The post was on topic. How can this thread not possibly get "personal," when the OP's thread starts with questioning Vmarco's behavior? Let me make the Mods job easier.

 

KC: The difference between Vmarco and Chogyam Trungpa, is whether he is or is not, still stuck within the cycle of becoming.

 

Chogyam Trungpa is an authentically realized mahasiddha. Can we really say the same of Vmarco, based off of what he's posted on this forum? Especially the way he reacts, when the nonsense he presents as the "Buddha's teachings" are called out on?

 

In Mahayana terms, this is how the 8-fold noble path applies to a bodhisattva on the path of meditation. From Patrul Rinpoche's "Guide to the Stages and Paths of the Bodhisattvas:"

 

http://www.lotsawaho...stages-and-path

 

4. The Path of Meditation

 

The path of meditation consists of meditating on, and gaining familiarity with, the wisdom that was realized on the path of seeing. The training here is in the noble eightfold path.

The root text says:

View, intention, speech…. May we traverse….!

The meaning of this is as follows:

Since non-conceptual wisdom has been realized on the path of seeing, there is genuine realization of the view of how things really are, which is the correct view(30).

Through the power of this [correct view], no destructive emotions arise in the mind, and all thoughts are spontaneously virtuous, so there is correct intention(31).

When the mind is virtuous, non-virtues of body and speech will not arise, and all that is said will be of benefit to beings. This is correct speech(32).

Whatever actions one does will be for the benefit of others, so there is correct action(33).

Always content, never stained by the five styles of unethical livelihood, there is correct livelihood(34). The five styles of unethical livelihood are: 1) hypocrisy; 2) flattery; 3) soliciting; 4) expropriating; and 5) calculated generosity. All these five are abandoned.

Being diligent, having eliminated weariness and fatigue while working for others’ benefit, there is correct effort(35).

Always maintaining the flow of mindful awareness, there is correct mindfulness(36).

Remaining in the meditative equipoise of the fourth dhyana and similar states, and entering into various forms of samadhi, there is correct concentration(37).

Edited January 15, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[三江源]

Let me make the Mods job easier.

 

~ Good plan, SJ.

 

Discuss the topic without invective and personal attack as per forum rules. If the thread degenerates into an attack thread rather than a discussion of right speech, it will be locked and those involved will be suspended. ~

 

mod team

[Simple_Jack]

~ Good plan, SJ.

 

Discuss the topic without invective and personal attack as per forum rules. If the thread degenerates into an attack thread rather than a discussion of right speech, it will be locked and those involved will be suspended. ~

 

mod team

Uhhh, ok. Also: Yay!! I ruined it for everybody!!

[Aaron]

Yay! I was finally able to get a browser where I could actually see what I was typing using my tablet. First, regarding intent and a fact, I am NOT a Buddhist expert in regards to the sutras and I was under the impression that it was effect not intent. I can see now through the various posts that intent does have a part to play. I've always looked at right speech from a Taoist point of view, in that good speech causes no quarrels, however with the idea that intent is important regarding karma one could say that even if your intentions are good if you say something that upsets somebody or hurts them then it is your responsibility to make that right if you can. I think the general rule with both Daoism and Buddhism is that you do your best to cause no harm with the words you speak. the problem is that in order to do so we must set aside the ego and think of others when we choose our words, and this can be difficult because oftentimes we allow emotions to guide our discourse rather then what we know is the compassionate thing to say.

 

With that said the issues in this thread regarding name calling and insults is an excellent example of how we often times may believe what we I have to say is the right thing to say when fact it is only harmful and hurtful. Perhaps if we took the time to just read what we write and then judge how we would feel about it if it was said to us (or put ourselves in the other person's shoes) we could save others a great deal of harm and also engender harmony within our own little community. In the end it's no so important what other people say, but what we say ourselves.

 

Aaron

 

edited due to voice app confusion.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Aaron

[thetaoiseasy]

.

Edited October 17, 2013 by thetaoiseasy