Harsh Speech

[muni]

[

Our thoughts are not our own. We must be kind to the guests in the house or they can cause us misery.

As soon as a thought is grasped/fixated, identification stamp is done and awareness is gone.

Be kind yes. Identity papers, please.

A thought already grasped then "solid arisen me and not me" is suffering in own mind. Clevernesses aren't helping to delete my habitual grasping.
Ego concept arises in a grasped thought. Then "you concept" follow on that started thought chain-grasping. I cannot chase you-thought away with harshness since you seems to be product of me- thought. Theatre-soap in own mind, causing misery.

Teachings once given, are easy lost in habitual mist. Practice, yes.

"No phenomena thought or other are the problem but clinging".

[muni]

*Bodhichitta*

[Ayu]

Theatre-soap in own mind, causing misery.

What a beautiful sentence!

Yeah !!! B O D H I C I T T A !!!

[Zealot]

Theatre-soap in own mind, causing misery.

What a beautiful sentence!

Yeah !!! B O D H I C I T T A !!!

I often suffer from similar situations. Usually they're related to sloth and lethargy. I find having a firm grasp on the notion that within this mind our consciousness inhabits, there is truly no 'I'. Just dependently originating thoughts. If we follow the thoughts back to their source, there is sometime form or one of the other five aggregates, but there is never a self, ego, or I.

That being said, our mind is subtle and full of trickery, but the practice of a Bodhisattva is to continually exam oneself and abandon any defects found less we find ourselves wearing the Dharma robes and acting out of disturbing emotions. That's practice 31, I believe.

Many blessings everyone

[gregkavarnos]

So your intention was completely ego-based?

Then the volition behind your actions was impure, you planted a bitter seed.

Harsh speech is at times necessary, but I believe you are confusing harsh speech with impure negative speech.

Harsh definition: unpleasant rough or jarring to the senses.
...
Zealots reaction was pure he was pointing out that you were being an ass and therefore the accumulated Karma is light. Don't confuse him by pretending your intentions had a loftier goal.

Where I come from your behavior would warrant an apology.

When I made the initial statement utilising harsh speech to make a point it was mind that interpreted it as harsh speech, that became angry and upset and initiated a reaction of harsh speech.

When I stated it was an experiment one mind intrepreted it as positive and reacted positively and another mind interpreted it as negative and reacted negatively.

When I restated that actually it was harsh speech all along, one mind reacted with confusion and another mind reacted with anger.

And now that I will apologise, using pleasant speech, it will be the mind again that inteprets it as positive and feel joy and happiness.

I am sorry for using harsh speech in order to get my point across. I will refrain from using harsh speech with you ever again.

As long as beings are dwelling in dualistic delusion
they feel the sting of harsh speech and the soothing touch of pleasant speech.
But who is speaking?
Who is feeling?
What is pure?
What is impure?

[Zealot]

I'm not confused, you seem to be unclear on your intention. In one post you said it was 'to inform you' and the other you said that you were just being an ass. Also, I don't agree with your interpretation that I found benefit after you stated it was an experiment. As I said, it was lowlydog's reply and my own harshness that brought me benefit.

If the apology was for me, thank you, but refraining from harsh speech is not necessary, at least in my presence. I'd prefer you continue to use whatever 'skillful' method you think most appropriate to get the Dharma across. As I've stated before, I do no believe harsh speech without value, and like lowlydog using harshness to keep his children safe from danger, I know that I too am only a child (noob) along this path and often need a firm hand to bring me the most benefit.

If you find the time or inclination, I'd still much like to hear an expanded explanation on your views of the Jataka tales.

Many blessings everyone!

[gregkavarnos]

If you find the time or inclination, I'd still much like to hear an expanded explanation on your views of the Jataka tales.

No problem with the Jataka Tales, problem with the misintrepretation and misuse of the specific tale:

10. The fruit of virtue and non-virtue appears individually.

It i said "The fruit of virtue and non-virtue appears individually."
Who would oppose this tenet that sets up cause and effect as a witness?
The fruit of virtue is happiness, the fruit of non-virtue suffering.
These are the words of the Jina and this is also the the innate disposition or abiding.
Some teachers that have false theories about cause and effect say that
...
The Jina said that the fruit of positivity alone is happiness
And the fruit of negativity alone is suffering;
The fruit of mixed karman(sic) is mixed.
...
Captain Mahakaruna [for example] ws exchanging himself for others,
As he intended to kill a person intriguing against him and others for the benefit of the other young salesman.
The intention wa virtuous, the act of killing the miscreant non-virtuous.
Furthermore because he exchanged himself with others,
He gathered the accumulations of many kalpas,
[But] due to the negative act, he was pierced by an acacia thorn.
...
Disparaging cause and effect - what kind of result does that have?

Jigten Sumgon Gongchig Commentary by Rigdzin Chokyi Dragpa The Lamp Dispelling the Darkness

[muni]

Regarding harsh speech:

The dualistic appearance of our enemies
We think is truly real
This is what creates the suffering of our anger
And the pain of the anger's consequences
But the pain of our angry action's consequences
Is greater than the pain of the anger ever was

The dualistic appearance of our friends
We think is truly real
From this comes the suffering of change and your heart gets broken
Our friends make us suffer more than enemies ever could


And so if you know the practice so profound
Of being free of attachment and full of love
Both friends and enemies turn into dharma resources
Adverse conditions become your dharma friends

Tsultrim Rinpoche.

[Harold]

I remember the teachings of the Buddha and some may find that he engaged in Harsh Speech.

The Buddha would awaken in the morning and travel to parks were Hindu teachers and their followers were.

There he would tell them that their faith, its teachings and their teachers were totally WRONG IN THEIR BELIEFS.

If the Buddha was around today he would tell Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders that they were totally WRONG IN THEIR BELIEFS.

Some would find what he said was HARSH SPEECH while others would call it ENLIGHTENED SPEECH.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I remember the teachings of the Buddha and some may find that he engaged in Harsh Speech.
The Buddha would awaken in the morning and travel to parks were Hindu teachers and their followers were.
There he would tell them that their faith, its teachings and their teachers were totally WRONG IN THEIR BELIEFS.
If the Buddha was around today he would tell Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders that they were totally WRONG IN THEIR BELIEFS.Some would find what he said was HARSH SPEECH while others would call it ENLIGHTENED SPEECH.

It is interesting that you put Buddhism into the category of 'religion'.
.
.
.

[gregkavarnos]

When did I do that?

Sorry but you seem to missed my point that Buddha questioned all Religions.

[muni]

We can try to use a remote control or remote operation system in order to bring/keep awareness in "others' mind, but it doesn't work. Only through own awareness/ mindfulness, is there compassion.
This heart advice by Dza Patrul Rinpoche, about harsh speech or gossip and so on, can be useful for practice:

http://shingkhar.blogspot.be/2012/12/ex ... fe-of.html

[PadmaVonSamba]

When did I do that?

Sorry but you seem to missed my point that Buddha questioned all Religions.

Was that before, or after Indra and Brahma (Both Hindu gods)asked him to teach the dharma?
.
.
.

[PadmaVonSamba]

When did I do that?
Sorry but you seem to missed my point that Buddha questioned all Religions.

Buddha didn't question religions on the basis that they were religions (referring to your post, which specifically addressed religions) but that as methods for removing the cause of suffering, they were insufficient.

There he would tell them that their faith, its teachings and their teachers were totally WRONG IN THEIR BELIEFS.
If the Buddha was around today he would tell Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders that they were totally WRONG IN THEIR BELIEFS.

Some beliefs included in the tenets of religions are not wrong. Some of the teachings of many religions can also be found in the Buddhist teachings, for example, the idea that one shouldn't kill or steal. So, I doubt that if the Buddha were here today (and how can you be sure that he isn't?) that he would make such a generalized condemnation as you suggest. If he we engaged in a debate over a specific question, for example, over the existence a "soul", he would probably argue that point successfully.

What the Buddha saw was that regardless of what people actually believe or do not believe,
regardless of what label they give their belief system,
and this includes Buddhists as well as everyone else,
that the the causes of suffering are the same for all beings,
the method of removing suffering are the same for all beings,
and the path to liberation from the recurrence of suffering,
the dharma that he taught, is the same for all beings.

.
.
.

[lowlydog]

What the Buddha saw was that regardless of what people actually believe or do not believe,
regardless of what label they give their belief system,
and this includes Buddhists as well as everyone else,
that the the causes of suffering are the same for all beings,
the method of removing suffering are the same for all beings,
and the path to liberation from the recurrence of suffering,
the dharma that he taught, is the same for all beings.

.
.
.

[catmoon]

I remember the teachings of the Buddha and some may find that he engaged in Harsh Speech.

The Buddha would awaken in the morning and travel to parks were Hindu teachers and their followers were.

There he would tell them that their faith, its teachings and their teachers were totally WRONG IN THEIR BELIEFS.

If the Buddha was around today he would tell Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders that they were totally WRONG IN THEIR BELIEFS.

Some would find what he said was HARSH SPEECH while others would call it ENLIGHTENED SPEECH.

I don't think he would do that any more than the Dalai Lama does today. To do so would be a violation of the principles of kindness and compassion. Believing that everyone else is wrong also mires one in the quagmire of dualism at its worst. Part of enlightenment is the understanding that the beliefs of others may be different from one's own without being wrong.

[klqv]

hi. i am not sure if i have been being evil, can you help?

i understand "harsh speech" to be malicious - speech that is meant to harm others, for a good cause or not. but then i seem to get in trouble for what i say a lot, so some people find it objectionable.

am i breaking this precept? i feel like the whole of buddhism thinks i'm going to hell for the harmless things i say

and i include lying in that.

thank !!

[klqv]

perhaps i try to undermine people's POV too much. is that "harsh speech"? i assumed just... benign arguing. of course i am not a philosopher but...

[shaunc]

One religion, the quakers I think, recommend applying 3 rules to your speech before actually talking. 1. Is it true. 2. Is it kind. 3. Is it beneficial/necessary. Personally I find it to be not a bad guide at all.

[klqv]

2. Is it kind.

i rarely express kindness tbh - which is not the same thing as being unkind.

stupid religious nuts ;D !!

thanks.