THE RIGHT SPEECH
The noble path of perfected speech is the doorway to an effective moral behavior, because moral practice begins with the control of ones speech. For a dharma student morality is something which is intrinsic to his way of being in the world. There is no external power, in the form of God, who one has to appease. We act with moral conviction because we understand the connection between moral action and its immediate effect on our well being.
Morality is not a set of laws that is imposed on us, but the effect of living in the world in a balanced and harmonious manner. There is probably no principle in Buddhist thought which has so little parallel in the traditional western world view. In the west, morality has always been seen as a matter of secondary effect. That is to say, the western view is that the effect of morality is a ramification of another process or system, outside ourselves, which then effects us. Either God, or the state reaches out and gives retribution for crimes committed. If you are a western utilitarian, you believe that incorrect behavior is likely to effect either your environment or God's judgment of you, which in turn will effect you.
In Buddhist thought, however, the effects of moral action are primary, since there exists no real differentiation between self and other either in the form of an individual or a system. This idea is not wholly absent in the west. It is expressed in the statement of Saint Paul that, "Sin is punishment". The idea being, that to be out of a state of grace is by its very nature, suffering. This, however, is a theological premise that is latent in western thought and does not occupy the attention of the average moral person in western society. It is, oddly enough, a perfect expression of the Buddhist moral world view.
For a Buddhist, the very fact that one is in delusion means that one is suffering, since suffering is the nature of delusion, just as non suffering is the nature of enlightenment. Speech is the first manifestation of ones enlightenment or ones delusion. It in turn can produce either enlightenment or delusion. Just as we have seen with the interaction of right view and right resolution, right speech is an activity which both effects each of these two, and is effected by them.
Speech either reinforces the energy of right resolution, or dissipates it by corrupting the principles of right view. When we think, we think with words. It is a very important thing to realize that words are the effective means of shaping the structure of thought itself. What we allow to escape our mouths is directly governed by our resolve and expresses that mastery of the second path. Sloppy or incorrect speech is the result of either weak view or weak resolve.
The effect of wrong speech follows the same paradigm of destructive interrelationship to right intentions as does wrong intentions to right view. Its effect is to disrupt the psychic ecosystem by feeding back energy inconsistent with the goals of the conscious mind. If we program the unconscious to accept irrational behavior as normal, the result is an increase in personal suffering.
Right speech is broken down into four categories;
- truthful speech,
- non-slanderous speech,
- gentle or non-harsh speech, and
- serious or non-frivolous speech.
The first category is fairly clear. We need to speak truthfully to be in accord with the truth. As we have seen earlier, to be out of accord with truth is, for the Buddhist, to be in a state of suffering. One might say, that for the Buddhist, the consequences of untruthful speech are more odious than they are for even religious Westerners.
From the Buddhist perspective, lack of truth of any kind is cutting one self off from enlightenment, just the same as a perverse will in Christian thought is believed to be cutting oneself off from grace. From this dharma perspective, one either is truth as process or is not. There is no real person to receive either grace or punishment, so when we employ lies in our life we are becoming the process of deceit itself. This being the case, our being becomes fundamentally out of sync with the universe.
Compounding this is the fact that since we are part of the spiritual ecosystem, we are polluting the system itself. A society is based on trust, and when lying or misrepresentation becomes a normal occurrence, then society ceases to function effectively. This means the fundamental purpose of society to integrate the lives of its members into a unity of mutual identity, is violated. Society degenerates into a mere organization of individuals ruled by government. No one trusts one another in such an enshrinement and everyone feels constrained to protect themselves by the use of force or litigation. Lawyers and thugs begin to predominate and one relies on either one or the other.
The other aspect of lying, which makes it so deleterious, is that it requires more and more lies to support the original one. An entire system of lies has to be created that will support a world view which is inconsistent with the world. In the life of an individual this produces a disastrous schism between the real world and themselves. The lies isolate a person from experience, and lays down a veil of deception between the world and oneself.
Lies can be motivated out of greed, malice, or delusion. We can lie because we wish to obtain something, because we wish to hurt someone, or out of compulsion. The first type of lie witnesses a problem with right view, in as much as the liar does not understand that possessions are of no real significance. They view things as more important than harmonious relations with people. To lie for the purpose of hurting someone, exhibits a lack of understanding of our mutual identity with others. This action also violates our commitment to follow the path of harmlessness. A state of delusion will produce the compulsive lie; the lying for entertainment or self aggrandizement. We delude ourselves into thinking that we need to be something we are not, and this delusion requires that we create an imaginary history for ourselves.
In a society that values honesty, it is not too difficult to live a life in accordance with the principle of right speech. However, in this community that pays only lip service to the value of truth, right speech requires an extraordinary commitment to spiritual principles. For instance, if you have an irrational, tyrannical boss who demands more of you than you can possibly produce, you may slip into the lie as a way of putting him off. Or you may be employed as a spokesman in a business that misrepresents its products. We have seen how men in the highest levels of government treat truth as a convenient tool to be utilized as they wish. Their wanton disregard for the truth as a spiritual principle, and our acceptance of this attitude as a necessary evil of power, says a lot about why this nation is more a government than a true society.
The effects of accepting lies and misrepresentation as necessary evils in ones life is so insidious that it will undermine all the rest of ones' spiritual training. The idea that one can lie for our employer or government and escape personal retribution is deluded. This is the basic delusion which drives men to do evil, and feel justified as long as that evil is dictated by the state. The danger in a person justifying lying, resides in the essential negation of the spiritual process. This is not the same as the Christian sense of sin, which is an act in violation of God's will and can be remedied by repentance and grace. It is more like the ecological effect of poisoning a spring. The effects of the lies cause diverse negative reactions within the spiritual environment which require a clean up of the entire system.
As dangerous as the effects of untruthful language are, there is one thing that can be even more deleterious to spiritual practice and that is slanderous speech. If there is one problem that seems to be endemic to western dharma centers, it is in the use of slanderous speech. Too many students are quite ready to repeat the latest gossip about one of the teachers or his students in order to buttress their own view of their tradition as superior. They readily quote teachers out of context to other teachers or students in order to get a reaction. Strong teachers do not take the bait, however.
An example of this occurred one afternoon at Tahl Ma Sah Zen Center in Los Angeles. The teacher, the great Korean Zen Master, Seung Sahn Sa Nim, was answering questions concerning dharma practice when a visiting student from a Tibetan Center asked him the following, "Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche says that Zen is like black and white and Vajrayana is like Technicolor. What do you think of that?" Seung San Sa Nim smiled and answered, "Which to you prefer?"
This poor fellow had misunderstood the meaning of Trungpa Rinpoche's comment, which was not a judgment about the relative merits of each tradition, (he had a great respect for Zen) but on the respective approach to practice, with Zen being Spartan and direct, while Vajrayana is more elaborate and colorful. This person was more than willing to create discord among the two groups by using slanderous speech. It is said of the Bodhisattva that accord gladdens him, and he seeks to spread harmony and good will. The only way to do this is to avoid this childish competition which seeks to raise one by injuring others.
In order to fulfill our spiritual mission it is necessary to restrain from harsh speech of any kind. Now this is a very difficult thing to do if one is not grounded in a view of self that includes others. As we have stated earlier, right view precludes the notion that we are a real thing which exists independently of other things. Our essential nature is the dynamic interaction of life, pure process, it is not static. Therefore, when someone does something which offends us, we should reflect upon who it is that is offended, and why. This will lead us back to a knowledge of process as being, and short circuit the anger process.
If we do not do this then we will give in to harsh and angry speech which will injure ourselves and others. We have to keep in mind that every action we take has ramifications beyond ourselves. This extends to acts of self destruction they will effect our environment as well as ourselves. It is necessary to be stern on occasion, particularly when we are in a position of authority and responsible for others well-being. That sternness, however, never requires abusive speech. In fact, when we call someone a name such as idiot, fool, etc., we are indulging in the delusion that their actions are generated out of a static being, rather than a dynamic process.
When we indulge in this we are telling ourselves that our own being is static and we then reinforce this notion on our unconscious. We must then be either a genius, fool, idiot, sage, or whatever sobriquet we choose for ourselves instead of a dynamic process as taught by right view. We then begin to attach enormous emotional significance to our actions, leading to excessive pride or guilt. When we view ourselves as process, then we are able to accept and change the various aspects of our personality as being as temporal as the rest of existence.
When we accomplish this, then we look at others with the same eye that sees a person who is the result of the countless interplay of Karmic forces capable of both sagacity and foolishness. Alarm takes the place of anger in situations where harmful or dangerous elements approach. We cease to make judgments about persons and confine our attention to the quality of their actions. The same is true of our own actions. We do not concern ourselves with whether we are superior or inferior, but whether our actions are inferior or superior.
An example of the difference in speech between corrective speech and harsh speech would be in the following example. You are working in a paint shop and one of your co-workers places a leaky can of paint thinner next to a gas heater. An example of harsh speech would be to yell, "Hey, idiot! Do you want to get us all killed?" Corrective speech would be, "Hey, John, watch the heater with that can. Are you O.K.? You usually are very careful. Is something bothering you?" While the first response will doubtlessly get John's attention, it will not make your relationship with him any easier. The second response, witnessing both the concern for the situation and John as a person, is likely to create a better relationship in the process.
Although this is rather a simple example of common sense, it never the less is the type of situation we face every day and often handle badly. After dealing with many of these occasions, people soon gain a reputation as either a concerned, kind person or a jerk. Another type of harsh speech which is much more subtle, but just as destructive, is the use of sarcasm and acerbic wit. While this is something that most people do not find to be very odious since, in this culture, we place high regard on the clever comeback or put down. As adolescents in America, we held the "chop" or put-down to be high art. Some of our most popular comedians are experts in ridicule. This makes it all seem like good clean fun, but is it?
From the standpoint of spiritual practice, sarcasm, invective, and insult aimed at an individual, is a sign of someone who is not serious in the path. To poke wit at a funny situation because it exhibits the absurdity of wrong thinking and action is not incorrect, as long as that jibe is not aimed at a particular person or group. When you attack a person or group, you are not attacking wrong thinking, and you are guilty of the delusion of self, which we have already discussed.
The problem is that we get into the habit of teasing one another out of a sense of insecurity which won't allow us to confront problems in a rational manner. This is a problem we witness quite often in marriages, with each spouse joking about the others alleged shortcomings.
This kind of behavior may seem harmless enough, but it is not. It leads to a situation where real problems are never confronted. Instead, they are circumambulated like Buddhist Stupas, with each party chanting out insults in place of mantras. We can become so attached to such behavior that we find it difficult to free ourselves from it. We begin to lose our ability to confront issues without the overlay of humor.
So much of humor in the media is this kind of self deprecating humor, that the put-down has become the joke par excellence for this culture. The type of Chaplinesque humor of pathos has disappeared in favor of Don Rickles or Roseanne Barr. If a person finds this sort of thing funny, then it is a good indication of spiritual pathology. A little self deprecating humor among friends who know each other well can be therapeutic, provided that it is aimed at areas where the other person is comfortably aware of their shortcomings. One should be able to receive some gently poking in return, with the same spirit of humility. The key to the difference in pathological humor and good humor is in the gentleness and corrective nature of one versus the acerbic defamatory nature of the other.
When we talk of the kind of humor one enjoys, we begin to enter another area of speech that can cause a good deal of trouble to our spiritual practice. That is what the Buddha described as frivolous speech. This is speech that does nothing to enhance our understanding of the world, our practice, or our relationships with each other.
This is an area of the problem of right speech that is a good deal subtler than slander, lies, sarcasm, and harsh speech. This is because what may appear as serious speech, because of the subject matter, is in reality frivolous speech and what may appear as frivolous speech may be serious speech in disguise. The difference lies in the intent and spirit of the speech. We all have heard pedants, Buddhist and others, arguing over some esoteric point of doctrine. To a casual observer, this would appear to be serious since it consists of subtle philosophical arguments.
However, this is a perfect example of frivolous speech. This is because its goal is not consistent with practice. There is nothing to be gained by knowing how many Bodhisattvas can dance on the head of a pin or by coming to any other, purely speculative, philosophical conclusion. The sole point of the argument is most likely ego gratification, unless it is part of a formal training in logic. On the other hand, a seemingly trivial conversation with a child, about how to eat ones cereal, may be dharmic. Provided that intent is to help the child better relate to the world.
A Buddhist practitioner must always be able to apply skillful means in his or her dealings with the world. That means a relationship to speech that is grounded in compassion and wisdom. The thing that is stressed the most in our practice is flexibility, not only of action, but mentally as well. This allows us to see the importance in taking our time and talking with someone who might have an interest totally divorced from our own, simply to establish a bond of compassion with him. Skillful means requires that we adapt to situations using our heart and mind and not our ego. We cannot help another or be helped unless we allow ourselves to open to another's reality.
Therefore, no conversation should be avoided if it brings about a potential for bringing harmony into the world. Nor should we engage in any conversation which will separate us from our view and resolve for the good. This means that we have to choose our companions not for their intellect or mutual interests, but for their heart and mutual resolve toward the good.
This may mean that we choose as friends people outside of our own spiritual tradition whose love of the good and right action is stronger than some of our co-religionists. We should choose our associates according to the quality of their lives. After all, no tradition exerts so much control that it forces a person to practice what they preach. There are always going to be some people, in the tradition, whose attitude is less than sincere. While we should try to encourage such people, socializing with them may do us more harm, than it does them good.
Ultimately, the power of right speech will serve as a vehicle for the energy of right view and resolution to carry over into daily action. The practice of correct speech is an essential unifying force in spiritual practice. It is not as the old children's rhyme would have it, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Words, ill chosen, invariably lead to the sticks and stones that injure both ourselves and others. The thoughts we form in our mind are governed by our view. These thoughts are in the form of words, and if we release them it is because we resolve to. The first three noble paths are linked together in such a way as to make it impossible to violate one and leave the others unaffected. This being the case, we do have to be careful that those elements which effect our view and resolve, are wholesome, otherwise wrong speech is a necessary outcome. This makes it incumbent upon spiritual practitioners to limit their environment in accordance with their spiritual practice.
