Obviously, Buddhists often applaud silence, but what about not talking to someone in a relationship, which is often associated with passive aggression and abuse. What about a silence that ends up destroying someone?

Suppose I suggest that someone else eats meat or steals someone's property: is the karma the same as performing the act? What if I allow them to do so, explicitly or implicitly? Is the karma defined by e.g. what I want the other person to do or what I expect and plan them to do?

Couple of questions: 1. According to the Dhamma, is it allowed to critisize someone in a constructive manner? 2. If someone gossips about me how do I deal with it? Compassion and kindness aside, sometimes it is necessary to be assertive. One can only be compassionate if one is healthy inside in that moment in time. 3. Intention is a little bit more important than the act itself, (isnt it- at least in Buddhism) (only in a few instances is the act more important than the intention for example stealing is wrong even if one's family is poor), however, if for example I slice my bread in the supermarket and I see remaining pieces of bread in the machine and I take them with me because no one did I then so no reason why I would largely violete the "not taking what is not given". Sure, it wasn't given but if my attention or thought is: "Well, if I don't take it it will be wasted" then that should rather influence my kamma, right? So it's largely about my intention. If I hurt someone out of compassion because he attacks someone and injures them severely I have better results because my intention was to safe others, correct?

> "And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering." > > -- Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, [MN 38](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html) There are many suttas in the canon where the Buddha admonishes monks, and the above is a notable example. The translations, at least to my eyes, come as particularly harsh: "worthless" (in Nanamoli/Bodhi, we read "misguided" instead of "worthless". I've also read "foolish" elsewhere) -- there was another reprimand from the Buddha, almost mean as I recall how I felt while reading it, but which I could not find again. I've constantly felt troubled with these passages. I also look with very suspicious eyes the dribbling with "The buddha was harsh for their own good" (unless, if it is the Buddha himself justifying his harsh words, not we trying to excuse him and spare the texts). I find it troubling specially in light of: - the very explicit *right speech* teachings, promoting the abandonment of harsh words. - the difficulty of reconcile harsh "formations" in a mind free of defilements. Are the other/older versions (say, chinese, pali and tibetan) of these passages evoking somewhat equivalent harsh emotions on a reader? Or is it a particularity of the english translations? (Or is it just me?) Otherwise, were these harsh reprimands ever discussed (in books, commentaries, etc)?

Thanks for the hospitality of this forum. I have recently started investigating Buddhism with some seriousness, seeking for answers to my spiritual thirst and looking for a practical path to address my problem with anger and harsh speech. I discovered Buddha in a 10 days Vipassana retirement. Every night,after long hours of meditation, we listened to a lecture by SN Goenka. Even though they are very introductory, these speeches have the huge merit of bringing a glimpse of the Eightfold Path and Buddha's life and wisdom to the absolute newbie, such as I was at that time. l was shocked by the stories of Kisa Gotami and Angulimala, and marvelled at the way Buddha dealt with all sorts of challenging situations, his wise and compassionate teaching style, adapted to people of the most diverse backgrounds and levels of understanding. Those stories made me seek for more information about Buddha: I wanted to hear he most remote echoes of his voice, the records of his teachings closest to the historical time he lived and taught. That's how I discovered the Pali Canon, which I am trying to compile from the translations of various Bikkhus from Thai and Sri Lankan traditions (I am Spanish and unfortunately I cannot understand Pali, so I am relying on English translations of the suttas from SuttaCentral, Dhammatalks, Bikkhu Analayo, etc)... I am seriously considering taking refuge in the Three Jewels, but as i stated above, I have a problem with anger and harsh speech, as I am a bit hot tempered and lack of patience with some people. Even though I acknowledge the harm i do to others and to myself, I LACK MODELS and EXAMPLES of alternative ways of reacting and communicating... examples of right speech IN PRACTiCE, in a range of different real life situations... How do you deal wisely with people that do not want to help with domestic chores? How do you talk to people that dismiss your ideas and way of living? How do you talk wisely in any sort of inter-personal or social conflict? I would be most grateful if you could give examples of right speech in action, drawn from the stories of the Buddha and some of his wise disciples (such as Sariputta, etc), anecdotes of Buddhist men and women showing a wise way to respond to practical situations involving conflict with others. I am most grateful for your help, as I am scared of dying with this anger and harshness, without being able to become wiser... This is a huge hindrance for my spiritual progress that I do not know yet how to overcome. Thanks to all from my heart.

Imagine a journalist writing about the crimes of a mafia boss or corruption in a dictatorial government, and other people pounce on history and share it on social media. Is what the Jornalist and/or those who spread his articles do divisive speech? Keep in mind that this type of news is mainly read for entertainment and will cause ill will against the perpetrators in most readers. On the other hand, this type of journalism is an important mechanism that ensures that corruption does not spiral out of control. Bonus question: Is journalism right livelihood?

If someone is intentionally deceiving someone else and if I am aware of it, if I inform the innocent person in this matter, would that be against five precepts?

I am often harsh, though I don't think hurtful, in speech about others, because of my schizophrenia and psychosis. I often believe they are up to no good and need to be stopped verbally from doing that. Can you advise on how best to work on that? I have not taken any precept that prohibits it, but then it is my default bad karma.

In AN 10.176 idle chatter is defined as > He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance > with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya. He speaks words worth > treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the > goal. Bearing this in mind - is right speech purely connected with the Dharma? Should one speak of the Dharma and nothing else? From my own perspective some idle chit chat which has the effect of putting someone at ease in a social situation is a kindness. Similarly chatting to the daughter about nothing in particular is building the bonds of caring and again feels like the right thing to do. However would both those actions be classified as idle chatter and would not be right speech? On a personal note I probably do talk too much so a bit less idle chatter would do me some good i think.

Throughout the Pali Canon you can find instances where the Buddha appears to engage in harsh speech that seems to be contrary to the noble eighfold path. There are several important points/possibilities to understand first: 1. It may just be the appearance of harsh speech, and not actually contrary to the path. 2. My understanding of harsh speech may be too gentle compared to what the Buddha intended, and rather the way he engages in what seems to be 'harsh speech' is the norm (or limit) of gentle speech. 3. The Suttas may be fabricated and inauthentic. 4. The Sutta in question may be authentic and the speech may be harsh, yet the Tathagata may be engaging in harsh speech because he knows the limits of all actions and cannot be reckoned by Karma. There are (at least) several Sutta instances of the Buddha engaging in what would seem to me to be harsh speech. These examples are not common and they are hard to find without re-reading sections of the Pali Canon. Here is one that I remember off the top of my head: > "Of whom do you know, foolish man, that I have taught to him the teaching in that manner? Did I not, foolish man, speak in many ways of those obstructive things that they are obstructions indeed, and that they necessarily obstruct him who pursues them? Sense desires, so I have said, bring little enjoyment, and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. Sense desires are like bare bones, have I said; they are like a lump of flesh... they are like a snake's head, have I said. They bring much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. But you, O foolish man, have misrepresented us by what you personally have wrongly grasped. You have undermined your own (future) and have created much demerit. This, foolish man, will bring you much harm and suffering for a long time." > >Then the Blessed One addressed the monks thus: "What do you think, O monks: has that monk Ari.t.tha, formerly of the vulture killers, produced any spark (of understanding) in this teaching and discipline?" — "How should that be, Lord? Certainly not, O Lord." > >After these words the monk Ari.t.tha, formerly of the vulture killers, sat silent, confused, with his shoulders drooping and his head bent, brooding and incapable of making a rejoinder. **The Discourse on the Snake Simile** Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22) To me the tone of the speech is an example of harsh speech. If I were to use this kind of speech in my day-to-day life I would consider myself not living up to the standard of Right Speech as per the Noble Eightfold Path. I understand, however, that the Buddha controls his speech masterfully. In that case, how did this sort of speech come to be? There is no clause in 'Right Speech' that allows us to engage in harsh speech for the greater good - for example rebuking a monk harshly. That being said, do not mistake this for casting doubt on the Buddha. I consider him a good example of what everyone should act like and his control of virtue, faculties, and activities is something everyone should strive for. Also, there are several more examples. I have read through chunks of the Pali Canon and there are other Suttas where the Buddha engages in speech I would again consider a violation of Right Speech (not that I have a perfect record of Right Speech). My question is why? Why not rebuke without harshness and adhere perfectly to gentleness?

Is there a phrase for speech which doesn't hurt someone's feelings, isn't gossip or malicious (meant to harm them in some way), but is in some sense still wrong speech? A sort of *indignant* speech? > feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair > treatment. Is it forbidden, bad karma? I understand that it is often *unhelpful*, but am unsure if it's neutral or wrong.

Say one has gravely fallen into slavehood by consuming 'free' and, almost unaware, is driven to steal and pull the Gems and it's heritage, into this evil bound. Almost unaware and deluded, he even thinks he does a good by following a Robin Hood like lane, trying to gain surface by pulling Sublime into his sink. What does good householder think: Which fruit, by acts grave wrong view (taking ungiven, cheating, hiding up, disregard...), following demand and 'my right' (given by Lord Mara, industy and his host), has he and those he encourage likewise, to expects, how ever 'naively good' he might justify his ways, even it directly warned? Liberation or long time even lower slave of Mara and his host? Sure, answer honest and in line with the teacher, after having reflected wise, might change ones ways, and one might not only seek for excuse old but change the way toward out. Yet those answers might be rare and less voted up, naturally, bound like-a-like.

When the Sublime Buddha discredited some wanderers' position by uprooting their stand, would it be correct to assume that such an act is made for their harm, the harm of many, even his own? What does someone who is informed on this matter think?

Can lying be the correct action in certain situations? Bhikkhu Bodhi gave an example of a situation where lying might be appropriate: In World War II some nice people would hide those oppressed by the Nazis. If Nazis come and ask these nice people if they are hiding Jewish people, would it be the appropriate action to tell the truth?

I've been reading through the newest version of the code of conduct of the company I work for, and I've been weighing each rule against my Buddhist ethics, and it has brought up some interesting questions for me. One thing the code of conduct says is that if one witnesses something improper, and does not report it, that constitutes a violation. I think, for most serious offenses this is in line with the Buddha's teachings (for example, sexual harassment, violence, etc). But for certain other offenses, it's not very clear to me whether reporting them would be considered divisive speech, i.e. wrong speech. The Buddha defines unskillful verbal action, in part, thusly: > What he has heard here he tells there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he tells here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus breaking apart those who are united and stirring up strife between those who have broken apart, he loves factionalism, delights in factionalism, enjoys factionalism, speaks things that create factionalism. — [AN 10:165](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_165.html) So, two questions pertaining to two very concrete examples: 1. Suppose one witnesses corruption. If one reports it to the police, is that considered divisive speech? Could it be said that one is setting up the police against the perpetrator? 2. Suppose someone confides in one about a relationship in the workplace (not disallowed by the code of conduct, _unless_ it goes unreported). Could it be considered divisive speech if one reports the relationship to the company's ethics body?

In a comment to an answer on this site I saw this: > To the folks who insist on downvoting, please note that downvoting is > extremely unhelpful and actually qualifies as divisive and harsh > speech. Do others agree? Does downvoting an answer necessarily qualify as divisive and harsh speech? I've thought of it as a form of feedback. Of course, if it is possible to elaborate and provide more constructive feedback then by all means... Does downvoting violate the precept on correct speech?

What is *musāvādā* in the five precepts? On this five precepts page, it is translated as "incorrect speech", presumably by Ven. Thanissaro. On this DN 27 page, Ven. Sujato translated it as "false speech". In Iti 25 , Ven. Thanissaro instead translated it as lying. From SN 45.8 , we read the definition of right speech as follows: > And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, > from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech. So what exactly is *musāvādā* in the five precepts? Does it refer to only lying or untruthful speech? Or is it considered "incorrect speech", the opposite of Right Speech, that includes lying, divisive speech and abusive speech? If *musāvādā* is not "incorrect speech", the opposite of Right Speech, then what is the correct Pali term for the opposite of Right Speech? Please provide references to suttas if available.

There is a famous story of such an encounter between the Buddha and a ‘difficult person’ named Akkosina. Akkosina’s name means “Not Getting Angry” but he was the exact opposite of his name. Akkosina was easily angered and was always angry about something or someone. When he heard that the Buddha did not get angry with anyone he immediately decided to visit him. He went up to the Buddha and scolded him for all sorts of things, insulting him and calling him awful names. At the end of this angry speech, the Buddha asked this man if he had any friends or relatives. “Yes.” Akokosina replied. “When you visit them, do you take them gifts?” the Buddha asked. “Of course, I always bring them gifts.” The angry man replied. “Then what happens if they don’t accept your gifts?” The Buddha asked. “Well I take them home and enjoy them with my own family” “And likewise,” said the Buddha, “You have brought me a gift here today that I do not accept, and so you may take that gift home to your family.” source: Akkosa sutta (SN 7.2) Is there more to learn from the story of the angry man? If someone insults you, it is hard to not be affected by it. So how to balance out your emotions and begin the day from a place of happiness, and how to respond in the same light?

What does the Noble Eightfold Path say about right speech when it comes to persuasion and influence?

I'm talking about a peaceful demonstration against a corrupt government. The point is: It can be seen as divisive speech because there will be people against it.