The Buddha’s Teachings on Right Speech – How to speak (and write) in a wholesome manner.
Of the Buddha’s teachings regarding morality and self-discipline, it is my feeling that those regarding right speech are what most of us go against the most often. After all, how many of us have committed murder or would even be likely to? How many of us have taken something that was not given of such significance that it would be a chargeable offense? We might liberate a pencil from our office, but steal a car or rob a bank? Though unfaithfulness in relationships may be more common than most of us would like, I think I can say that most people are faithful most of the time. The precept against intoxication is commonly ignored but then again most people who drink do so responsibly at least most of the time (I have a hard time considering having a single glass of wine or beer with dinner a transgression against intoxication – but maybe that’s just me) and the majority of people do not partake of illegal drugs. Everyone, however, finds themselves in situations where they transgress against what the Buddha would consider right speech, and it happens all too frequently, and all the more frequently if one considers online communication. So I am writing this to reflect upon what the Buddha did teach about right speech. I don’t foresee having to explain or interpret much since this material is extremely straightforward (though I have changed some Pali words in the quotations to Sanskrit as they would be more familiar to American Buddhists).
Let’s begin with how the Buddha explained the right speech portion of the eightfold path:
And what, monks, is right speech? Abstinence from false speech, abstinence from malicious speech, abstinence from harsh speech, abstinence from idle chatter: this is called right speech. (In the Buddha’s Words, p. 239, citing the Samyutta Nikaya 45:8; V. 8-10)
I think that’s pretty straightforward. Now here is the Buddha’s further explanation of right speech in terms of the four parts of the ten courses of wholesome conduct that pertain to abstaining from false speech, malicious speech, harsh speech, and idle chatter:
And how, householders, are there four kinds of righteous verbal conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma? Here someone, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech; when summoned to a court, or to a meeting, or to his relative’s presence, or to his guild, or to the royal family’s presence, and questioned as a witness thus: ‘So, good man, tell what you know,’ not knowing, he says, ‘I do not know,’ or knowing, he says, ‘I I know’; not seeing, he says, ‘I do not see,’ or seeing, he says, ‘I see’; he does not in full awareness speak falsehoods for his own ends, or for another’s ends, or for some trifling worldly end. Abandoning malicious speech, he abstains from malicious speech; he does not repeat elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide [those people] from these, nor does he repeat to these people what he has heard elsewhere in order to divide [these people] from those; thus he is one who reunites those who are divided, a promoter of friendships, who enjoys concord, rejoices in concord, delights in concord, a speaker of words that promote concord. Abandoning harsh speech, he abstains from harsh speech; he speaks such words as are gentle, pleasing to the ear, and loveable, as go to the heart, are courteous, desired by many, and agreeable to many. Abandoning idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter; he speaks at the right time, speaks what is fact, speaks on what is good, speaks on the Dharma and the Discipline; at the right time he speaks such words as are worth recording, reasonable, moderate, and beneficial. That is how there are four kinds of righteous verbal conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma. (In the Buddha’s Words, p. 159, citing the Majjhima Nikaya 41)
In the following passage from the Sutta-Nipāta, the Buddha contrasts dogmatists with the sage who is free of dogmas.
The person abiding by a certain dogmatic view, considering it is the highest in the world, claims ‘This is the most excellent’, and disparages other views different from that as inferior. As a result, he is not free from disputation.
When he sees personal advantages from the things that he has seen, heard or cognized, or from rule or rite, he clings passionately to that alone and sees everything else as inferior.
The experts say that it is a bond to depend on what one associates with and to see everything else as inferior. Therefore, the disciplined one should not trust in things seen, heard or felt or in rules and rites.
A disciplined man does not engender dogmatic views in the world either by knowledge or by rule or rite. Therefore, he does not consider himself ‘superior’, ‘inferior’ or ‘equal’.
The sage has abandoned the notion of self or ego and is free from clinging. He does not depend even on knowledge; he does not take sides in the midst of controversy; he has no dogmatic views.
For him there is no desire to strive for this or that, in this world or the next. He has ceased to associate with dogmas for he no longer requires the solace that dogmas offer.
To the sage there is not the slightest prejudiced view with regard to things seen, heard or felt. How can anyone in the world characterize by thought such a pure one who does not dogmatically grasp any views?
They neither form any particular dogma nor prefer anything. Dogmatic views are not esteemed by them. The brahman is not led by rule and rite. Thus, the steadfast one has gone to the further shore, never more to return. (Saddhatissa, pp, 94-95, Sutta-Nipāta v. 796-803)
The foolish are those who cling to dogmas and to rules and rituals, who look down on others and enter into all kinds of arguments. The sages, who the Buddha also refers to as the disciplined and even as “brahmans” (the educated priestly caste but here referring to those with the qualities of an ideal brahman), are those who are free of such dogmas and thus of clinging and disputation. It is not that there are not right or wrong views, or things that should or should not be done. The problem is that clinging dogmatically to any view or course of action, even a correct view or wholesome course of action, leads to clinging, self-righteousness, bondage, disputation, and thereby the perpetuation of suffering for oneself and others.
Below is another passage from the Sutta-Nipāta that makes a similar point about the futility and suffering entered into by those who engage in philosophical disputes.
They say that purity is their alone; they do not say that there is purity in the teachings of others. Whatever teaching they have devoted themselves to, they claim that as the most excellent and thus separately hold diverse truths.
The debaters, having entered into the gathering, start disputes calling each other fools; since they are depending on certain teachers, they seek praise, calling themselves experts.
Engaged in disputations in the mists of a gathering, one become frustrated in one’s quest for praise. In defeat he becomes downcast and, seeking for flaws in others, become enraged by their criticism.
When those who have tested his questions say that his talk is faulty, he laments, grieves and wails in his worthless disputes saying, ‘They have defeated me!’
These disputes arise among recluses and as a result of them there is elation and depression. Seeing this, avoid disputation. There is no value in it other than the praise won thereby.
He who is praised in the midst of a gathering for having successfully defended his view, will be thrilled with joy and be much elated in mind for having won his case.
Elation itself is the ground of his downfall; for he still talks with pride and arrogance. Seeing this, one should not dispute; for the wise never say that purification is achieved thereby.
Like the bold one nourished by good food, he goes forth roaring for a rival. Wherever there is such a rival you may go there. But here, there is nothing left as before which could provoke a fight.
Those who have embraced a certain theory and argue over it maintaining that alone is the truth, you may talk with such people. But here, ‘there is no opponent to battle with you’.
Those who fare on, having overcome opposition without countering any one theory with another, what would you obtain, O bold one, from them? For them there is nothing embraced as the highest.
Speculating in your mind on different philosophical views, you have come reflecting on them. But you cannot go along yoked together with the one who is purified. (Saddhatissa, pp, 96-98, Sutta-Nipāta v. 814-834)
In another passage from the Sutta-Nipāta the Buddha clarifies that speculative philosophical views, traditions, knowledge, virtues and rituals do not of themselves bring about purification from the inner defilements that bring about suffering; but neither is purification attained without such things. These are all skillful means that can help if they are not themselves turned into objects of craving. They are means that should not be confused with the end that is their purpose, or that very purpose will be defeated.
The Buddha: O Māgandiya, after studying what the mean hold fast to, I do not say, ‘This I declare.’ Seeing all these views, but not grasping them and searching for the truth, I found inward peace.
Māgandiya: Noble sage, without grasping those judgments incorporated in the speculative systems, you talk of inward peace. How is it described by the wise?
The Buddha: I do not say one attains ‘purification’ by view, tradition, knowledge, virtue or ritual, nor is it attained without view, tradition, knowledge, virtue or ritual. It is only taking these factors as the means and not grasping them as ends in themselves that one so attains and consequently does not crave for rebecoming.
Māgandiya: If you do not say that ‘purification’ is not attained by view, tradition, knowledge and ritual nor by absence of these – it seems to me that your lore is nonsense, because some deem ‘purification’ is from view.
The Buddha: Because of your view you are continually asking these questions. It is because you are obsessed with your preconceived notions that you are holding fast. From this you have not perceived the least sense: that is why you see this as nonsense.
He who thinks himself ‘equal’, ‘inferior’ or ‘superior’ to others, by that very reason enters disputation. But there are not such thoughts ‘equal’, ‘inferior’ or ‘superior’ to him who is unmoved by these three measurements.
Why should the arhat argue with whom he contends saying ‘This is truth’ or ‘That is a lie’? If one has no such thoughts ‘equal’ or ‘unequal’, with whom should he enter into dispute?
The sage who has forsaken his home, not entering upon intimate relations in villages, free from lust, not giving preference [to mundane desire] – he does not engage in disputatious talk with people.
The noble one who wanders in the world, liberated from views, does not grasp them and enter into arguments. As the thorny lotus rises on its stalk unsoiled by mud and water, so the sage, speaker of peace and free from desire, is unsoiled by the world and its carnal pleasures.
That wise one does not become conceited through views or knowledge, for he is not attached to that sort. He is neither enticed by action nor by learning, being detached in every circumstance.
There are no ties to him who is free from ideas, there are no delusions to him who is delivered by wisdom. Those who grasp ideas and views, wander about coming into conflict with the world. (Saddhatissa, pp, 98-99, Sutta-Nipāta v. 837-847)
Again and again the Buddha makes the point once more that the wise do not rigidly hold to their own narrow view and do not enter into disputes.
Standing rigidly to his own view and depending on his own criteria, he enters into dispute in the world. Desisting from all theories the wise one does not enter into dispute in the world. (Saddhatissa, p. 104, Sutta-Nipāta v. 894)
In the following and final passage I’d like to share from the Sutta-Nipāta, the Buddha explains that the noble one is not like the dogmatist who is so partisan and dependent on theories and speculations that cause him (or her) to enter into all kinds of arguments. The noble person is one who has had personal experience of liberation and so is no longer reliant on or concerned about all the various speculative views and systems that others argue so vehemently about. The point being that those who argue about the truth certainly do not know it for themselves, nor are they following the way whereby they could ever know it as they get further and further lost in their speculations, dogmas, and disputations.
Not easy to discipline the dogmatist who says this is the truth, being misguided by views. Saying that good is in such preconceptions, he is given to saying that purity is inherent as he has so seen.
The noble one having perceived things through knowledge, does not enter into speculations. Having learnt of diverse theories that have arisen among others, he is indifferent to them whilst others labor to embrace them.
The sage, being freed from worldly ties, remains peaceful among the restless. He is indifferent among sectarian squabbles, not embracing them whilst others remain attached.
Having abandoned former defilements, not inducing new ones, not becoming partisan, he is free from dogmatic views. Being wise, he neither clings to the world nor blames himself.
By overcoming all the theories based on seen, heard or thought he is a sage who has released his burden and is liberated, not imaginative in views, not aspiring for anything – so said the Buddha. (Saddhatissa, p. 106, Sutta-Nipāta v. 914)
Unfortunately, as today, many people in the Buddha’s day did lose themselves in dogma and polemics. In regard to this, the Buddha taught the parable of the blind men and the elephant to his monks after they had observed the members of other schools of thought arguing with each other about the nature of the Dharma. The Udana says of these disputants that “they lived quarrelsome, disputatious and wrangling, wounding each other with verbal darts, saying: ‘Dharma is like this, Dharma is not like that! Dharma is not like this, Dharma is like that!’ “The Buddha comments that these sectarians are blind and argue because they do not actually know what is or is not Dharma. He then tells the story of a king who, for his own perverse amusement, summoned several men who were blind from birth to his court and had each of them feel a part of an elephant and then asked them all to say what an elephant is like.
Those blind people who had been shown the head of the elephant replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a water-jar.” Those blind people who had been shown the ear of the elephant replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a winnowing-basket.” Those blind people who had been shown the tusk of the elephant replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a ploughshare.” Those blind people who had been shown the body replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a storeroom.” Those blind people who had been shown the hindquarters replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a mortar.” Those blind people who had been shown the tail replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a pestle.” Those blind people who had been shown the tuft at the end of the tail replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.”
Saying “An elephant is like this, an elephant is not like that! An elephant is not like this, an elephant is like that!” They fought each other with fists. And the king was delighted (with the spectacle).
Even so, monks, are those wanderers of various sects blind, unseeing…saying, “Dharma is like this!…Dharma is like that!”
Then on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance:
Some recluses and brahmins, so called,
Are deeply attached to their own views;
People who only see one side of things
Engage in quarrels and disputes.
(adapted from The Udana, pp. 91-94)
Many who have heard a version of this parable assume that the point is that we all should admit that we have only a partial grasp of the truth and so should be humble and open-minded or at least tolerant of different views and not argue about them like the blind men fighting over their partial understanding of what an elephant is. But in the original context, the Buddha’s is saying that unlike himself the disputatious sectarians are like blind men because they do not know for themselves what is beneficial or what is Dharma, and that is why they are arguing about it. They do not see the whole picture and are incapable of seeing it. We know from the Buddha’s other discourses that he did claim to know what is beneficial and to know what the Dharma is. In other words, the Buddha is like the king who can see the whole elephant. So his point is not that no one knows the truth and therefore we should all be agnostics. Rather, his point is that clinging to contradictory partial truths will not enable anyone to overcome egoism, and will lead to the kind of arguing and fighting the monks witnessed. The Buddha, however, claims that he and his disciples hold “right view” which is not one-sided or biased but whole and complete because it is not based on speculation but on their own direct personal experience and also because they do not hold “right view” in the wrong way, which would make it into just another dogmatic view.
On one occasion, the Buddhists observed the sectarian infighting among the Jains after the death of their leader and how this sectarianism was so disheartening the lay supporters of the Jain monks. It seems to me that the account of their fighting in the Majjhima Nikaya could very well be a humorous summary of many internet flame wars today.
At that time the Nigantha Nātaputta had just died at Pāvā. And at his death the Niganthas were split into two parties, quarrelling and disputing, fighting and attacking each other with wordy warfare: ‘You don’t understand this doctrine and discipline – I do!’ ‘How could you understand this doctrine and discipline?’ ‘Your way is all wrong – mine is right!’ ‘I am consistent – you aren’t!’ ‘You said last what you should have said first, and you said first what you should have said last!’ ‘What you took so long to think up has been refuted!’ ‘Go on, save your doctrine – get out of that if you can!’ ‘You would have thought the Niganthas, Nātaputta’s disciples, were bent on killing each other. Even the white-robed lay followers were disgusted, displeased and repelled when they saw that their doctrine and discipline was so ill-proclaimed, so unedifyingly displayed, and so ineffectual in calming the passions, having been proclaimed by one not fully enlightened, and now with its support gone, without an arbiter. (Walshe, p. 427, Digha Nikaya 29.1)
The Buddha felt confident, however, that in his Sangha there were teachers who were experienced, trained, and skillful enough to refute any doctrines that were not in accord with the Buddha Dharma. This is interesting because here the Buddha is not just saying that one should not refute wrong views. Rather, he is saying that there is a way to do it that will not turn into the ugly debates entered into by the sectarians of his day, and that he trusts those qualified teachers in his Sangha to resolve disputes in a way that is peaceful and edifying and grounded in the Dharma.
However, there are senior teachers among the monks, who are experienced, trained, skilled, who have attained peace from bondage, able to proclaim the true Dharma, able to refute by means of the Dharma any opposing doctrines that may arise and, having done so, give a grounded exposition of Dharma. (Walshe, p. 431, Digha Nikaya 29.15)
After expressing his confidence that the Sangha has good teachers, the Buddha gives a discourse on exactly how the monks should train themselves to resolve misunderstandings in a way that will preserve harmony and get at, not just the correct meaning, but even the best way to express that meaning.
And thus you must train yourselves, being assembled in harmony and without dissension. If a fellow in the holy life quotes Dharma in the assembly, and if you think he has either misunderstood the sense or expressed it wrongly, you should neither applause nor reject it, but should say to him: “Friend, if you mean such-and-such, you should put it either like this or like that: which is the more appropriate?” or “If you say such-and-such, you mean either this or that: which is the more appropriate?” If he replies: “This meaning is better expressed like this than like that”, or “The sense of this expression is this rather than that”, then his words should be neither rejected nor disparaged, but you should explain to him carefully the correct meaning and expression.
Again, Cunda, if a fellow in the holy life quotes Dharma in the assembly, and if you think he has misunderstood the sense though he has expressed it correctly, you should neither applaud nor reject it, but should say to him: “Friend, these words can mean either this or that: which sense is the more appropriate?” And if he replies: “They mean this”, then his words should be neither rejected nor disparaged, but you should explain to him carefully the correct meaning.
And similarly, if you think he has got the right meaning but expressed it wrongly, … you should explain to him carefully the correct meaning and expression.
But Cunda, if you think he has got the right meaning and expressed it correctly, … you should say: “Good!” and should applaud and congratulate him, saying, “We are lucky we are most fortunate to find in you, friend, a companion in the holy life who is so well-versed in both the meaning and the expression!” (Walshe, pp. 432-433, Digha Nikaya 29. 18-21)
I find it interesting that the Buddha is careful to differentiate between the way a teaching is expressed and the underlying meaning of a teaching. He expects the members of the Sangha to be sensitive to this and to guide those who may misapprehend Buddhism into a better way of both understanding it and expressing it. Also note that while a monk who has the correct understanding and expression is to be applauded, those who don’t should not be rejected or disparaged but rather guided through dialogue into a better understanding and expression by those who (presumably) are qualified to do so. Of course those who are presuming to teach may themselves not have the correct understanding or the best expression, but if both sides are committed to a honest dialectic guided by mutual respect and concern for the truth instead of ugly polemics motivated by a need to be right, then it is more likely that a more peaceful and authentic resolution can be achieved.
The Buddha did recognize, however, that there may be times when one has to “be cruel to be kind” as we sometimes put it. There are times when one must speak the truth plainly to those who may not want to hear it. One occasion was when the Buddha denounced Devadatta in no uncertain terms, refusing to give him the leadership of the Sangha and making it clear that he did not consider him qualified to ever do so, even if the Buddha were to consider appointing a successor. The Buddha went so far as to say to Devadatta, “I would not hand over the Sangha of monks even to Shariputra and Maudgalyayana. How should I do so to such a wastrel, a clot of spittle, as you?” (Adapted from Life of the Buddha, p. 258) Even if one takes the position that this incident is a story that arose after the death of the Buddha in order to vilify the schismatic Devadatta and his followers, it still seems to be so far out of character that one wonders how anyone could have attributed such words to the Buddha. And yet, there is a discourse in which the Buddha’s rivals used this and later condemnations of Devadatta against him. Prince Abhaya, one of the sons of King Bimbisara though not an heir, was a follower of Nirgrantha Jnatiputra, the founder of the Jains. According to the Abhayarajakumara Sutta, Nirgrantha Jnatiputra made the following request to Prince Abhaya:
“Come Prince, go to the recluse Gautama and say: ‘Venerable sir, would the Tathagata utter speech that would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others?’ If the recluse Gautama, on being asked thus, answers: ‘The Tathagata, prince, would utter speech that would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others,’ then say to him: ‘Then, venerable sir, what is the difference between you and an ordinary person? For an ordinary person would utter speech that would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others.’ But if the recluse Gautama, on being asked thus, answers: ‘The Tathagata, prince, would not utter speech that would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others,’ then say to him: ‘Then, venerable sir, why have you declared of Devadatta: “Devadatta is destined for the states of deprivation, Devadatta is destined for hell, Devadatta will remain [in hell] for the eon, Devadatta is incorrigible”? Devadatta was angry and dissatisfied with that speech of yours.’ When the recluse Gautama is posed this two-horned question by you, he will not be able either to gulp it down or to throw it up. If an iron spike were stuck in a man’s throat, he would not be able either to gulp it down or to throw it up; so too prince, when the recluse Gautama is posed this two-horned question by you, he will not be able to gulp it down or to throw it up.” (Middle Length Discourses, pp. 498-499)
It is evident that Nirgrantha Jnatiputra is not being portrayed here as a dispassionate observer. Nor is his inquiry sincere. In order to attack and belittle the Buddha, he spitefully looked for a weak point to exploit. Again, this is perhaps not an accurate portrayal of the founder of the Jains, but it may be a historical fiction based on the kind of rancorous debates that may have taken place between Buddhists and Jains after the passing of their founders. In any case, the Buddha easily overcomes both horns of the dilemma and in the course of doing so also provides an explanation for why he spoke so harshly in regard to Devadatta. Prince Abhaya visits the Buddha and asks:
“Venerable sir, would a Tathagata utter such speech as would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others?”
“There is no one-sided answer to that, prince.”
“Then, venerable sir, the Nirgranthas have lost in this.”
“Why do you say this, prince: ‘Then, venerable sir, the Nirgranthas have lost in this’?”
Prince Abhaya then reported to the Blessed One his entire conversation with Nirgrantha Jnatiputra.
Now on that occasion a young tender infant was lying prone on Prince Abhaya’s lap. Then the Blessed One said to Prince Abhaya: “What do you think, prince? If, while you or your nurse were not attending to him, this child were to put a stick or pebble in his mouth, what would you do to him?”
“Venerable sir, I would take it out. If I could not take it out at once, I would take his head in my left hand, and crooking a finger of my right hand, I would take it out even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have compassion for the child.”
“So too, prince, such speech as the Tathagata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is unwelcome and disagreeable to others: the Tathagata knows the time to use such speech. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, but which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: the Tathagata knows the time to use such speech. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has compassion for beings.” (Ibid, pp. 499-500)
In other words, the Buddha only speaks what is true, correct, and beneficial; and whether or not it is welcome and agreeable or unwelcome and disagreeable he will only speak such things in the right time and place motivated solely by compassion. In the case of Devadatta, he was certain based upon his knowledge of Devadatta’s character and activities and the law of cause and effect that Devadatta was heading for a fall. In some versions or translations of this event, the Buddha actually calls Devadatta a “lick-spittle” with the implication that Devadatta’s reliance on the very generous patronage of Prince Ajatashatru is comparable to licking the spit of others. In other words, his reliance on Prince Ajatashatru seems good, but is actually a degrading dependence that is leading him further and further away from the true good of liberation. All of this can be taken to rationalize the use of name-calling in a debate or disagreement, but I think the actual principles are quite clear. We should speak in a truthful and beneficial way, and whenever possible in a kind way; but also in a timely and appropriate way, especially if what needs to be said will be unpleasant for others to hear.
Taken all together, we have the Buddha’s description of how to speak in a way that is wholesome and beneficial for oneself and others. Honesty is only one part of it, though a crucial part. We must also be careful to speak the truth in a way that is kind and not abusive. We must not spread stories or the words of others in such a way that it will cause division and bad feelings. We must speak in a way that is timely and appropriate. We should avoid fruitless disputes motivated by self-righteousness, pride, and dogmatism. In cases where we must refute wrong views or correct someone, we should refrain from condemning or disparaging others or their views but instead use a respectful dialectic to explore meaning and expression to get at what actually fits the case or issue at hand. In this way, speech can be an expression of the selfless compassion of perfect and complete awakening and liberation.