The right to cause offense

Some topics tend to get heated and go off track in unwholesome ways quite quickly. The "hot topics" sub-forum is a place where such topics may be moved so that each post must be manually approved by moderator before it will become visible to members.
User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: The right to cause offense

Post by Pseudobabble » Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:54 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:24 pm
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:50 pm
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:25 pm
The idea that the results of action is incidental is not consistent with the Buddha's teaching.

For example Parajika 3 is dependant on the end result that murder is completed.
"In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don't accept from you. It's all yours, brahman. It's all yours.
Are you saying that the results of action is incidental?

What is the relationship between your quote and what I have written?
I'm saying that though no offence can be taken if none is given, even if offence is given, none need be taken.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: The right to cause offense

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:51 pm

Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:54 pm
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:24 pm
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:50 pm


Are you saying that the results of action is incidental?

What is the relationship between your quote and what I have written?
I'm saying that though no offence can be taken if none is given, even if offence is given, none need be taken.
I agree entirely with the main thrust of your argument (i.e. that intending to be offensive is not in itself a sufficient condition for another person to be offended, and that it requires that person to react in a specific way which we call "taking offence") but I would go further than you on this. It is perfectly possible for that person to "take offence" even though none was intended by any "offender". The offended person could be mistaken as to the putative offender's intention; or more seriously, could choose to misrepresent that intention as a hostile act on their part. They are, so to speak, "taking the not given"! It's a common tactic in interpersonal relations, and motivated by the same feeling of hatred. What makes it worse, though, is that the hatred is compounded by a deliberate misrepresentation or lie in order to claim sympathy or to direct social disapproval against someone.

Justsit
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: The right to cause offense

Post by Justsit » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:44 pm

Every right comes with a responsibility to use it wisely. In the Buddhist context of this discussion, the "right to cause offense" (assuming this discussion only refers to verbal offense, not other types) comes with the responsibility to speak within the guidelines laid down by the Buddha for Right Speech. From the article RobertK linked in the original post:

"Abusive speech is harsh speech that aims to hurt another’s feelings and make them feel inferior. It may be true to call a thief a thief, or to call a fool a fool, but if the intention is to cause them grief, it is not right speech. However, if the intention is aimed at their benefit, or the benefit of others, then it is not abusive speech. Again, one must be especially mindful when using speech that we know is likely to be hurtful to others. The Buddha knew beforehand whether or not such speech would be beneficial. If it would be beneficial, he chose the right time to say it; if not, he remained silent. A teacher may admonish a pupil, or a parent may admonish their child, or a manager may admonish the company’s employees using harsh speech without it being abusive speech. It depends on the intention — is it aimed at benefit? "

More on the parameters for Right Speech here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... index.html. Includes:

"The criteria for deciding what is worth saying

[1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

— MN 58"

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3375
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: The right to cause offense

Post by Mr Man » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:50 pm

Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:54 pm
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:24 pm
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:50 pm


Are you saying that the results of action is incidental?

What is the relationship between your quote and what I have written?
I'm saying that though no offence can be taken if none is given, even if offence is given, none need be taken.
Okay but this, in my opinion, is not relevant to the point that I was making, which was that it is possible to cause offence. And we do bear some responsibility for the results of our actions.

The idea that "one cannot cause offense in others" is not an idea that I believe to be supported by the Buddha's teaching.

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: The right to cause offense

Post by Pseudobabble » Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:14 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:51 pm
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:54 pm
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:24 pm


Are you saying that the results of action is incidental?

What is the relationship between your quote and what I have written?
I'm saying that though no offence can be taken if none is given, even if offence is given, none need be taken.
I agree entirely with the main thrust of your argument (i.e. that intending to be offensive is not in itself a sufficient condition for another person to be offended, and that it requires that person to react in a specific way which we call "taking offence") but I would go further than you on this. It is perfectly possible for that person to "take offence" even though none was intended by any "offender". The offended person could be mistaken as to the putative offender's intention; or more seriously, could choose to misrepresent that intention as a hostile act on their part. They are, so to speak, "taking the not given"! It's a common tactic in interpersonal relations, and motivated by the same feeling of hatred. What makes it worse, though, is that the hatred is compounded by a deliberate misrepresentation or lie in order to claim sympathy or to direct social disapproval against someone.
Agreed, particularly with the emphasis.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20167
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The right to cause offense

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:33 pm

Greetings Mr.Man,
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:50 pm
The idea that "one cannot cause offense in others" is not an idea that I believe to be supported by the Buddha's teaching.
Really? One need do no more than start to read the Dhammapada...
1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.
:reading:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

chownah
Posts: 7597
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The right to cause offense

Post by chownah » Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:05 am

What about the right to intentionally make remarks which are likely to create a feeling of having been offended?

What about the right to incite?
chownah

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3375
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: The right to cause offense

Post by Mr Man » Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:28 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:33 pm
Greetings Mr.Man,
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:50 pm
The idea that "one cannot cause offense in others" is not an idea that I believe to be supported by the Buddha's teaching.
Really? One need do no more than start to read the Dhammapada...
1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.
:reading:

Metta,
Paul. :)

Although the quote from the Dhammapada is truly wonderful, It does not put forward the idea that "one cannot cause offense in others".

How about benefit - Is it possible to cause benefit for others? Or physical pain? Or is offence a unique quality that we cannot cause in others?

Is it possible to steel from an Arahat because the Arahat is free from attachment?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: The right to cause offense

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:36 am

chownah wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:05 am
What about the right to intentionally make remarks which are likely to create a feeling of having been offended?

What about the right to incite?
chownah
Just as when a person takes offence, or feigns being offended, a person who makes such remarks is motivated by ill will. "Right" is, I think, a slightly incongruous concept as it post-dates the Buddha and comes from a different culture, but in terms of kamma and the advisability of particular courses of action, intending to cause offence is best avoided.

chownah
Posts: 7597
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The right to cause offense

Post by chownah » Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:02 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:36 am
chownah wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:05 am
What about the right to intentionally make remarks which are likely to create a feeling of having been offended?

What about the right to incite?
chownah
Just as when a person takes offence, or feigns being offended, a person who makes such remarks is motivated by ill will. "Right" is, I think, a slightly incongruous concept as it post-dates the Buddha and comes from a different culture, but in terms of kamma and the advisability of particular courses of action, intending to cause offence is best avoided.
I think you have added something which has narrowed and biased what I said i.e. knowing that something may be taken as an offense does not mean necessarily mean that one is speaking with the intent to offend but rather one may not intend offense while knowing that the listener may take offense as for example if someone is running amok and one is trying to give them some advise which is intended to save them from being harmed.....or if someone is addressing a large audience and one person and one person only takes offense.....or someone does not intend for someone to take offense but simply does not care if they do either.
chownah

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: The right to cause offense

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:31 pm

chownah wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:02 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:36 am
chownah wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:05 am
What about the right to intentionally make remarks which are likely to create a feeling of having been offended?

What about the right to incite?
chownah
Just as when a person takes offence, or feigns being offended, a person who makes such remarks is motivated by ill will. "Right" is, I think, a slightly incongruous concept as it post-dates the Buddha and comes from a different culture, but in terms of kamma and the advisability of particular courses of action, intending to cause offence is best avoided.
I think you have added something which has narrowed and biased what I said i.e. knowing that something may be taken as an offense does not mean necessarily mean that one is speaking with the intent to offend but rather one may not intend offense while knowing that the listener may take offense as for example if someone is running amok and one is trying to give them some advise which is intended to save them from being harmed.....or if someone is addressing a large audience and one person and one person only takes offense.....or someone does not intend for someone to take offense but simply does not care if they do either.
chownah
If one is speaking with the deliberate attempt to offend someone, then the case appears to be clear-cut. If you have good grounds for saying something but you are aware (from previous experience, presumably) that the person to whom your words are directed is likely to take offence even though you do not want them to, then this might be a useful guideline:
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... index.html

The basic idea seems to be that once one has applied the necessary safeguards and is sure about one's motives, it is OK to offend those determined to take offence, on the grounds that there is no reasonable alternative.

chownah
Posts: 7597
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The right to cause offense

Post by chownah » Fri Oct 05, 2018 1:29 pm

Also, consider art. It is not uncommon for works of art to arouse feelings of offense in some people....should an artist censor their message just because there will be some who take offense?
In the '60's should men have cut their hair when others took offense?....should women have worn bras because others took offense? Should black people have given up their seat on the bus because their presence offended some white people? Should jews have given up their jewishness because it offended the leader?
Is it sometimes better if some people are intentionally offended sometimes?....might it move them to take just actions?
chownah

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests