retrofuturist wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:17 am
L.N. wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:59 pm
Don't you see that words might elicit reactivity in others? That is part of what this discussion is about.
There's a spectrum of possible responses, none of which are in the control of the speaker. If enough people go on to read a certain innocuous comment, someone in that group is bound to take offense.
In this context, even the Buddha was blamed, despite being blameless. If he was blamed, what hope do we mere Buddhists have, in not being blamed for our speech? For this reason, I respect the intellectual and spiritual autonomy of others to determine their own speech, and whether it is Right. Whether others choose to afford this interpersonal respect to others is up to them.
Absolutely correct. I have thought of posting about the Buddha's words on the effect that there is nobody in this world without blame. Even so, this does not abrogate the benefit of taking personal responsibility for one's own words/actions.
Moreover, to the extent posts in the various Topics have been directed personally at my perceived "reactivity," "bitterness," etc. I have never, ever blamed anyone else for any reaction I might have. These topics were intended to inspire a dialogue about how one can conduct oneself skillfully for one's own benefit and the benefit of others.
The only way the speaker could totally avoid eliciting reactivity through their words, is to speak none. I guess that's how Buddhism came to have the phenomenon of the paccekabuddha
. But even then, some people will be prone to interpret the silence in a certain way too. We live in a world of the "eight worldly winds"... but it's up to the individual to decide whether to be affected by them.
See: AN 8.6: Lokavipatti Sutta
Absolutely correct. We cannot be responsible for the reactivity of others. However, we can take personal responsibility or the words we speak and the volitional actions we take which might be harmful to self or others.
The majority of active members here have known me long enough, to know where I'm coming from when I say something. But like I said above, "there's a spectrum of possible responses, none of which are in the control of the speaker. If enough people go on to read a certain innocuous comment, someone in that group is bound to take offense.". By virtue of my role, and my degree of participation, quite a few people will read what I say... and it only takes a small handful on the reactive end of the spectrum, to create a brouhaha over that which the majority (especially those who have known me for years) could understand in the way in which it was intended and spoken.
That may well be the case. However, as you may have noticed, I have intentionally and genuinely tried to show appreciation for you despite our disagreements. The fact is, to the extent you wish to discuss me personally, my internal reactions have been primarily puzzlement over the negativity of the responses to my posts, and an ongoing sense of a duty to speak out when I see such words directed at others (such as chownah by way of just one example), and admittedly some annoyance when, at every turn, my attempts to start Dhamma discussions are met with recriminations against me personally. But in the end, I have deep and abiding respect for every person who posts here.
I understand some will be reactive, and I don't expect it to be otherwise, but I don't have to be appreciative of faithless reactivity either, nor do I need to pander to it, and I certainly won't be forced into silence by weaponized outrage.
Nor should you. However, "faithless reactivity" is the lens through which you may choose to see others. You cannot know whether (a) the other person is indeed reactive in the way you imagine, or (b) even if reactive, that such perceived reactivity is faithless. Can't you see how your interpretation might possibly color your own reactivity in a manner which is not fitting to the occasion?
I hope others aren't coerced into silence by such reactivity either, and feel free to speak their truth, as it comes to them.
I know that others have felt coerced into silence by the negativity directed at them when they speak their mind. It has never been my intention to coerce anybody into silence. Rather, it has been my intention to have communication
about Right Speech, including the role of taking personal responsibility for the words one speaks/writes. Unfortunately, these efforts have variously been denounced as my "obsession," as my "fixation," as "meta-discussion," as "behavioral analysis," etc., all of which appears to me to be a method of avoiding any meaningful discussion of whether it is beneficial Dhamma practice to take personal responsibility for one's volitional actions/words.