Donate

Font chữ: + A   + A   + A   + A  

Introduction

One of the distinctive traits of human beings, which differentiates them from animals, is their capacity for speech. Words can create enmity or friendship, can win or harden hearts, can deceive others or open them to new pathways of understanding. Social transformations in the course of history have been facilitated by speech, whether spoken or written: just think of the impact of the Declaration of Independence, the Communist Manifesto, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. By means of speech new ideas are disseminated, new insights shared, and new horizons opened to human investigation. Speech has ignited wars and fostered peace. All the hopes and yearnings of the human heart, in every sphere of our collective existence, have found expression through the medium of speech.

In regard to the Dhamma, the role of speech is so important that the Buddha says one of the two conditions for the arising of right view is “the utterance of another.”1 Recognizing the pivotal role of speech, in both the noble eightfold path and among the ten courses of wholesome action he assigned four places to speech: abstaining from false speech, from divisive speech, from harsh speech, and from idle chatter — defined above in Text II,2(5).

In Part IV, I expand on this earlier discussion by taking proper speech as a separate topic in its own right. The chapter begins with two short suttas on the constituents of “well-spoken speech” — Texts IV,1(1)–(2) — one enumerating four factors, the other five factors. Since the two do not completely correspond, the factors of well-spoken speech can be increased beyond the usual group of four. The Buddha also provides advice for those intent on holding discussions and participating in debates, which were commonplace among the contemporary ascetic and contemplative communities that flourished in northern India. These usually centered around a charismatic teacher. Adherents of rival sects would often meet to discuss and debate their respective tenets. Entire parks were set aside for wandering ascetics to dwell and discuss their views, and the larger towns featured a debating hall where ascetics would gather for debates.

While the Buddha tried to avoid fruitless debates conducted for the purpose of humiliating others and bolstering pride in one’s own tenets, it was inevitable that as the monks wandered among the towns of northern India, they would be drawn into discussions with brahmins, philosophers, and ascetics of opposing views. In order to preserve the good repute of the Dhamma, they had to know how to engage in debate. One of the qualifications of the well-trained disciple was the ability to “explain their own teacher’s doctrine, to teach it, proclaim it, establish it, disclose it, analyze it, and elucidate it, and to refute thoroughly with reasons the prevalent tenets of others and teach the efficacious Dhamma.”2 In Text IV,2 the Buddha lays down standards for his own disciples to adopt when engaging in debates. He distinguishes among the different types of questions that might be asked, indicates how one should respond to these questions, and prescribes the attitudes one should bring into a debate. These are summed up in the concluding verses of this passage: the sagely person speaks without quarrelsomeness or pride, utters speech that the noble ones practice, and speaks in ways connected with the Dhamma and meaning.

One of the duties of a monk or nun was to teach and preach the Dhamma. To execute this duty effectively it was necessary to know how to address others in a way that would awaken their interest and hold their attention. Proficiency in teaching others might be seen as an aspect of “skill in means” (upāyakosalla). In Text IV,3, the Buddha explains five instances in which a talk is “wrongly addressed” — all cases when the subject of the talk does not match the temperament and interest of the audience. The “rightly addressed” talks are those whose subject matter matches the temperament and interest of the audience. These guidelines, however, should probably be seen as provisional strategies rather than as absolutes; for there are certainly cases when, for example, a talk on morality might be exactly what a dissolute person needs to hear, while a talk on generosity might be the most effective way to motivate a miser to undergo a change of heart and begin practicing charity.

Some texts included in this chapter may bring surprises. While the Buddha highlights the dangers in creating unnecessary arguments and in assigning praise and blame arbitrarily, without investigation — as is done respectively in Texts IV,4 and IV,5 — he does not insist that speech must always be sweet and agreeable to the hearers. To the contrary, he holds one should have no qualms about criticizing those who deserve criticism. Thus in Text IV,6 he declares that one should speak praise and blame when they fit the situation, and in IV,7 he even says that “when one knows overt sharp speech to be true, correct, and beneficial, one may utter it, knowing the time to do so.”

Reproving others is a particularly thorny matter because of its potential to ignite resentment and sow the seeds of conflict. However, the moral mettle of any community depends on the upright conduct of its members, and thus when members stray beyond the bounds of propriety, it becomes obligatory to rein them in. In the Buddhist monastic order, to protect the integrity of the group, it is often necessary for one monk to reprove another. To maintain harmony and mutual respect during the process of reproach, in Text IV,8, Sāriputta describes the procedures to be followed by the person who intends to reprove another and the appropriate ways for the subject of reproach to respond to criticism. Thus while the discourses stress the importance of establishing a gentle and compassionate attitude before criticizing others, they do not advocate speaking to others only in agreeable ways. To the contrary, they advise one to censure others when criticism is due.

IV. Proper Speech

1. WELL-SPOKEN SPEECH

(1) Possessing Four Factors

The Blessed One said this: “Monks, when speech possesses four factors, it is well spoken, not badly spoken, and it is blameless and irreproachable among the wise. What four? Here, a monk speaks only what is well spoken, not what is badly spoken. He speaks only Dhamma, not non-Dhamma. He speaks only what is pleasant, not what is unpleasant. He speaks only what is true, not lies. When speech possesses these four factors, it is well spoken, not badly spoken, and it is blameless and irreproachable among the wise.”

(from Sn III,3; see too SN 8:5, CDB 284–85)

(2) Possessing Five Factors

“Monks, when speech possesses five factors, it is well spoken, not badly spoken, and it is blameless and irreproachable among the wise. What five? It is spoken at the proper time; what is said is true; it is spoken gently; what is said is beneficial; it is spoken with a mind of loving-kindness. When speech possesses these five factors, it is well spoken, not badly spoken, and it is blameless and irreproachable among the wise.”

(AN 5:198, NDB 816)

2. HOLDING DISCUSSIONS

“It is in relation to talk, monks, that a person may be understood as either fit to talk or unfit to talk. If this person is asked a question that should be answered categorically and he does not answer it categorically; if he is asked a question that should be answered after making a distinction and he answers it without making a distinction; if he is asked a question that should be answered with a counter-question and he answers it without asking a counter-question; if he is asked a question that should be set aside and he does not set it aside, in such a case this person is unfit to talk.3

“But if this person is asked a question that should be answered categorically and he answers it categorically; if he is asked a question that should be answered after making a distinction and he answers it after making a distinction; if he is asked a question that should be answered with a counter-question and he answers it with a counter-question; if he is asked a question that should be set aside and he sets it aside, in such a case this person is fit to talk.

“It is in relation to talk, monks, that a person should be understood as either fit to talk or unfit to talk. If this person is asked a question and he does not stand firm in regard to his position and the opposing position; if he does not stand firm in his stratagem; if he does not stand firm in an assertion about what is known; if he does not stand firm in the procedure, in such a case this person is unfit to talk.4

“But if this person is asked a question and he stands firm in regard to his position and the opposing position; if he stands firm in his stratagem; if he stands firm in an assertion about what is known; if he stands firm in the procedure, in such a case this person is fit to talk.

“It is in relation to talk, monks, that a person should be understood as either fit to talk or unfit to talk. If this person is asked a question and he answers evasively, diverts the discussion to an irrelevant subject, and displays anger, hatred, and bitterness, in such a case this person is unfit to talk.

“But if this person is asked a question and he does not answer evasively, divert the discussion to an irrelevant subject, or display anger, hatred, and bitterness, in such a case this person is fit to talk.

“It is in relation to talk, monks, that a person should be understood as either fit to talk or unfit to talk. If this person is asked a question and he overwhelms [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, and seizes upon a slight error,5 in such a case this person is unfit to talk.

“But if this person is asked a question and he does not overwhelm [the questioner], or crush him, or ridicule him, or seize upon a slight error, in such a case this person is fit to talk.

“It is in relation to talk, monks, that a person should be understood as either having a supporting condition or not having a supporting condition. One who does not lend an ear does not have a supporting condition; one who lends an ear has a supporting condition. One who has a supporting condition directly knows one thing, fully understands one thing, abandons one thing, and realizes one thing. Directly knowing one thing, fully understanding one thing, abandoning one thing, and realizing one thing, he reaches right liberation.6

“This, monks, is the goal of talk, the goal of discussion, the goal of a supporting condition, the goal of lending an ear, that is, the emancipation of the mind through non-clinging.”

Those who speak with quarrelsome intent,
settled in their opinions, swollen with pride,
ignoble, having assailed virtues,
look for openings to attack one another.

They mutually delight when their opponent
speaks badly and makes a mistake,
they rejoice in his bewilderment and defeat;
but noble ones don’t engage in such talk.

If a wise person wants to talk,
having known the time is right,
without quarrelsomeness or pride,
the sagely person should utter
the speech that the noble ones practice,
which is connected with the Dhamma and meaning.

Not being insolent or aggressive,
with a mind not elated,
he speaks free from envy
on the basis of right knowledge.
He should approve of what is well expressed
but should not attack what is badly stated.

He should not train in fault-finding
nor seize on the other’s mistakes;
he should not overwhelm and crush his opponent,
nor speak mendacious words.
Truly, a discussion among the good
is for the sake of knowledge and confidence.

Such is the way the noble discuss things;
this is the discussion of the noble ones.
Having understood this, the wise person
should not swell up but should discuss things.

(AN 3:67, NDB 287–89)

3. SPEAK IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY

“Monks, a talk is wrongly addressed when, having weighed one type of person against another, it is addressed to these five [inappropriate] types of persons. What five? A talk on faith is wrongly addressed to one devoid of faith; a talk on virtuous behavior is wrongly addressed to an immoral person; a talk on learning is wrongly addressed to one of little learning; a talk on generosity is wrongly addressed to a miser; a talk on wisdom is wrongly addressed to an unwise person.

(1) “And why is a talk on faith wrongly addressed to one devoid of faith? When a talk on faith is being given, a person devoid of faith loses his temper and becomes irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he displays anger, hatred, and bitterness. For what reason? Because he does not perceive that faith in himself and rejoice in it. Therefore a talk on faith is wrongly addressed to a person devoid of faith.

(2) “And why is a talk on virtuous behavior wrongly addressed to an immoral person? When a talk on virtuous behavior is being given, an immoral person loses his temper and becomes irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he displays anger, hatred, and bitterness. For what reason? Because he does not perceive that virtuous behavior in himself and rejoice in it. Therefore a talk on virtuous behavior is wrongly addressed to an immoral person.

(3) “And why is a talk on learning wrongly addressed to a person of little learning? When a talk on learning is being given, a person of little learning loses his temper and becomes irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he displays anger, hatred, and bitterness. For what reason? Because he does not perceive that learning in himself and rejoice in it. Therefore a talk on learning is wrongly addressed to a person of little learning.

(4) “And why is a talk on generosity wrongly addressed to a miser? When a talk on generosity is being given, a miser loses his temper and becomes irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he displays anger, hatred, and bitterness. For what reason? Because he does not perceive that generosity in himself and rejoice in it. Therefore a talk on generosity is wrongly addressed to a miser.

(5) “And why is a talk on wisdom wrongly addressed to an unwise person? When a talk on wisdom is being given, an unwise person loses his temper and becomes irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he displays anger, hatred, and bitterness. For what reason? Because he does not perceive that wisdom in himself and rejoice in it. Therefore a talk on wisdom is wrongly addressed to an unwise person.

“A talk is wrongly addressed when, having weighed one type of person against another, it is addressed to these five [inappropriate] types of persons.

“Monks, a talk is properly addressed when, having weighed one type of person against another, it is addressed to these five [appropriate] types of persons. What five? A talk on faith is properly addressed to one endowed with faith; a talk on virtuous behavior is properly addressed to a virtuous person; a talk on learning is properly addressed to a learned person; a talk on generosity is properly addressed to a generous person; a talk on wisdom is properly addressed to a wise person.

(1) “And why is a talk on faith properly addressed to one endowed with faith? When a talk on faith is being given, a person endowed with faith does not lose his temper and become irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he does not display anger, hatred, and bitterness. For what reason? Because he perceives that faith in himself and rejoices in it. Therefore a talk on faith is properly addressed to a person endowed with faith.

(2) “And why is a talk on virtuous behavior properly addressed to a virtuous person? When a talk on virtuous behavior is being given, a virtuous person does not lose his temper and become irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he does not display anger, hatred, and bitterness. For what reason? Because he perceives that virtuous behavior in himself and rejoices in it. Therefore a talk on virtuous behavior is properly addressed to a virtuous person.

(3) “And why is a talk on learning properly addressed to a learned person? When a talk on learning is being given, a learned person does not lose his temper and become irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he does not display anger, hatred, and bitterness. For what reason? Because he perceives that learning in himself and rejoices in it. Therefore a talk on learning is properly addressed to a learned person.

(4) “And why is a talk on generosity properly addressed to a generous person? When a talk on generosity is being given, a generous person does not lose his temper and become irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he does not display anger, hatred, and bitterness. For what reason? Because he perceives that generosity in himself and rejoices in it. Therefore a talk on generosity is properly addressed to a generous person.

(5) “And why is a talk on wisdom properly addressed to a wise person? When a talk on wisdom is being given, a wise person does not lose his temper and become irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he does not display anger, hatred, and bitterness. For what reason? Because he perceives that wisdom in himself and rejoices in it. Therefore a talk on wisdom is properly addressed to a wise person.

“Monks, a talk is properly addressed when, having weighed one type of person against another, it is addressed to these five [appropriate] types of persons.”

(AN 5:157, NDB 770–72)

4. DON’T CREATE ARGUMENTS

“Monks, when a monk is a maker of arguments, quarrels, disputes, contentious talk, and disciplinary issues in the Sangha, five dangers can be expected for him. What five? (1) He does not achieve what he has not yet achieved; (2) he falls away from what he has achieved; (3) a bad report circulates about him; (4) he dies confused; and (5) with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the plane of misery, in a bad destination, in the lower world, in hell. When a monk is a maker of arguments, quarrels, disputes, contentious talk, and disciplinary issues in the Sangha, these five dangers can be expected for him.”

(AN 5:212, NDB 823)

5. ASSIGNING PRAISE AND BLAME

“Monks, possessing five qualities, a resident monk is deposited in hell as if brought there. What five? (1) Without investigating and scrutinizing, he speaks praise of one who deserves dispraise. (2) Without investigating and scrutinizing, he speaks dispraise of one who deserves praise. (3) Without investigating and scrutinizing, he believes a matter that merits suspicion. (4) Without investigating and scrutinizing, he is suspicious about a matter that merits belief. (5) He squanders what has been given out of faith. Possessing these five qualities, a resident monk is deposited in hell as if brought there.

“Monks, possessing five qualities, a resident monk is deposited in heaven as if brought there. What five? (1) Having investigated and scrutinized, he speaks dispraise of one who deserves dispraise. (2) Having investigated and scrutinized, he speaks praise of one who deserves praise. (3) Having investigated and scrutinized, he is suspicious about a matter that merits suspicion. (4) Having investigated and scrutinized, he believes a matter that merits belief. (5) He does not squander what has been given out of faith. Possessing these five qualities, a resident monk is deposited in heaven as if brought there.”

(AN 5:236, NDB 832–33)

6. PRAISE WHEN PRAISE IS DUE

Then the wanderer Potaliya approached the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. The Blessed One said to him: “Potaliya, there are these four kinds of persons found existing in the world. What four? (1) Here, some person speaks dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, and the dispraise is accurate, truthful, and timely; but he does not speak praise of someone who deserves praise, though the praise would be accurate, truthful, and timely. (2) Some other person speaks praise of someone who deserves praise, and the praise is accurate, truthful, and timely; but he does not speak dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, though the dispraise would be accurate, truthful, and timely. (3) Still another person does not speak dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, though the dispraise would be accurate, truthful, and timely; and he does not speak praise of someone who deserves praise, though the praise would be accurate, truthful, and timely. (4) And still another person speaks dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, and the dispraise is accurate, truthful, and timely; and he also speaks praise of someone who deserves praise, and the praise is accurate, truthful, and timely. These are the four kinds of persons found existing in the world. Now, Potaliya, which among these four kinds of persons seems to you the most excellent and sublime?”

“Of those four, Master Gotama, the one that seems to me the most excellent and sublime is the one who does not speak dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, though the dispraise would be accurate, truthful, and timely; and who does not speak praise of someone who deserves praise, though the praise would be accurate, truthful, and timely. For what reason? Because what excels, Master Gotama, is equanimity.”

“Of those four, Potaliya, the one that I consider the most excellent and sublime is the one who speaks dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, and the dispraise is accurate, truthful, and timely; and who also speaks praise of someone who deserves praise, and the praise is accurate, truthful, and timely. For what reason? Because what excels, Potaliya, is knowledge of the proper time to speak in any particular case.”

(AN 4:100, NDB 480–82)

7. KNOWING WHAT TO SAY AND HOW TO SAY IT

[The Buddha is speaking to the monks:] “It was said: ‘One should not utter covert speech, and one should not utter overt sharp speech.’ And with reference to what was this said?

“Here, monks, when one knows covert speech to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, one should not utter it. When one knows covert speech to be true, correct, and unbeneficial, one should try not to utter it. But when one knows covert speech to be true, correct, and beneficial, one may utter it, knowing the time to do so.

“Here, monks, when one knows overt sharp speech to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, one should not utter it. When one knows overt sharp speech to be true, correct, and unbeneficial, one should try not to utter it. But when one knows overt sharp speech to be true, correct, and beneficial, one may utter it, knowing the time to do so.

“So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘One should not utter covert speech, and one should not utter overt sharp speech.’”

(from MN 139, MLDB 1083–84)

8. REPROVING OTHERS

Venerable Sāriputta addressed the monks thus: “Friends, a monk who wishes to reprove another should first establish five things in himself. What five? (1) He should consider: ‘I will speak at a proper time, not at an improper time; (2) I will speak truthfully, not falsely; (3) I will speak gently, not harshly; (4) I will speak in a beneficial way, not in a harmful way; (5) I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not while harboring hatred.’ A monk who wishes to reprove another should first establish these five things in himself. . . .

“Friends, a person who is reproved should be established in two things: in truth and non-anger. He should reflect: ‘If others should reprove me — whether at a proper time or at an improper time; whether about what is true or about what is false; whether gently or harshly; whether in a beneficial way or in a harmful way; whether with a mind of loving-kindness or while harboring hatred — I should still be established in two things: in truth and non-anger. If I know: “There is such a quality in me,” I tell him: “It exists. This quality is found in me.” If I know: “There is no such quality in me,” I tell him: “It doesn’t exist. This quality isn’t found in me.” ’ ”

(from AN 5:167, NDB 780–82)

    « Xem chương trước «      « Sách này có 15 chương »       » Xem chương tiếp theo »

_______________

MUA THỈNH KINH SÁCH PHẬT HỌC

DO NXB LIÊN PHẬT HỘI PHÁT HÀNH

Donate

Thành viên đang online:
Viên Hiếu Thành Huệ Lộc 1959 Bữu Phước Chúc Huy Minh Pháp Tự minh hung thich Diệu Âm Phúc Thành Phan Huy Triều Phạm Thiên Trương Quang Quý Johny Dinhvinh1964 Pascal Bui Vạn Phúc Giác Quý Trần Thị Huyền Chanhniem Forever NGUYỄN TRỌNG TÀI KỲ Dương Ngọc Cường Mr. Device Tri Huynh Thích Nguyên Mạnh Thích Quảng Ba T TH Tam Thien Tam Nguyễn Sĩ Long caokiem hoangquycong Lãn Tử Ton That Nguyen ngtieudao Lê Quốc Việt Du Miên Quang-Tu Vu phamthanh210 An Khang 63 zeus7777 Trương Ngọc Trân Diệu Tiến ... ...

Việt Nam (251 lượt xem) - Hoa Kỳ (16 lượt xem) - Senegal (13 lượt xem) - Saudi Arabia (3 lượt xem) - Đức quốc (3 lượt xem) - Nga (2 lượt xem) - Hungary (1 lượt xem) - ... ...