Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

This is a daughter discussion I'm branching off from the  Tragedy, Terrorism, VA Tech Massacre, and Pavlina thread.  I asked Colin, “So, Colin, would it be fair to say that you don't feel Stu and Ken are using Right Speech in this instance?” - then thought this could make a worthy topic in its own right.

What does right speech mean at integral altitudes?  It's always good to start with a common definition, so let's use this one from the wikipedia article on the Noble Eightfold Path:

~~~~

Right speech

Right speech (samyag-vāc · sammā-vācā), as the name implies, deals with the way in which a Buddhist practitioner would best make use of his or her words. In the Magga-vibhanga Sutta, this aspect of the Noble Eightfold Path is explained as follows:

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, abstaining from divisive speech, abstaining from abusive speech, abstaining from idle chatter: This, monks, is called right speech^[6].

Walpola Rahula glosses this by stating that not engaging in such “forms of wrong and harmful speech” ultimately means that “one naturally has to speak the truth, has to use words that are friendly and benevolent, pleasant and gentle, meaningful and useful”^[7].

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

I think the Buddhist definition is limited. There are times when being nice is not what is best.

An integral definition would need to include some sort of self-correcting mechanism, such as being able to honestly say to yourself that you know this response is not coming from reactivity, that it's what you think is going to lead to the most clarity on whatever the issue is. This would have to be backed up by the knowledge that there are others who would correct you or call you out on it if they saw reactivity in your post.

But what of blogs? I don't know how right speech should be interpreted in a space where it's a given that this is your unvarnished opinion, and not necessarily a discourse. OTOH, if one is a public figure, it seems to imply that there is more responsibilty there, that you have more influence than just anybody, and that needs to be taken into account.

I don't know. I do know that a blog is not a forum, and I think it's a different kind of writing, though not a license to write inflammatory tihings in and of itself.

Liz

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

I appreciate both of your thoughts on this.

Though, Arthur, I'm realizing that I sometimes feel a lack of your opinion in your posts. The ever-present non-partial thread starter that you are!

Anyways…

I agree that “being nice” is not necessarily integral in all instances.
This is what is key for me: abstaining from divisive speech, abstaining from abusive speech
What I've seen lately in the “attacks” on Steve Pavlina's online personality is reactionary speech that is divisive and, in some cases, bordering on abusive. That’s a bit of a stretch, granted, but it's the feeling I've come away with on a few occasions.

More thoughts as this thread develops…

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Colin: Though, Arthur, I'm realizing that I sometimes feel a lack of your opinion in your posts. The ever-present non-partial thread starter that you are!

~~~~~~

Wow, Colin - it's refreshing to have you say that; I find it preferable to something else I occasionally hear from people, which amounts to, “How dare you, a moderator, have your own strongly held opinion on something!” It also amuses and mildly perplexes me, as I find it irritating when people habitually refrain from putting their own opinions forward, and spend all their time sitting on fences (which is all fun and games until you get a fence post up your ass).

OK, so what do I think of all this? I think that Integral Communication would transcend and include Right Speech - the latter would be appropriate in most circumstances, but in some cases the right thing to do would be to use speech which would violate “Right Speech” in one way or another. There's probably no single element of Right Speech which should always be upheld under any circumstances.

This is an area I continue to ponder quite a bit, and I haven't come to any fixed conclusions.  Refraining from divisive speech sounds like a great idea in principle and yet…sometimes things need to be (possibly forcibly) differentiated, and that seems particularly true in terms of integral ways of thinking and acting needing differentiation from some elements of green - especially the more pathological manifestations.  I really do believe that we have to take a firm stand on some of that shit - and I have done so on certain occasions, especially in regard to The Movie Which Shall Not Be Named.   That would require divisive speech, no?

However, it is almost always better - both more effective and more ethical - to attack someone's argument than the person themselves.  (I also think that attacking someone's argument is often perceived as an attack on the person themselves.)  But even that is not an absolute rule - for example, if someone is attacking you (or someone else) you might choose to attack them in precisely the same way, in the manner of holding up a mirror, while explicitly pointing this out to them (or bystanders).  Or you might have to point out to someone (with varying degrees of explicitness, depending on the context) that they are perfectly manifesting as an asshole (whatever intrinsic spiritual value they may have at the Ground of Being level).

The point is, if you are using Integral Communication skills, potentially anything goes, depending on the situation.  That's a dangerous game - with huge opportunities for self-deceit - and consequently you need to monitor yourself as well as you can to see if you are just being reactive.  You also need to surround yourself with a trusted, perceptive and loving sangha who have your permission to call you on your bullshit.  With all those safety checks in place, rest assured that you will still fuck up and make a total ass of yourself on a regular basis.  :)

Oh and by the way, none of my musings here constitutes a license to break the Road Rules in this space.  :p

spiral out,
arthur

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Wouldn’t that depend on what level you’re speaking from? And vice-versa, could your speech identify the level you are at - or maybe just the level you are trying to address? So in that way maybe right speech is always that - right for you where you are at…

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

I personally think that, regardless of where or how speech manifests, whether in person or on a blog, a person seeking to operate in harmony with “Right Speech” pays very close attention to the words that are used.

To use an obvious example: Ken's Wyatt Earpy post, while it thrilled me at first, actually seems to have been quite divisive even within integral spheres. Some of his most ardent backers felt that post wasn't very appropriate. It was hilarious, but was it appropriate, from a “right speech” perspective?

That said, every single person will act in ways that are not in alignment with this loftly goal, even when deeply committed to it. Some miss the mark more often than others. And, in integral spheres, it seems these “misses” often come from a deep-seated arrogance.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Sure. As Stuart himself says, “the higher that we climb, the more the ladder sways.”

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Basically, what is comes down to for me is that, when we are aligned with our Higher Self, we will always be cognizant of the words we use.

I find Type AAA personalities rather useless to anyone other than the ego: Arrogant Agentic Assholes don't seem to me to be very effective at actually creating change. Nor are they good for meeting people where they're at, unless the person you are meeting is also a AAA type, and expressing that way in the moment.

Some integralites seem to hold the perspective that all is OK in the Land of God and Plenty. My buddhist wave begs to differ.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

He Colin,

I’m quite wary of AAA personalities too - especially when they are self-declared. However, I’m not sure if your description comes from your Higher Self…

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Interesting topic, a new slant on things we have discussed in other places in the past.

As a guiding principle, the “right speech” concept is perfectly fine, but something about it feels a bit bland. Communication is highly context dependent, and if one is following a dedicated spiritual path to the exclusion of all else, then it is, in that context, an admirable goal.

I do think there is a role for other things, like freedom of expression. I liked liz's observation about being more free flowing in a blog, for example. I also think we all self-censor, to some extent, depending on where we are, who we are with, what the purpose of the communication is etc..and sometimes I just want to kick the shit around and have a laugh.

I suppose the politically correct speech issue belongs in here as well. There is an argument that if language is a tool with which to think, then if we keep using the same old terminology we always have, we will just go off into a loop of the same old thoughts and ideas. New thoughts, new ideas, almost deserve to have their own labelling words because it moves the thought process to a different place. Although, of course, it is often taken to the point of absurdity, my favourite piece of politically correct crapola is the injunction not to ever call my fridge or washing machine by the generic term “white goods”.

The serious underlying point, though, is that language conveys a whole host of ideas and assumptions. Also it is only common courtesy not to refer to people in terms which you know will cause offence. That, for me, is where the limits to “free speech” should be applied (unless, of course, my intention is to offend, but I would hope to think of a smarter way of doing it than name calling). 

So right speech, for me, isn't an absolute. Just as there are times when it is appropriate to feel angry, or disappointed or whatever, there are times when it is appropriate to express those things too. Skilfull means comes to mind, maybe keeping an awareness of what it is one wishes to communicate and using whatever will be effective.

Liz
 

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Hi Frans,

I'm intrigued: What strikes you in my words as not coming from my Higher Self?

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Hi Colin,

I was referring to:

“I find Type AAA personalities rather useless to anyone other than the ego: Arrogant Agentic Assholes don’t seem to me to be very effective at actually creating change.”

The Arrogant Agentic Assholes is name calling - not Higher self stuff…

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Ah, yes. I see your point. What I wonder, though, is: Given the current usage of the term asshole, do you think that some people act in ways that actually earns them that title? Or, in terms of right speech, do you feel that it is never appropriate to call someone an asshole? I'm thinking more in line here with Liz and Liz….

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

I think when your head is in someone else's business, passing judgement on their language and denigrating their development, it is just possible the higher self is still there Frans, but you'd need to get out of colin's head and back into your own to find it.

We can , none of us, ever really know anyone's reality but our own.

Liz

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Hi Tiki Liz

I remember you from IN. And its good to see you here…

Liz

We can , none of us, ever really know anyone's reality but our own.

I often dont even know my own it seems, shadow run, shadow hide.

Buut I want to suggest that while we cant be sure of another's reality we can in fact, when we have the skill, feel into them, and feel where we think they are coming from. You would agree?

And the term Arrogant Agentic Asshole could theoretically be said with love.

I remember thinking i must make a note of this term when Colin first used it.

Great thread idea Arthur, I for one would love to be more skilled in right speech.

Gitanjali

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

I guess to me it seems that when you use a term like asshole, it implies an emotional involvement, ergo ego involvement ergo Higher Self just went out the window…but I may be too much of a purist here.

“the term Arrogant Agentic Asshole could theoretically be said with love.” - you may be pushing it just a l’ill bit, Liz - but I like the attempt!!!

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

I realized last night (after coffee at 8pm!) that a few threads in this pod are currently converging, and it seems to be critical, so I am attempting to flesh it out here. I come to this issue with a deep respect for all those I have named, and all those who are involved in this thread, whether peripherally or directly. This is significant work; I am honored, humbled and called to higher waves by this compassionate engagement with all that is Beautiful, Good, and True. Thanks to all who are joining in this effort.

In the Shadow thread, Liz and Lol are engaged in this:
 

Lol said (welcome back, Lol!): “But I did want to respond to Liz's question(s) … ”Here's my question for everyone: when I let the masculine agentic energy out, I get clobbered for it. This has happened enough times that I really don't question it. If we let that sort of thing flow, are y'all really ready for it? Or is it just too intense for online work? Can you accept it from a woman? Really and truly? “

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Bringing relevant posts to this thread for continued dialog:

C4Chaos said:

well said, Colin. and i agree with your observation. excellent choice of quote too from Grace and Grit.

allow me to share another link which is related to this topic.

NLP 101: The meaning of your communication is the response you get

there is a great deal of truth in that NLP wisdom which applies to everyone concerned:)

~C


Colin said:

Thanks for posting that intro to NLP, C4.

This is great:

Ever have a time when you were sure you were being totally clear, but the other person heard something else?

One way to deal with that is to blame: it's their fault they didn't get it. But then they didn't get it, you didn't get it, nobody got anything.

Another way is to take responsibility: that's interesting, I wonder how else I can say it so they'll get it instead.

By adopting the belief that the meaning of your communication was the response you got instead of the communication you delivered regardless of their response, you become more real-world by being responsive to feedback and flexible by adapting to change.

So, what is the point of Julian's blog post on this subject? (Julian can give his own perspective, if he is so inclined) Whether or not it was Julian's point, what you (C4) and I and others pick up on is this wave: “Ah ha! Told ya so! YOU are SO fucked up!” with arrogant self-reflection while simultaneously declaring to others how gosh-darn ON you are by posting it on a blog. Some might argue (and I have the wave arising in my own head) that my suggestion here is a performative contradiction (well, aren't you doing here exactly what you are suggesting Julian has done?). I counter that voice by feeling into it and knowing that I am coming to this topic from my heart, not my head. And, just to be extra clear, this is a newish development for me. I can recognize the headiness and agentic assault because I am sometimes prone to it myself.

Hokai said:

Hi, Colin. The visceral component is almost absent in this medium, and tone is often a matter of trust and implicit understanding we have about the nature of critical speech. We all need to exercise this basic trust when we engage in online conversations, and I assume most of us do.

The “three questions” you quote are an obvious joke, and I'm sorry if there those who don't find it funny. It'd be great to make an altitude analysis of this joke and possible reactions to it. Differences in humor started more then one war, but even so they're not a problem in and of themselves. The problem arises when not laughing to Julian's joke is somehow combined with not feeling the perversity in Pavlina's pseudo-equanimity towards murders at VA Tech. The joke wasn't personal or distasteful, but Pavlina's treatment of a tragedy was.

There are many ways to call a spade a spade, and yes we need to choose them wisely. When I said anyone has the right to weild the sword of wisdom, that's what I meant. It's a sword of wisdom, i.e. it's discrimination exhibited and expressed wisely. One cannot weild a sword of wisdom but wisely. There's no need to call for more wisdom here. Sometimes it's ugly, especially if it's mirrorlike wisdom.:-) And sometimes it's not so funny. And sometimes it feels irritating, but that's what it is - calling a spade a spade, and not beating around the bush, or ignoring the whole mess.

Here in Europe, the styles of writing are so much more down-to-earth and cynical in every good sense, that all this talk about making peace and getting along would be considered sheer exageration in sensitivity, especially when no one complained of insult or prejudice or anything inconsiderate. It's like being unsatisfied when we don't like someone else's ideas being different from our own in a way that makes our ideas seem less stable and unquestionable.

Personally, I certainly enjoy having my views questioned. And I don't believe there are “two waves” at work here.

Thanks for your observations, and for engaging this subject from yet another angle.:-)

Hokai



Colin said:

Thanks for your insightful comments, Hokai.

Obviously, there is a basic difference in opinion here. To make a point, here's an exaggerated example: The “joke” that Julian made might be seen by some as akin to the “joke” made by Ann Coulter at the Republican National Convention:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot-so….'”

What's to be offended about; it was just a joke, right?

I will own that I am, in my current version, a sensitive soul. There is value in that, though, and maligning or invalidating that tendency is not integral, from my perspective. Relegating it to “green” in an attempt to cheapen it serves no one (I say this preemptively because I have seen that done to others).

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

I believe that we do need to have a sharp but compassionate Integral sword ready to make distinctions when needed. If something is clearly green, but trying to pass as Integral then we need to call a spade a spade. At times a clean cut is needed even if it hurts.

What I see in parts of the Integral movement, and this includes the Integral icons Ken and Stuart themselves, is that many manifestations of green is attacked using a tone and language that clearly displays the shadow in the attacker. You don't see Integralites being all upset about manifestations of amber and orange, it is always green that is the target in heated debates.

I do believe that it was quite unnecessary for Stuart to publicly crucify Steve Pavlina. Stuart could have made a compassionate and Integral statement on the VA Tech Tragedy without doing this. Further more I feel it was outright inappropriate by Julian to publicly insult and ridicule Pavlina, this tells us more about Julian than Pavlina.

A skilfully wielded Integral sword will uncover the incompleteness of first-tier ideas, for example Green tendencies to let the UL (in spirituality) or LL (in academia) rule the day.
An unskilfully wielded sword, such as Julian's in his blog, will instead decapitate the person who dared to be unevolved enough to still hold onto first-tier concepts.

my 2 cents


peace
pelle

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

My own understanding of the problems with ‘getting’ right speech, is that its an evolving process. To have right speech is dependant on context, personal stage development, knowing your complexes and shadow integration.

If for example I am a sensitive male, I do not like non-sensitive action in other males. This is basic shadow 101 right? As a sensitive male I am afraid of anger.
To get past that ‘stage’ we have to develop the capacity to integrate non-sensitive action. Whilst we are doing this we will ‘try on’ non-sensitvity and try and get used to it, this is the horrible uncomfortable process Zen calls ‘practice’, and Jungian Analysands spend time living through in the Analysts office.

Eventually, and hopefully we integrate that shadow to the extent that we can then use anger appropriately. But how would I know what appropriate was until i learned through interior work, with a guide? I am bullshitting then right? No third party audit on my psyche!

Until we integrate, we are at the level of our shadows dualism, whatever ‘colour’ that may be. Our own view of the world is driven by this. As Kagen says ‘our mind has us, we do not have our mind’.

Shadow work is like running a marathon, until you actually do it, you haven’t done it. There is a wall. Once you have gone through that wall you know the ‘story’ of the wall was different than the ‘moment’ of the wall. You have less fear as a result.

Right speech demands us to be cogniscant of our limitations, and be ready for those limitations to help us evolve. Right speech does not preclude being abusive, its probably the theoretical end result of multi-decades of interior work. I would deal with my shadow before reaching for the lofty goal of not using abusive language ever. Just less.

Lets give everyone a break. You say or do something stupid, you are going to get called. Hold the criticism in suspension, and use it to look at yourself.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Sanjuro, I appreciate what you've added to this conversation. Right speech is definitely an art that evolves over time if we engage with our shadows to integrate them. And I think you're right on when you call out the messiness of the first stages of practicing that art. And, even as one evolves into higher expressions of that art, and begins to create beautiful and exquisite oil paintings that brings others that view it higher, one will regress into messiness when remaining shadow elements are hooked. Though, as you pointed out using other words, this reaction is the pure gold, if one is able to see it for that. It holds contracted power that is freed for higher purposes when the associated shadow is integrated.

I agree that people should be “given a break” sometimes. That said, I think that sometimes NOT giving others a break is actually serving our Higher Self. And that is, I feel, what several people are trying to do in the unrelenting attempts to engage Julian in this conversation. I've seen others trying to engage him in the Right Speech conversation before this thread was started. And, so far, from the partial view I have, he is not listening. And I want to point out that this is not about my being right. It's not about me or Arthur or C4Chaos or Pelle or….
It's about this communion-centered (feminine-impulse) voice that is being completely ignored and, in some cases, ridiculed and rejected, by the agentic masculine voice. That is what several people are trying  to call out. Integration, not rejection, repression, denial.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

For me “right speech”  is anything that “wakes” someone up and it can include all kinds of speech if necessary even if that speech is very divisive or even offensive to some.

The reason I say offensive is because some people may communicate in words that can be found offensive such as the “f**k* word on its own but given certain contexts it can have  various meanings and possibly promote aggressive reactions. Example, ”F**k You”!!

Personally, what I find interesting is everyone's reaction to “right speech”.
Right speech is used to “wake” someone up or speak truthfully, but what if the other person is not “listening”. Is that “right speech”? Maybe it's not appropriate speech to get someone to listen  or to “wake up”? So, I agree with Aurthur and Liz on their definitions.

This also brings into question “skillful means”, the way I measure is if someone actually “wakes up” from having experienced right speech and I think that's a very small amount of the time and happens to a small percentage of people at random moments.

We could argue that Julian isn't using “righ speech” because it seems more people are attacking him personally around his approach than his content which to me is indicative of that fact that most people are on the attack than understanding the content of his blog post.

Blogs are also as Lix mentioned another medium that is not condusive to actual face to face dialog. I mean one can write pages  and pages of content and the other person doesn't have to read a single word of it. Well, I guess you could also be face to face with someone and still ignore what the other person is saying as well. hahaha.

I also don't think Pavlina is offended by Julian's speech. I don't read Pavlina's blog nor heard of him until the thread was started about his post.

Sticks and stones may hurt you but words may not and if you let words hurt you and betray you, just know that words fade away just as your thoughts about them do.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

I also appreciate your addition to this conversation, Lucidity.

Certainly Right Speech can involve Rude Boy tactics in an effort to assist someone in “waking up.” In my experience, though, those tactics only work when it is consensual. So, for example, for those people that are called to awakening through having their egos ruthlessly assaulted, Andrew Cohen might be a useful teacher. WHEN it is CONSENSUAL, it might be the right tool.

On the other hand, using a heavy instrument with a blunt edge (in a conversation or blog post, etc) to pound someone over the head publicly is, firstly, not consensual, and secondly, not using skillfull means. Which brings us to: What is the point of the assault? Is it ego-based or shadow-based? Or is it coming from one's Higher Self?

You said: We could argue that Julian isn't using “righ speech” because it seems more people are attacking him personally around his approach than his content which to me is indicative of that fact that most people are on the attack than understanding the content of his blog post.

This is where I differ in opinion.

First, I have not seen anyone “personally attack” Julian about Right Speech. I've seen the communion-based voice arise, in multiple threads, held by several different people. What Julian did in his VA Tech/Pavlina blog post was, however, a personal attack. Joking or not, if several people see some aspect of it as being a thinly-veiled personal attack, it just might be exactly that. For Christ's sake, he talks about aspects of Steve's life that are highly personal and fundamentally formative for him. Granted, Steve has shared those details publicly, but I tend to believe he has done so in an attempt to own his personal history in a way that helps others. Not for use by others to demean him publicly. That's just plain mean-spirited, and, for those who can't hear this voice, I would humbly, yet with conviction, suggest that a shadow is in play in this regard.

Second, I think that most people involved in this on-going debate/discussion about Pavlina DO, in fact, at this point, see Julian's underlying point. With Steve's recent VA Tech post, the point that Julian is trying to make is fucking plainly obvious. And several people have agreed or conceded. THAT is NOT the point of this communion-based voice. As I said in my previous lengthy post (the cross-posted one), it's not about the content of the message, it's about the envelope the message is delivered in. And to refuse to see that the envelope is, in most circumstances, just as important as the message, is to be partial: non-integral. For, without an envelope (stick with my metaphor here even though it doesn't feel exactly right) that people are encouraged to open, the risk is that the message is simply not heard. Is that skillfull means? Or is that ego- or shadow-based communication?

THAT is the point that many people are trying to make that many other people are simply not hearing. Or they say they hear it (or might hear it but don't say it) as they proceed to jump right back into the agentic masculine impulse.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Hi, Colin.

Yes, I agree the envelope and the content of the message is not integral. And yes, what Julian said about Steve is a personal attack of his opinion of Steve.  I do think it is inappropriate to make personal  statements about a person in a negative light publicly.

At the same time, our reaction to that envelope is what I'm concerned with when we are talking about “right speech”.

Colin:  “Certainly Right Speech can involve Rude Boy tactics in an effort to assist someone in “waking up.” In my experience, though, those tactics only work when it is consensual. So, for example, for those people that are called to awakening through having their egos ruthlessly assaulted, Andrew Cohen might be a useful teacher. WHEN it is CONSENSUAL, it might be the right tool. ”

Here is where I differ from your perspective, sometimes it is not consensual in the sense that it's something upexpected.  If someone is annoying intentionally for the purpose of spreading hate or anger, using “nice” communication may not to do the trick of getting that person to stop being annoyingly hateful or angry. So, do we call it being rude when we use offensive language?

I've witnessed a situation where one drunk person was picking on a complete stranger just for the intention of picking a fight (probably out of self-hate) and in that incidence, even if that stranger tried to speak gently with this drunk person to stop bothering him, the drunk person continued on to get a “reaction”. So, the only way to stop the situation from becoming any more messier was to use offensive words and also phsycial retaliation had to be involved.

Colin: First, I have not seen anyone “personally attack” Julian about Right Speech.

I have witnessed people reacting in very subtle ways, if not directly and not so much in offensive words.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Lucidity: Personally, what I find interesting is everyone's reaction to “right speech”.
Right speech is used to “wake” someone up or speak truthfully, but what if the other person is not “listening”. Is that “right speech”? Maybe it's not appropriate speech to get someone to listen  or to “wake up”? So, I agree with Aurthur and Liz on their definitions.

~~~~~

In my understanding (not that I've studied this extensively) right speech is not speech that is “used to 'wake' someone up” - in which case shocking or provocative speech might be a valid part of right speech if it is intended to produce that effect.  Right speech has more to do with behaving ethically so that you won't have impediments to your own awakening process (and also to make this dream more pleasant for everyone, even as some of us try to wake up from/within/as the dream).  In the simple wiki article on the Noble Eightfold Path I linked to at the beginning of this thread, this is what the text says about the ethical conduct part of the Eightfold Path:

~~~~~

The “ethical conduct” (Śīla) subdivision of the Noble Eightfold Path is considered the cornerstone or foundation upon which unwholesome thoughts and practices end and higher meditative states begin.

In AN 11.2 Cetana Sutta (An Act of Will) Buddha states it is virtue (without clinging to virtue) which gives freedom from remorse and freedom from remorse which leads to joy, serenity and subsequent rapturous states of meditation.

It is in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.

In Buddhism, this is also one of the Ten Recollections along with the Triple Gem.

“There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects his own virtues, thus: '[They are] untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, conducive to concentration.'

This aspect of the Noble Eightfold Path is the most outward-oriented aspect of the Noble Eightfold Path insofar as it deals directly with a Buddhist practitioner's relationship with other members of his or her society.

Right speech (samyag-vāc · sammā-vācā), as the name implies, deals with the way in which a Buddhist practitioner would best make use of his or her words. In the Magga-vibhanga Sutta, this aspect of the Noble Eightfold Path is explained as follows:

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, abstaining from divisive speech, abstaining from abusive speech, abstaining from idle chatter: This, monks, is called right speech^[6].

Walpola Rahula glosses this by stating that not engaging in such “forms of wrong and harmful speech” ultimately means that “one naturally has to speak the truth, has to use words that are friendly and benevolent, pleasant and gentle, meaningful and useful”^[7].

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Hey Arthur.

I haven't quite communicated what I was saying about “right speech” being offensive or divisive. Do forgive me as I try to take another stab at it and may be redundant.

It may seem that given certain words it could be offensive or divisive, but the content of it could be coming from a place of compassion. So, it could be interpreted and reacted to in ways that are divisive.

Aruthur: “Right speech has more to do with behaving ethically so that you won't have impediments to your own awakening process (and also to make this dream more pleasant for everyone, even as some of us try to wake up from/within/as the dream). ”

I agree here, but I was speaking/pointing to use of language and words that may be considered offensive. Language can get really messy as well as debating or discussions, especially when people are going at it trying to get to the “truth” and express their concerns.

One person may react completely differently to another person's use of language than someone else.

I am not saying people should use abusive language whenever they want etc. or cause someone else to suffer edit: especially coming from anger or hate.

I do think that some people because of the use of language get offended without seeing the content of someone's “speech”.

So, do  we discuss  the use of offensive language or the “content” of their “speech”?

Edit: Also, does our reaction to “speech” having anything to do with whether that speech is ethical or not?

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Hey All,

Sammā-vācā is literally translated as right speech. But sammā has connotations of harmonious and wholesomeness. Wholesome inline with your intentions of non-harming and harmonious with your relations to others. Since the Buddhist path is one of the proto-integral models, including right speech would do well to form the foundation of an integral communications. Right speech falls into the Sila or ethical first developments on the path. Sila practices are akin to the Body development in AQAL. This forms the basis for and leads to samadhi or Mind development which forms the basis for and leads to wisdom or Spirit. The problem that some folks have is that they would not say much if they followed the guidelines of right speech. So in this age of hyper-expression, right speech tends to be seen as passe.

p&l

e

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Dear Arthur,

Ah, been thinking about this for a day or so.

For one thing, seems like we’re talking ground rules again.

Yet, it also seems a new gestalt element as appeared:

Right Speech naturally follows Right Thought, yes/no?

So, I imagine “Integral Right Speech” would be one that flows from “Integral Right Thoughts”…indicating that all quadrants were being considered at each opportunity where they could be applied (is anyplace not open ground to apply AQAL?)

Or is this just way too simple?

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

It's not too simple, it's elegant.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Rannah: So, I imagine “Integral Right Speech” would be one that flows from “Integral Right Thoughts”…indicating that all quadrants were being considered at each opportunity where they could be applied (is anyplace not open ground to apply AQAL?)

~~~~

Yes, good point. 

BTW I don't see us as discussing “ground rules” so much as talking about differing interpretations of “skillful means.”   :)

spirals,
arthur

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Hi Rannah

I have only just caught up with this trhread, and its sister the VA Tech one.  I just got broadband installed in my new flat woo hoo!  So I can catch up with you guys at home as well as at work!  I only listened to the IN dialogue yesterday, so didn't want to read other peoples opinions until I'd 'seen the evidence'

Just want to say, after skimming through both long threads, I read you definition of right speech, and thought it was really beautiful.

That definition could then include speech that on the surface appears flawed/aggressive/unskillful etc, but was actually concieved of by right thought, and has a much more informed, and higher motivation than appears.  That would include things like Ken's Wyatt Earp blog which was mentioned earlier in the thread.

Ewan

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

The July 2nd zaadz mailout (What do you believe?) is an inspiring example of skillful integral communication in addressing a contentious issue; it starts thus:

~~~~~

An invitation to go deeper…
Zaadzsters.

One of the things that impresses me most about this community is how it grasps the deeper truths behind the glitz of principles like “creating your own reality” and the Law of Attraction. It’s not that these popularized notions are wrong, but more that they’re just a superficial glimpse of a much larger picture… and it’s wonderful to be among a group of people who understands this.

And it’s wonderful to see that there are others out there who realize this, too.

The Institute for Noetic Sciences (a sponsor that we’ve not spent nearly enough time talking about) is one organization that’s doing excellent work in encouraging and spreading legitimate scientific research around the way our thoughts influence reality. They push deeper, beyond the notions of “manifestation” into psychology, consciousness studies, and those shifts in perception crucial to crafting a sustainable future.

~~~~~

coolness :)

arthur

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

See also this post where I link to serious research being done by the Boundary Institute on how human consciousness affects Random Number Generators.

Also check out the research by Noetic Sciences, some of their main projects, and if you're interested - distant healing specifically.


Pelle

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

a story,

I'm reminded that I sat beside the, then, president of IONS for a Communications workshop ( given by Virginia Satir). Over breakfast with him the next morning, I recall that I did most of the talking, and yet, that conversation over granola and yogert, resonantly continued to inspire me for years. Dr. Harman had asked the Right questions, in the Right way.

His style of right speech included right listening.

It's good to see that IONS is still asking the right questions.

jiki

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

<bump>

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Thanks, Arthur.  A very timely bump. 

I hadn't read this thread, being “new” myself, and I greatly appreciated the nourishing content and conversations.  I used to post here and moreso on IN, and I recently came back after a several-year hiatus.  I'm intrigued, frustrated, and saddened by the current hashings-out.  I want to stick with it, as it's a crucial issue: This is our only method of communication with each other.  We don't get the subtleties of body language, vocal nuance, facial expression, visceral contact with personal energy… much as we try to insert them =) *shrugs shoulders*.

So, we can only depend on these 26+ characters on a standard keyboard to convey the vastness that we have to say.  The opportunity for misinterpretation is astronomical.  Because of this, I do think we need to error on the side of sensitivity, without getting lost in a communal soup.  Above, Colin quoted this section from Grace and Grit:

“Learning to focus more on how we say something, not just the content. Often each of us feels totally right about the content, but we both say this “truth” in an unkind or angry or defensive or provocative way. And then we can't understand why the other reacts to the twist in the comment, not the content.”

Blessings,
Elizabeth

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Right on, Elizabeth.  Let's tarry a bit on Treya's quote.  I'll give my own flavour.  The how of one’s communication carries a considerable and important element of a communication’s social motivation or intention.  Communication is among other things a social phenomenon with social purposes and ends that include the entire gamut of what one wants to get from one’s environment—particularly, how one wants one’s environment (ie, another person) ordered or structured including, centrally, how one wants that other to behave toward me. 

This social ordering element often comes through the body-moving how of communication which, depending on one’s level of development, and at a common, interesting end of things, includes a how-by-hurt.

Take communication by means of unkind expression.  The way I see it, unkind expression typically knows by some measure (usually spot-on accurate) how the unkind thing-said will hurt the other which, again as I see it, intends, by inducing hurt as such, to motivate the other to be or say or do something or somehow else, in essence to motivate change in the other.  This mode is seen clearly when couples fight.  One says something intending to hurt the other, the other, no surprise, does feel hurt and pulls a counter-hurting statement from the quiver and fires it over.  Further arrows trade positions from quiver to body until someone notices the time, or gets hungry, or something.  This basic power struggle usually ends in a slight reordering of turf (external environment, ie, the other) depending on who shot the best and sharpest arrows and how.  It’s perhaps no surprise that our word for right relationship is “compatibility,” which etymologically means “co-hurt-ability.”

How to break this cycle?  Well, one way is to pay attention to the dynamics in the how space of communication, and to speak them honestly.  Very often after a fight, people will say, wanting to make up, “I didn’t mean to hurt you.”  IMO, that statement is really quite false in that the sayer (not to mention the other party) was deliberately shooting arrows in the direction of, and typically with astonishing accuracy, very well-intuited hurt zones in the other, this being one of compatibility’s universally recognized modes, and a specialty of this social brain we carry.  One could note these dynamics and speak them honestly: “Darling, I should get a gold medal for all those arrows I shot so accurately into those wounds I’ve noticed in you and compiled over the last eight years of our being together.  I intended to hurt you and I’m not surprised you did hurt.”

No one is of course responsible for another’s hurt.  The feeling of hurt, after all, is actively generated by the other in their body and more or less, IMO, signifies the very areas a person needs to grow to become strong and independent and able to love (ie, to become no longer needy of externals however).  This latter point is very important: hurt is, in a sense, the felt doorway to love—it is that precious—and spending the energy of one’s hurt by shooting counterarrows, though perhaps stage appropriate, yet burns that energy in mere further refinements of archery skill.  Noticing and saying the social intention of one’s communication, on the other hand—unpackaging, among other things, the how of communication—will open a window to seeing subtle dynamics of me and you and we.  And to the extent one is able to walk through the little doorways of one’s own hurt will a person, IME, integrate, become by degrees no longer hurtable, ie, will find lovestrength and will no longer need the other to behave in some particular manner.  How sweet, so keep up the fighting!

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Elizabeth: Thanks, Arthur.  A very timely bump.

~

You're welcome.  I thought so too.  :)

cheers,
Arthur

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

By the way, on a practical note, one can practice intention-noticing by aid of assumptions, one being that if the other hurts from something I said, assume you intended that hurt.  This assumption is almost certainly the more accurate the better one knows the hurting other.  : )

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Further by the way, most “you” statements carry more than a whiff of social motivating of the nature I described above.  Worth a look.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Something else to throw into the stew, from the just-published book Integral Life Practice:

The Platinum Rule

The ability to take wider and deeper perspectives may lead you to higher expressions of traditional ethical dictums.  For instance, the Golden Rule, recognized by most religious traditions, essentially says “treat others as you would like to be treated.”  Yet when you take another's perspective you may discover that the way you would like to be treated differs from the way the other would like to be treated.  Hence the Platinum Rule: Treat others as they would like to be treated.”  The Platinum Rule honors the rich diversity of human sensibilities and structures of awareness by asking advanced ethical practitioners to take the perspective of another and act from that awareness.  The philosopher Karl Popper articulated the Platinum Rule when he said, “The Golden Rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever possible, as they want to be done.” - Integral Life Practice: a 21st-Century Blueprint for Physical Health, Emotional Balance, Mental Clarity, and Spiritual Awakening, by Ken Wilber et. al.

~~~

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Arthur, yes, to the extent one's buttons can no longer be pushed—what is perhaps this decade's version of emotional maturity—is one free to see another and appreciate what that other needs and wants in their development, situation, personality, etc.  The development underlying the growth of this perspective sounds to me like an emotional version of the “momentous leap” into 2nd tier: integral EQ.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

A question on the Platinum rule.
“Treat others as they would like to be treated.”

As they want to be done now, or at their highest evolved self?

That is, shall we treat people as they want to be treated, or shall we do what's best for them?

The later implies that I know better what's best for someone than they do themselves!

As a parent I often break the platinum rule because I know better what's best for my son than he does. So, if I do my job he may appreciate and maybe even thank me, but not until he's an adult when he understands.

And I would like that to be the case for me here. If I am clearly deluted, I'd be glad if someone pointed this out to me, despite the fact that I wont like it at that moment!

Here's another example of someone breaking the platinum rule: Gordon Ramsey. :-)

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Yeah, I had similar thoughts when reading that bit about the Platinum Rule.

Treating others as they would like to be treated only works if both parties are at a very high level of overall development. If that…

I'll be damned if I treat the plumber who comes on to me wanting sex on the side the way he wants to be treated! …Or the Senator who is lying through his daVinci-crowned teeth when he promises to fix another social injustice… Or even my best, best friends when they demand more of my time than is healthy for my own sanity.


.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Oh, these are tough questions. This really opens up for some shadow boxing:
- I know what's best for you.
- No, I know what's best for you.
- Who told you to be my teacher?
- Who told you to be my teacher?

Maybe one should add to the road rules something like this:
“When your shadow or an emotional reaction takes over your writing (no matter how much 1-2-3 of shadow you do, sooner or later it will!), you are still responsible for the consequences of your communication (or at least partly).”

Love

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Mascha & Fication, I agree – that platinum rule needs to be qualified …. I'm thinking that the idea was to have somekind of pithy, shorthand way to say “take the other person's perspective into consideration when making a decision on how to treat / communicate with / serve / love them.” But there really is a beat missing in “treat others as they would like to be treated.”

In the Bible there is a kind of “evolution” of the Golden Rule. In John 15: 9-13, Jesus says “I have loved you just as the Father has loved me …. Remain in my love.”

The implication is that we are to love or “treat” others as God has loved / treated us – and not just how we would like to be treated. Seems like that would mean taking our perspective, the other's perspective, and the perspective of the divine, or the higher Self, all into consideration …

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Exactly, Mary. The Golden Rule, when read in terms of the “self” (small “s”), is almost as problematic as the Platinum Rule. Would a masochist be justified in also being a sadist (just to take an extreme example)?

I think it's good to keep both in mind and then act from the Highest Self as best we can.

Cheers,
~G

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

The implication is that we are to love or “treat” others as God has loved / treated us - and not just how we would like to be treated. Seems like that would mean taking our perspective, the other's perspective, and the perspective of the divine, or the higher Self, all into consideration …

I really like this. 

I think it's hard to conceptually act from a Highest Self place that is always actively evolving.  At least, it always has been for me… it creates a kind of standstill in my capacity to act.  I find myself thinking, “Is this my Highest Self? What if there's something higher I haven't considered?”  Then I freeze up with concern that I'm less than at my Highest… which is a clear indication that I've started thinking too much!  This is where I try to turn to Life as Teacher.  I take an action as best I can, in each relative moment.  Life always gives me the exact feedback I need.  My challenge is to stay open to that feedback.

I have a good friend who gave me advice very similar to Mary's, and it helps me from freezing up: “Try to see everyone as the Light of Christ, including yourself.”  Seeing everyone as a spark of the Divine really helps me employ the Golden and Platinum rule to the best of my ability.  For me, it's a great antidote: Say what you need to say, but remember Who you're speaking to.  (And Who is speaking!)

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

maryw: I'm thinking that the idea was to have some kind of pithy, shorthand way to say “take the other person's perspective into consideration when making a decision on how to treat / communicate with / serve / love them.” But there really is a beat missing in “treat others as they would like to be treated.”

~~~

The part of quoted explanation of the Platinum Rule that stands out for me is ”The Platinum Rule honors the rich diversity of human sensibilities and structures of awareness by asking advanced ethical practitioners to take the perspective of another and act from that awareness.”

It's specifically aimed at “advanced ethical practitioners” and is all about taking the perspectives of others.  Like any simplistic ethical formulation, it's a reminder only, a touchstone.  There is much more to hold in awareness, and applying it is an art rather than a precise science. 

And, I might add, it's a tiny box embedded in an entire chapter on integral ethics in the book Integral life Practice - it's well worth checking out the total context in which the Platinum Rule is situated (which ultimately is the entire book, very much including the Shadow Module chapter).  The ethics chapter also talks about vertical versus horizontal ethical practice, the Basic Moral Intuition (“to protect and promote the greatest depth for the greatest span”), the lifeboat exercise (Who do you throw to the sharks - Ghandi, or the plumber who tried to fuck you?), and much more.

spiral out,
Arthur

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Arthur: (Who do you throw to the sharks - Ghandi, or the plumber who tried to fuck you?)

That's easy. Gandhi was old… probably born as a wrinkly old dude right from the start. And the plumber could fix the leak in the boat!

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

I dig your clarification and emphasis, Arthur (dang, you still have not signed the index in my book yet!) – and for me it also serves as a reminder that there are potential downsides (misunderstandings, misinterpretations) to reading certain kinds of passages and quotes outside of their original context.

I have been reading that ILP book in a skipping-around kind of way. And it is a wonderful book, BTW – very accessible and readable! Already a friend of mine – who generally doesn't like reading theory (and who previously shied away from integral's “overly structured” approach to things) has ordered a copy after flipping through mine. It's the kind of book that makes a great gift – for integral newbies, oldies, and everything-in-betweenies ….  :-)

Mary

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

I'm up to the body module and thought exactly the same thing Mary. I loved the shadow chapter.

Juliee