Progressive Buddhism: Right Speech and the Big Mind Debate
by Danny Fisher
In a new post over at Progressive Buddhism, author “Justin” has an insightful critique of Brad Warner’s recent rhetorical flourishes in his battle royale with Dennis Genpo Merzel Roshi over the Big Mind process. I appreciated the post because Brad’s responses to Genpo Roshi bring up a lot to mull over. What is “right speech”? What is “authentic speech”? What is their relationship? Are they one in the same? Decidedly not? Something in between?
On the one hand, I think that “right speech” is often questionably interpreted as being “nice” all the time. This can lead–but not necessarily–to the kinds of things Brad is rightly concerned about: “phoniness” and “passive-aggressiveness” and so on. Being “real” and direct seem to me ways of practicing right speech; it’s more than just speaking sweetly. On the other hand, though–and I’m just playing devil’s advocate here–is it possible that “authenticity” can be used as something to hide behind? Like, “I’m not being deliberately offensive, I’m being authentic.” As Justin says at Progressive Buddhism, “this sort of argument can be used to justify pretty much anything.” I’m all for authenticity, but there’s authenticity and then there’s the human tendency to employ “get out of jail free” cards.
I don’t know. I think Brad has his good points to make. (In addition to sharing his concerns about being authentic, I also think he is quite correct in his assertion that the precepts are not meant to be used to “gauge the behavior of others.”) I also think Justin’s critiques have validity.
What do you think?
oh god, please don’t become any more academic … even this is toooo much. are you going for tenure or something? yikes to all of this. nitpickers.
XD First, my dearheart, Danny is both a Lay Minister and a Chaplain. So, in my opinion asking questions is sort of his job. Think of him as an articulate, walking, talking mindfulness bell.
He is up for his doctorate: “He is currently a doctoral candidate in Buddhist Studies at the University of the West.” However, even so – “academic” to my way of thinking would mean lots of analysis and references. Neither here.
Two last things – debate has a long, long, long tradition in the Buddhist monastic community, in my lay opinion that’s all about learning through discourse. I see no reason not to continue that tradition outside the ordained world. Also, Right Speech is a part of the Eightfold Path and I see nothing wrong with the web-Sangha of the world debating the meaning and relevancy of this.
Love the art, by the way.
Huggles,
A Nitpicker
Hiya D,
Really interesting stuff.
First off, I think this “debate” is very healthy, and a sign that American Buddhism is alive and kicking.
Second, with regard to your query, I think that like most topics in Buddhism, it boils down to intention.
As observers of this debate (online at least), all we’ve got is pixels on a screen…the internet is notorious for being an imperfect tool for conveying emotional content.
This makes me think of the Atisha slogan “Of the two witnesses, hold the principle one,” which essentially means be honest with yourself, while simultaneously meaning you just can’t ever truly know anyone else’s intention (until you attain buddhahood, I s’pose).
So, interesting stuff. Quite entertaining. Reminds me of the epic Kamalashila vs. Huo Shang debate in Tibet in the 8th century (supposedly of the gradual path vs. sudden enlightenment, respectively).
So, we can use this contemporary bout as an opportunity to engage in introspection and be honest with ourselves about how we genuinely conduct ourselves with Right Speech or not, and learn about our own patterns.
Who’s gonna win?
Gregory: I too appreciated the art. Good stuff.
Edamommy: Thank you, dear heart.
Nick: Two great points in your comment, I think…
1.) …The internet is notorious for being an imperfect tool for conveying emotional content. Very good call, and perhaps something getting missed here.
2.) We can use this contemporary bout as an opportunity to engage in introspection and be honest with ourselves about how we genuinely conduct ourselves with Right Speech or not, and learn about our own patterns. I couldn’t have said it better myself. It seems to me that that’s the lesson here. There’s no “winning” in this debate, really. But it can be a catalyst for some really vital critical-constructive reflection. In that way, we owe deep bows to Brad, Justin, Genpo Roshi, and all the various commentators/observers of this debate.
Thank you, sir.
I like the idea of having a wide variety of kinds of folks in the gene poll, and learning to put up with them all, excepting maybe a few on an extreme edge that have the peculiar ability to nettle you.
Brad is rambunctious, original and — perhaps unfortunately — very necessary. And he doesn’t nettle me enough such that I’d want him whacked.
Brad plays an important role — sort of like that of the vulture, maybe — to dive into areas where others of us won’t or can’t.
I think it is valuable for someone “in the know,” like Brad, to square off against Merzel’s Big Mind thing. On the (original) face of it, it does seem that Merzel has created a racket, not enough unlike the 700 Club, to rake in the big bucks with a little hocus-pocus. It seems to me it is good to have Battling Brad in the ring, getting in his rabbit punches.
[Hope this comment doesn't get deleted. I've left out all the antisemitic, homophobic and obscene things that might've come to mind.]
Hey, Tom! Always good to hear from you.
Just to be clear, I’m not talking so much about Brad’s criticisms of Big Mind and Genpo Roshi so much as I’m talking about his way of expressing himself. And I really don’t have my mind made up about anything. I was being sincere when I said at the end of my post, “I don’t know.” I find the debate fascinating, in part because Brad’s rhetoric (as well as Justin’s critique) brings up questions about “right speech” and “authenticity” for me–questions like the ones I expressed. To paraphrase Nick, I appreciate all of this primarily because it provokes introspection and opportunities to learn about my own patterns.
I’m all for critical voices like in American Buddhism. In fact, I think we need more of them. Brad’s a keeper. Justin is too, I think.
Danny,
There was this story in the paper about how they tried to breed “friendly foxes” and while the breeders succeeded, the animals were in many ways like juvenile foxes in the way they looked and acted. In the search for a single quality, you necessarily find it as part of a package of qualities — some of which you might not want.
I think that it is possibly the case that in order for us to have the wonder and splendor and genius of Bradism, we have to embrace Brad’s juvenile and prickly side, too.
I do wince at the “asswipe” thing, though. While going at Merzel with abandon is mostly OK [Merzel's a big boy, claims to have 'achieved' high spiritual altitude, seems to have made a pompous target of himself IMHO, and is up to something problematic, at best, with his Big Mind Seminars.], venal sideswipes against lowly proles are mindlessly cruel and self indulgent.
I’ve gotten nervous about the idea of “authenticity,” in recent years. We inter-are: If there IS an ‘authentic’ Tom [or Brad or Dan], does this imply a soul? And doesn’t it seem that those who tightly embrace the idea of authenticity become rigid about what they believe and how they behave, when it is better to be fully amenable to change, and, thus, progress? Thus, there is no “authentic Tom,” just as there is no Tom entity that can be separated from the world and lifted unstained from the universe.
As for Justin: He’s ALL good. It would be nice if he could be cloned.