Progressive Buddhism: Right Speech and the Big Mind Debate
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?
