This is an AI-generated transcript from auto-generated subtitles for the video Ajahn Nisabho: Right Speech in Times of Peace: Monastic & Scriptural Insights. It likely contains inaccuracies, especially with speaker attribution if there are multiple speakers.

Right Speech in Times of Peace - Monastic & Scriptural Insights - Ajahn Nisabho

The following talk was given by Ajahn Nisabho at The Sati Center in Redwood City, CA on November 10, 2023. Please visit the website www.audiodharma.org for more information.

Right Speech in Times of Peace - Monastic & Scriptural Insights

I think initially Ajahn Kovilo¹ and I—first I recognize some of the people here, it's great to see many of you. I saw many of you last night on our Wednesday evening livestream. I think initially Ajahn Kovilo and I were hoping to do a pair of talks on integrity and gentleness in speech. Mudu is the word for soft in speech, and ujū upright. We were aligning those slightly with the antithesis of the negative forms of speech, namely lying, harsh speech, divisive tale-bearing, and idle chatter. But as many of you know who attended Ajahn Kovilo's talk last Thursday, we changed to Ajahn Kovilo's talk really focusing in on the simile of the saw and right speech in times of war, given recent events in the Middle East and honestly throughout the world. I think that was an appropriate move, and I hope people found benefit in that talk. If people didn't get a chance to attend or watch it, then I really encourage you to look it up on Sati Center's YouTube channel. It is one of the most meaningful suttas² you can find in terms of just very clear directions from the Buddha on the level and breadth of heart that he expects from practitioners. And having that standard, even if we can't live up to it all the time, is so meaningful when things are difficult. Because if you can understand what the Buddha was encouraging us to be able to be—in the words of the sutta, dismantled limb from limb by bandits with a two-handled saw without giving rise to a single thought of ill will—then you can probably sit through a political discussion at Thanksgiving dinner with your relatives with a mind of reasonable equanimity. So it was a really important talk.

I think to pair with it, I hope to go in this session focusing on right speech in times of peace. And to be honest, that really just pairs nicely with right speech in times of war, but I hope to speak to in this session right speech: the basics that the Buddha lays out for our entire lives. And these are relevant obviously in times of war and times of peace, but they are a structure which is meaningful for us as practitioners even in times of relative calm. Because so much of the karma we create, the damage we do and the good we can do, and the training of the path in the lives of a modern practitioner is through speech. So learning clearly the Buddha's directions on that is meaningful.

One of the clearest directives the Buddha gives constraining what speech is wholesome is the four forms of wrong speech he lays out. And many of you will know this list, it appears often, but it includes abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from harsh speech, and from idle chatter. And we'll go more into depth in each, and one can read the standard descriptions in the handout. But for now, what I think is worth mentioning is that of these four, the fourth precept of sīla³ and ethical conduct basically only prohibits lying. And what's interesting about that is that there's an implicit acknowledgement that there is a time and a place for the other three. So they aren't completely prohibited by the precepts.

There's a time for divisive speech in the sense of what would be called divisive tale-bearing. In that if someone needs to be warned about another person, if there's genuinely someone who you feel is dangerous or could do harm to a friend of yours or someone you care about, then you might need to speak to that person about your concerns. And divisive tale-bearing is not slander, because it's true. These are true tales that you're bringing from one person to another, but there's a time when it is appropriate. Or if you're genuinely concerned about someone else's well-being, there might be a place to bring it up to a friend and just speak to it briefly. However, this is also perhaps one of the most difficult for us even as practitioners to hold, in that it is the root to gossip, which is something I think most of us work with. And just to say that if one is to use divisive speech in one of these appropriate circumstances which are somewhat rare, then to really clearly frame it. Bring it to someone you trust, check your intention, and then say, "Look, I usually would not talk about someone like this, but I feel like there's something I have to say." And then say it, and then end that part of the conversation. But carefully frame and constrain those moments when you might need to engage in divisive speech. But in general, it's unwholesome.

Similarly with harsh speech, there is a time where it's appropriate even as practitioners, but once again very rarely. Some of you might know the story of Mae Chee Kaew⁴, an enlightened Thai nun from the past century, and her meditation was taking her down a path of delusion for a time. And her teacher, Ajahn Maha Bua⁵, one of the most well-known monks of Thailand, repeatedly tried to bring her back to her basic object and approach of insight, and she just wouldn't budge. And so in the end he was quite fierce. And there are times when a teacher will be fierce, and that is an appropriate moment for harsh speech. But once again it's very rare. And so often anything that can be said with an edge can be said much better without, and an edge will change the whole course of the discussion.

And finally, idle chatter. Many of you will know the Pali for this is samphappalāpa⁶, which is one of the best words in existence. It sounds exactly like the type of speech it's describing. There's a good comparison of idle chatter to be made to, for example, bicycle grease—something you need to put on the chains and the gears to keep it running smoothly. In that sense, social interaction sometimes involves a bit of idle chatter, but too much and your hands end up completely gummed with oil.

So all three of those have a time and place, although we have to be very mindful of how much we're bringing them to bear. But lying is the one that the precept is against because it's never appropriate in a Buddhist conception. And it's worth noting that in the Jātaka tales⁷, the stories of the Buddha's previous lives—and for the most part these tales are likely later interpolations that subsumed a lot of myth and folklore from Vedic India at the time, but they're very colorful and quite fun—it's worth noting that in all of those Jātaka tales, the one precept that the Bodhisatta, the Buddha-to-be, never breaks is that against lying. He never breaks that precept.

Ajahn Kovilo spoke to the purpose of discussion, but it's worth touching on again here. For that's the purpose of discussion, that's the purpose of counsel, that's the purpose of drawing near, that's the purpose of lending ear. That is the liberation of heart through non-clinging, anupādā vimutti⁸. And just to check our intention when we speak, and when we approach a conversation, and in what we listen to: is our intention towards the Dhamma⁹? In an embodied sense, what one really gains over years of practice is the trivial and the non-trivial, and that sense of "This isn't necessary, this isn't helpful," and really learning to feel that in the body and mind and heed it. So this metric of aiming our speech, our listening, always towards non-clinging and practice in the liberation of heart is deeply important. And one useful thing to realize here is it also circumscribes the realm of what we should take in.

An important transition, and this does relate to idle chatter, is just the sort of media we absorb, and consistently trying to replace more coarse forms of entertainment with more refined ones. Can we try to replace the political podcast in the morning with the Dhamma talk? Can we, instead of watching a movie on Netflix, look at the latest documentary on Tricycle? There are very clear ways of doing this. And you'll find sometimes the mind is too hungry for a Dhamma talk and it wants something a bit flashier, and maybe that's when you give it the documentary. And also, if you're watching Netflix, it's not the end of the world. But this is a good thing to test yourself against. In any given state of mind, see how refined a stimulus satisfies you and can satisfy you. And what we're aiming for is a tiered practice where you know your state of mind, you know the sort of food it needs. The Buddha compared the mind to a king and your mindfulness to a cook, where you knew what to feed it at any given time. And just seeing how refined of flavors can you give the mind in those states. And then you get a good read like, "Oh, in the morning my mind really is pretty agitated, I need to give it something a little more." So maybe you listen to an account of Ajahn Sucitto¹⁰ walking through India rather than a straight Dhamma talk. But always this purpose of lending an ear for the liberation of heart.

One thing I wanted to bring up is there is one of the states that the Buddha didn't disparage completely was the state of mind of fear. Because there is a place for spiritual fear. In that when we break sīla, the Buddha said there's five kinds of loss: health, wealth, relatives, right view, and sīla. And of those five he said the first three are trivial—health, wealth, and relatives—that we will lose those we love, our health will decline, wealth is up and down, and at the very least we'll lose it when we die. But morality, sīla, and right view we keep, and those are what is truly precious. And he was very clear that there's a place for being afraid of losing those things, or rather circumspection. And obviously fear can really be held wrong, especially in the Judeo-Christian context where a lot of our culture has a certain trauma at the heart of it dealing with hell and fire and brimstone. So holding these lightly, but just to say there are certain passages which make one careful with one's speech. And this is one of them, is the results he ascribes to wrong speech. Lying, when indulged in, developed, and pursued, is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realms of hungry ghosts. The slightest of all results coming from lying is that when one becomes a human being, it leads to being falsely accused. So lying leads to being falsely accused. Divisive speech leads to the breaking of one's friendships. Harsh speech leads to unappealing sounds. Idle chatter leads to the words that aren't worth taking to heart.

There's a reason this passage doesn't get quoted often, because it hits the modern Westerner in probably a difficult way. Because most of us are self-flagellating enough already, and there's a lot of self-hatred and fear and recrimination already at play. And to be clear that the Buddha never praised guilt in that sense. There's a place for wholesome regret and moving on, but to dwell in the past with fear and guilt and self-recrimination is not wholesome ever. However, I think there's also a place to know these teachings because it makes you careful with your speech. And you see the effects of wrong speech. You see how when you lie often, that karma comes back very quickly and someone doesn't believe what you're saying. I've seen this very clearly with divisive speech. If I'm engaging in divisive speech and gossip at all, it comes back in ways that are frightening. And it's made me so careful to try my utmost to not speak badly of others. So there's a place for a wholesome mindfulness around knowing what the Buddha called hiri and ottappa, conscience and concern. And so I wanted to put this passage in there even though I'm hoping people don't hold it too harshly, but rather just use it as one more guidepost towards refining this aspect of our conduct, especially when it comes to gossip and lying. I also like "unappealing sounds." I don't totally know what that means, but I think it means your voice might be a bit annoying.

So to go into abstaining from lying, the first of the areas the Buddha told us to refrain from wrong speech. Once again, this is the one that the precept is against, and also the precept the Buddha never breaks in his previous births in the Jātaka tales. I think part of this is because the precept against lying is... honesty is what allows us to look clearly at our other failings and our other slips and correct. It's the quintessential mirror that allows all other difficulties or oversteps in terms of our ethical conduct to correct. So it's a foundation for the entire path. And the Buddha indicates this very clearly: "Let an intelligent person come to me who is sincere, honest, and straightforward, and I will instruct them. I will teach them the Dhamma." What I think this speaks to is just this is the Buddha's basis for disciple sincerity: honesty. And I think it means a lot to know that if we have that much, if we have sincerity, if we have honesty—and most of us do—then no matter all of our other foibles, however else we're broken, that mirror will allow a lot of those things to correct themselves very quickly. More quickly than we think. And it's interesting to see people go through life, and you slip up in your speech or your conduct, and there's so much guilt. Or you really see it clearly when you begin to practice. And just to realize that that seeing of it, the wanting to be better, that is the mirror. And the clear mirror that comes from honesty, right view, and sincerity, that's enough to do a great deal, that sort of mindfulness in terms of steering the heart. So just to have some saddhā¹¹, some faith in that fact is important.

The other passage I wanted to bring to mind is the Buddha's advice to Rahula, his son. Many of you will know this passage, but it's the Buddha speaking to his young novice son about honesty. And it's I think the first sutta given to Rahula. The Buddha's teachings to Rahula are really significant because you get to see his teachings to one practitioner through their entire life. You don't get to see that anywhere else in the suttas. You don't get to see the Buddha teaching that monk or novice as a young boy, and then as a young man, and then into arahantship¹². The only place you see the whole trajectory is with Rahula. And it's interesting to see that. How does one develop? What teachings does the Buddha give someone at different stages of their development? And he begins with honesty, and with a clear analogy.

Then the Blessed One, having left a little bit of the remaining water in the water dipper, said to Venerable Rahula, "Rahula, do you see this little bit of remaining water left in the water dipper?" "Yes, sir." "That's how little of a contemplative there is in anyone who feels no shame at telling a deliberate lie."

Having tossed away the little bit of remaining water, the Blessed One said to Venerable Rahula, "Rahula, do you see how this little bit of remaining water is tossed away?" "Yes, sir." "Rahula, whatever there is of a contemplative in anyone who feels no shame at telling a deliberate lie is tossed away just like that."

Having turned the water dipper upside down, the Blessed One said to Venerable Rahula, "Rahula, do you see how this water dipper is turned upside down?" "Yes, sir." "Rahula, whatever there is of a contemplative in anyone who feels no shame at telling a deliberate lie is turned upside down just like that."

And so on. I'm going to skim past this just for the sake of time, but I do want to finish here:

"What do you think, Rahula, what is a mirror for?" "For reflection, sir." "In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions are to be done with repeated reflection."

And the Buddha goes on to say that whenever one acts, one should reflect: "Did this act have a wholesome effect on me? On those around me?" And adjust accordingly. But one thing you begin to appreciate when you read the Buddha's analogies is the power of an analogy that comes from the enlightened mind and the mind of samādhi¹³. Because there's so much more to it than you think.

So here, one interesting point is to note that when they've done research on habitual liars over a long period of time, a frequent symptom that manifests in them is spontaneous amnesia. And that's meaningful because to really lie well, you have to make yourself believe it a little bit. And in a Buddhist conception, why we hold this so sacred is because a lie isn't just some small thing that you let out into the world. It warps the very fabric of your perception and of your being in a way that perhaps is even slightly esoteric, and it makes you forget who you are. The mirror is warped internally and externally, and you stop being honest with yourself, and then you forget who you are in a conventional sense. So what's so meaningful here is the Buddha begins by teaching Rahula about honesty, and then he moves directly on to that reflective quality towards one's actions. And I think one thing that can be drawn from this is the connection between our external honesty and not lying, and that quality of being able to reflect on our own conduct honestly and see clearly what's going on. Was that wholesome? And that if we begin to lie externally, then we warp our ability and hamstring our ability to perceive clearly the effects of our own actions. We lose our ability to reflect, to engage in the spiritual path.

I think it's also meaningful that in the time of the Buddha, the most common mirror, and maybe the only thing they had for mirrors, was water. So when the Buddha is saying, "Here's this pitcher of water," maybe he's not just saying water in the sense of water that cleans one, which is also relevant with truth. But also water is what reflects. It's how you see your own face. And if a contemplative is empty of even that much water, then you've destroyed the mirror very clearly. So what seems to us like this analogy you read through and you're like, "Okay, it's an empty water pitcher," there's more going on. You've destroyed the mirror when you destroy your honesty. You've destroyed your mindfulness, and therefore you've destroyed your ability to walk the path clearly.

So the next is divisive speech or divisive tale-bearing. And once again this is just such a significant one for us, because gossip really is the Achilles heel for so many. And the beauty of people who manage to pull back from this. St. Teresa of Avila¹⁴ was known for never saying something around another person that she wouldn't say to their face. And gossip provides a short-term sense of closeness because you're talking about someone. But you know well the long-term effect of a relationship which involves gossip, because you know or you suspect constantly that person is gossiping about you. And even though not engaging with gossip can cause some friction in the moment, over the long term it really creates the sense of trust where someone will know, "This person does not gossip. They're not speaking about me." And to expect that as practitioners, you have to make a very clear intention about that. And that it's going to lead to some awkward silences and moments in your relationships that might be predicated at least in part upon talking about others, because that's a huge portion of what we talk about.

One skillful means I found is that if you have a certain person who really loves to gossip, you can come to them and say, "Look, I'm trying to stop gossiping. Would you help me do that? If you see me gossiping about someone, would you just call me on it?" And you're not saying, "You're gossiping a lot, stop doing it." But they can connect the dots and they start to be much more mindful. You're not calling them out explicitly, you're just asking that they help you. And I found that actually works quite well with people who tend to gossip a lot. Is you're calling yourself out, but they come along.

Oh, one thing to quickly approach about lying before I move on is just how hard it is to hold in the professional world. I think a lot of us are quite good at it in our interpersonal relationships, but in the professional world, I think you may need to make a very clear intention to hold it. There was one practitioner who came to a monastery who went into a professional realm with the clear, solid intention: "I will not lie for the sake of this career. I will not." And initially it led to him losing some business. But over time he gained a reputation that like, "This person is straightforward, he won't lie to you." And his career was fine. It became very solid because of this. But it took a very clear intention. And often you don't know what will come from holding truth in your work environment. We had another practitioner who had to do a job review for Amazon, and they asked, "What are your aspirations for your career here?" And he had to answer honestly, "I'm not that interested in... I don't really have aspirations." And he was really concerned about saying that, but there was no way out of it, he had to take the survey. And in the end, his manager came to him and said, "You know, we actually could probably offer you a 4-day work week if you'd like." And that was a much better situation for him. It worked out. You don't know what will happen.

And just to say that being honest doesn't mean we say everything that comes to mind. You have to become skillful at how you say it. If you know something difficult is going to come up that you shouldn't say, then rehearsing and coming up with a skillful means to hopefully avoid that answer that you know you shouldn't give, but without lying. You can change the subject, you can come up with skillful phrasing. But it is a skill. And in Buddhism the word kusala for "good" basically means skillful. It's etymologically related to the word for kusa grass, which was a kind of grass that you grasped to pull it up. It was very sharp, so to pull it without cutting yourself you had to do it skillfully. And all of these are applied skills. It takes a certain experience and skill set to hold these precepts, to speak well. And you should expect that you're going to make some slips, and you need to learn how to do it. And you'll refine over time. I mean, we're all refining to the very end. But you know, we had one monk who went to another monastery after they just built a big meditation hall, and he asked the abbot there, "What do you think of the new meditation hall?" And the abbot turned to a nearby statue and said, "Have you seen this statue? We just got it put in." And that was it. And to know how to completely change the subject at the right time and just avoid... you don't want to be dishonest in the sense of you don't want to try to wiggle around things, but there's times when you will have to work skillfully with not saying everything that's on your mind.

And yet there's something so powerful about your spouse, your loved one, your friend knowing they can turn to you and say, "Did you cheat on me?" or "Please tell me honestly, what do you think of this?" and then knowing completely you will not lie to them. And that's why we hold that precept at its most fundamental. And you expand that realm of honesty as far as you can, but you always hold that core. I think that's really significant.

Okay, back to divisive speech. So just working with gossip, understanding the power of avoiding it. And I really love this sutta, this is one of those ones that just echoes in your head over years. But I've also been talking a lot, so I'm curious, would anyone here be willing to raise their hand and actually read it for the group? Raise your electronic hand if you want to pop to the top. It's nice to bring in other voices on suttas. Vanessa, please.

[Vanessa:] "When speaking about oneself and others," begins with parallel verses on a person of no integrity. "Now a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as a person of integrity. Which four? There is the case when a person of integrity, when asked, does not reveal another person's bad points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person's bad points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back. Then again, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals another person's good points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another person's good points in full and in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Then again, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals his own bad points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own bad points in full and in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Then again, a person of integrity, when asked, does not reveal his own good points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own good points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back."

[Ajahn Nisabho:] Sadhu, Vanessa. Thank you for being bold. So I love that sutta, and it reminds me of a quote by Epictetus¹⁵, the Greek philosopher, who said that if someone comes to you reporting the criticism of another person saying, "This person criticized you," you should say, "They only said that much. If they'd known all my bad points, they would have said far more." And I just love that, like leaning into the wind in this. And it's so beautiful when you see someone who's really devoted to harmony, who really values it.

Many of you will know under the heading of harsh speech here, and its antithesis being suvacatā¹⁶, which Ajahn Kovilo spoke to. This quality being easy to speak to, soft... a real... I totally forgot where I was going with that comment. Well, never mind, we'll just keep on going until we get there.

We had another image from the Petavatthu¹⁷ about a ghost who is clothed in garlands, but he eats the flesh off of his own back. And when asked why he does that, it said that he spoke: "I insulted others behind their backs. As a result of speaking behind others' backs, today I have to eat the flesh off of my own back. You have now seen how I am suffering. Narada, now I see the truth of the words of the wise and compassionate Buddhas. I can tell you now, do not break friendships, do not tell lies, and may you not have to eat the flesh off your own back like I do." So that's from the Petavatthu, which is in the Khuddaka Nikāya¹⁸ and is a later text. This is not the Buddha's words. I have a lot of skepticism about the reality of many of these particular later texts. But it's a good image to hold, not to terrify ourselves, but just with the Buddhist cosmology which is so colorful, it's helpful to take them as analogies or really powerful images. I mean, we believe that they're real large as well, in the sense of the ones the Buddha spoke to. But these images are just powerful recollections like, is that really how we want to speak with the world? Do we want to eat the flesh off of our own backs by speaking behind others?

So abstaining from harsh speech, the third. And Ajahn Kovilo spoke to this quite a bit actually in his talk last week. This quality being suvacatā, easy to speak to. So I'll center less on this quality because he did such a great job of talking about it. But this ability of being easy to admonish and gentle. This is I think where so much of our speech really refines as we practice. And we begin to understand how as we develop in the Dhamma, our metric for correct conduct is less about the words "right" and "wrong" and much more about the words "beautiful" and "unbeautiful". And certain ways of speaking that aren't explicitly wrong, but they're just unbeautiful. They kind of leave this sense like, "I don't know if that was necessary." And this refines over time. So sharp banter or sarcasm, etc., this is the language of so much of the world, and just accept it. And people don't even know what it would feel or look like to not speak to each other that way. But as you practice, you really realize it is harsh speech and it's not necessary. And there's a real beauty to someone who doesn't do that. Because often those barbed comments, even if joking and initially carry weight, they can really wound.

So there's just this quality of how beautiful can you make your speech. Ajahn Geoff¹⁹ says four-letter words hurt to hear in a monastery. And that's true. Can we give up cussing? Can you work to speak quietly instead of loudly? Slowly instead of quick? This is just a way to refine and soften, and not just refrain from harsh speech but more and more move towards gentle speech. And one thing I think worth pointing out here is the beauty of questions. And if people haven't read Oren Jay Sofer's²⁰ Say What You Mean or other nonviolent communication books, I think they're worth approaching because they really parse out this difference between harsh speech and how to approach with curiosity and questions a conflict.

I'll actually jump here to the end of the document where I've listed something I think which is relevant to harsh speech. And that is the conditions for admonishment in the Vinaya²¹. So these are conditions a monastic has to fulfill before they admonish another monastic. This is in the Cullavagga²², so it's a text that surrounds the Vinaya, the monastic code. So before one admonishes or gives feedback to another monastic, one has to be pure in bodily conduct, pure in verbal conduct, motivated by goodwill, learned in the Dhamma, and know the Pātimokkha²³, the Vinaya code. So that's a high standard. And I think one could extrapolate it to a lay life by speaking to a general sense of one's purity and groundedness, goodwill, and a certain groundedness in Dhamma and their own ethical conduct. But it goes on:

Furthermore, one determines that, "I will speak at the right time, not at the wrong time. I will speak about what is factual, not what is unfactual; gently, not harshly; connected to the goal or the issue at hand, not unconnected to the goal; and from a mind of goodwill." And then one has to ask and receive permission.

So in terms of constraining harsh speech, this is just so helpful. Because when one approaches a conflict with even a sliver of anger, it changes everything. The person senses that anger. And to have this wall of Vinaya... and this is a good piece of structure to put in place with a spouse, with a friend, with everyone in your life. Because so often if that wall is there, then your reaction has time to turn into a response. And you'll often find that that goodwill quality metric requirement, it takes... you know, I know one monk who's had to wait a whole year before giving admonishment for that to be fulfilled. But it's powerful because often if you just wait an hour, you find you have this spaciousness, and you can really approach the conversation from a whole different place of curiosity. Or maybe you have to wait a day or a week. But it's worth it, because then you can be sure about where you're coming from. And if you just don't have that capacity for goodwill there, then having someone else approach the person.

And also this also puts up a nice wall where often when you wait, you find that, especially if they're a practitioner, they catch themselves. Their mindfulness catches them. You can trust people to figure stuff out to some extent. And so often it's useful to have a bit of a three-strikes-before-you-bring-it-up rule. Just see if they figure this out, and just be a kind mirror to them. But I really encourage people to consider these conditions for admonishment in their relationships. They're so helpful to avoid harsh speech.

And finally we'll go to... oh, and once again Ajahn Kovilo spoke about many things including this beautiful sutta about Venerable Anuruddha²⁴ living with his companions. And just because I can't not read it, I love it so much. The Buddha asks, "I hope, Anuruddha, that you are living in concord, with mutual appreciation," or it says "without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes." "Yes, venerable sir." "But Anuruddha, how do you live thus?" "Venerable sir, as to that, I think thus: It is a gain for me, it is a great gain that I am living with such companions in the holy life. I maintain bodily acts of loving-kindness towards those venerable ones both openly and privately. Verbal acts openly and privately. Mental acts openly and privately. And I consider, 'Why should I not set aside what I wish to do and do what these venerable ones wish to do?' Then I set aside what I wish to do and do what these venerable ones wish to do. We are different in body, venerable sir, but one in mind."

And to conceive of your relationships as this form of giving and giving up control, to an appropriate extent, and doing what the other person wants to do, and taking it as a training. It's dāna²⁵. It's more real dāna. It hurts a little bit. So if you're coming up against that limit where you're like, "I really would like to go to this restaurant, I know they want to go to this restaurant instead, probably it's my turn," can you push? Can you know that that sense that it hurts a little bit to give up the restaurant choice, can you take that as a sign that you should do it? As a practitioner, you want it to hurt a little bit. So this is giving. And it's significant that in the whole Pali canon, there's four or five suttas, I think, where the levels of heaven resonate upwards, the choirs of angels echo something that's happened. I believe it's at the Buddha's birth, the Buddha's enlightenment, and there's other moments like the first teaching. This sutta is one of the few moments where that same echoing happens. And I think in some ways it's a way of the scriptures acknowledging this is significant, remember this. This is how you live with those you love.

So finally we'll end with idle chatter and avoiding it. Words not worth treasuring. "He engages in idle chatter, speaks out of season, speaks what isn't factual, what isn't in accordance with the goal, with the Dhamma and the Vinaya, words that are not worth treasuring." And then just a beautiful Dhammapada verse on how "Better than a thousand useless words is one useful word, hearing which one attains peace." And so on. For the sake of time I won't go through them all.

Idle chatter is a meaningful one to investigate. First of all, it's not to be held too draconian. Most monks I know have gone home for their first visit and sort of sat silently at the dinner table while everyone was awkward and they wouldn't say anything that wasn't, you know, profound, they felt was sort of profound insight. And it leads to very awkward meals with your family. So it's okay to have a little bit of idle chatter because it's not actually pointless. It has a purpose to sort of make people feel comfortable. People want to talk about the weather, whatever. But there is a limit. And there's a place to just step away from that at times. And there's a place to acknowledge that a lot of people in our lives, they're not interested in talking about the latest Bhante Anālayo²⁶ book, or what your insight was recently from the suttas, or how your meditation practice is going. They want to talk about what's on Netflix or the news or their kids.

And as practitioners, it's really worth coming into that with a mind of loving-kindness, and understanding that everyone has the Four Noble Truths hidden in them. And can you make it almost a game? Can you find someone's Dhamma language and ask questions until you find it? What's meaningful to them? It's very common to meet nice people. It's much rarer to meet curious people. And people want so badly to be seen. So can this be your gift to someone, is when you're in conversation with a person who you don't quite know what to talk about, you don't really have a shared interest, lean into them, ask them questions, make it your act of metta. What do they care about? Investigate, find their suffering and their happiness and their loves. And really see if you can make it a skill. It takes skill, but if people feel seen, you might just have talked about the Seahawks for, you know, I'm in Seattle, whatever's going on in California, I don't know, in terms of sports. But you might just have talked about football for 10 minutes, but maybe they actually felt seen from it. And can you make it almost a game, like can you find someone's heart through conversation? And that's an act of deep metta listening. People want so badly to be seen. And you can steer that with questions. But this is how you can work with people who by all external appearances you would have no choice but to just engage in idle chatter with. Is there's a way of finding your way to something real.

So we're coming to the end of this. But I just wanted to end with one thing that I found very helpful, and it's a sutta, Majjhima Nikāya²⁷ 103, where the Buddha speaks about how a monastic should heal a rift between other monastics. And after saying how this bhikkhu does it, he says that if that bhikkhu is questioned, "How did you heal this rift?" he shouldn't say, "I came to the monastics and I spoke to them," elevating himself. But rather he should say, "Here, friends, I went to the Blessed One. The Blessed One taught me the Dhamma. Having heard that Dhamma, I spoke to those bhikkhus. The bhikkhus heard that Dhamma, and they emerged from the unwholesome and became established in the wholesome." So note how it steers it back to Dhamma. And you know, if people compliment, you know, people sometimes will compliment monastics on their talks, and I've just found it so helpful to just steer it right back. Be like, "It's the teachings that are beautiful. We are so blessed to have these." And if you can create a channel for praise, for giving, for gratitude right back to the Buddha, it's so meaningful. It lets you get out of the way. So if someone, you know, is like, "Thank you for giving me this book," or "Thank you for what you said," it's interesting to see, like, can you steer it back to the Dhamma? Can you say, you know, "My teacher taught me this," or "I read this in this beautiful Dhamma book and it just helped me, so I thought maybe it would help you." Steer it back to the Dhamma always. And that's how we keep the conduit to our lineage and our teacher, and how we root ourselves in this deep wellspring of truth that manifests and spreads out in this sort of foliage of an involved life that does touch the world through speech, but is rooted in this deep wellspring of truth and wisdom and metta. So I wish you all the best in that path and practice, and hope that people take this realm of speech as one that can purify the heart to an amazing extent if it's really taken on as a primary forum for their practice.

Q&A

So we have some time for Q&A now. If people have some questions they'd like to bring up or anything you'd like to discuss, we have about 15 minutes. It was a lot of material, so I hope it wasn't too much, but that's what you get with handouts apparently. And if people are on edge about talking about something or bringing up something personal, like a real situation in their life, these don't have to be academic questions. It can just be, "Yeah, my boss is a jerk, and I do not know how to deal with that situation." But if it's in your heart, or "My boss seems like a jerk"—we don't really believe anyone's deep down a jerk—but anyways, if you bring it up, odds are others are struggling with it too. So it's a gift to the group if you're on the edge of asking something to bring it forward.

[Deborah:] Thank you so much for this talk. I actually was going to compliment it, but then I heard you saying I should redirect it to complimenting the Buddhist teachings. But you know what's really interesting about right speech is that I've talked with several friends recently about right speech in this time of all this conflict in the world, and these are people who don't know anything about Buddhism. And they were like, "Wow, this is amazing, this is so simple. I wish everybody was taught this." So I really think just even the topic of right speech is something that people really want and need.

[Ajahn Nisabho:] Thank you for bringing that up. It's interesting, people sort of hear about Buddhism and they're like, "Oh, it's kind of cool, you know, I've seen a Buddha image in someone's lawn," or "It seems kind of hip." It takes a lifetime, many, many lifetimes just to... the teachings are so profound. And to have this clarity, these many tools, these many lists, I think we can take it for granted if we don't stop and think 2,500 years ago the Buddha laid out these structures for us. And part of his teaching lacks some of the poetry you find in other traditions—I mean, there's beautiful images and beautiful poems as well—but the clarity is different. And it's so much about practice. It's utterly unique, I've never encountered anything like it. So yeah, what you said makes complete sense. Having these structures, the Four Noble Truths, or all these helpful things around speech, it's just so helpful for training. So I'm grateful that your friend saw that.

[Robin:] Hi. This comes at a perfect time. I had a situation this past weekend with my oldest sister. And even though I'm trying very hard to practice right speech, right view, right actions, a button got pushed in our conversation. I called to wish her a happy birthday and the conversation escalated and intensified just because of her patterns of negativity and toxicity. And I just kept trying to have compassion and let her comments like go through me and not really engage or judge, or just have compassion. But it was intensifying. And then she started to say things about my other sister that were very mean and harmful. And she just kept going, and no matter what I tried to change the subject and that sort of thing, it wasn't working. And then she just said something that just hit the nerve, and I said something in response, and then my voice raised to match hers. And then I was yelling, and she hung up on me. And then I blocked her. I was angry for a while that the conversation went that way, but so much guilt and remorse set in because I've been working so hard with it, and I just felt like I failed. And I don't know what to do. I don't like the fact that... I think the thing I was most upset about actually was losing my cool and raising my voice. And so I don't know what to do. I'll just leave it at that.

[Ajahn Nisabho:] Thank you Robin for sharing that. I think we've all been right there with family. There's a famous Buddhist saying that if you think you're enlightened, go spend a week with your family. [Laughter] And I know that for me, a lot of negative impressions and experiences, it's like they're waves hitting your feet on the shore and you're kind of keeping your balance. But when you're with your family, I've heard someone say this, it's like you find the tide has risen without you seeing it and you're up to your waist. These are deep sankhāras²⁸. And to really expect that and to have compassion for yourself. I mean these are sankhāras from the deepest wounds of childhood. And also your sister, how we define ourselves sometimes is by pushing against people. And those, kind of that deepest strata of individuation and pushing against and needing to be validated, and wanting you to react to her... like it's just so much in family. And I think it's why filial piety is held up so much in Buddhism. Because unless you put a sacred framework around family, there's so many sankhāras at work, it's almost impossible for it not to rip itself apart. So that's why we make it sacred.

And so I think now holding it to some extent... I mean, this isn't your parents, and that's a very special relationship, but there's something here. So I think first of all, just forgiving yourself as much as you can. This is really common. Luang Por Chah²⁹ said that 80% of the practice is knowing you should let go of something and not being able to. And also you'll notice a lot of the chewing over it, not wanting to admit guilt, maybe being like, "Well, she was just being a jerk." And there's something to be said for just saying, "Yeah, I really messed up. I get it." And coming to her with that. Be the first to apologize. There's nothing to lose because we always could have done a little better. And just really leading with that, because it's so disarming to that person. So seeing if there's a way you can do that. And if she's blocked you on the phone call, then write her a letter or send her a little gift, just something.

And it's helpful to remember, if we have this much trouble holding our cool as practitioners, with these teachings and resources and practice, like how much harder for people who don't have any of those things? And how can we expect more of them? In The Brothers Karamazov, Father Zosima, the head priest, says you should think of others as children or as patients in a hospital. And I think that's really... we're saying the Buddha said the only people that aren't mentally ill are the arahants. The rest of us are just in various states of derangement. And also really look at the conditionality behind your sister. Like, my family has some issues too, and just knowing the pain my sister went through and how that wound must just be with her, it just opens my heart every time I think of it.

And to notice the word, with the brahma-vihāras³⁰, there's always a representative of wisdom in most of the Buddhist lists. And equanimity is that one in the brahma-vihāras. But the actual etymology of the word upekkhā³¹ (equanimity) means to look closely. Upa means to approach, so to look closely. Because I find when I'm with my family, that's really helpful. Like if I'm with my sister for example, or another family member for 3 days, most of the time it's just a lot of sankhāras, there's no real room to touch hearts at all, and I just have to kind of like... upekkhā. Like I'm just not going to engage, I'm just going to be cool, I'm going to run away from this situation. But then I usually find if I'm watching closely, there's usually like two or three moments within those 3 days where I find myself sitting at a table with my sister and we both have a cup of coffee and actually there's a chance for our hearts to genuinely touch. And I think that's a useful way of looking at upekkhā, is like keeping an eye out for those moments where you can break through. But then the rest of the time you just keep a careful distance and are aware of the deep forces at work. And part of that is rehearsing the argument before it happens, and just knowing that it's probably going to happen. And then you're prepared when it does. But just in the meantime, yeah, seeing if you can extend an olive branch to your sister in the future. Forgive yourself. And in the future just be ready to disengage when that begins to ramp up. Or just say, "Look, I love you. We're getting activated. I don't want to play into this, including gossiping at the sister." Then pulling back and just metta. Even if that means you have to put up boundaries around other interaction types.

And I think Rob's popping on because I think we're getting near 8:30. So good luck, Robin, you're not alone.

[Robin:] Thanks for the handout. That is super helpful. Okay, good. Go to handouts.