The Middle Way of the Buddha is known as the Eightfold Path. As the name suggests, there are eight factors. These factors are grouped into three categories or aspects: Wisdom, Morality, and Concentration. These aspects interact with and reinforce one another. They are dynamic, and virtuous behavior is at the core like the nucleus of an atom.
Imagine a world where everyone practiced impeccable morality and good virtue. Imagine a place where no one would harm another being in any way. No one would assault, take advantage of, or kill another. No one would steal from another. No one would lie to, insult, or diminish another. People were always kind and generous. However unlikely this scenario, it would be a place of absolute safety. To a Buddhist, this is the purpose of morality – to provide safety to oneself and to others.
The aspect of morality contains three factors: right speech, right action, and right livelihood. How we speak to others (and to ourselves!), how we act, and how we support ourselves in the world are fundamental to a Buddhist way of life. Without morality (indeed, without any of the aspects) the practice cannot be Buddhist.
The Buddha gives four criteria that will ensure one’s speech is in accord with that which promotes goodness rather than harm. Right speech is:
- Truthful
- Harmonious
- Pleasant
- Meaningful
One’s speech is “right” when it embodies these four qualities. It is right because it fosters real safety and tends to shed light upon the darkness of delusion, which is part of the human condition.
If right speech fosters safety, what can be said of “wrong” speech? Wrong speech reinforces and perpetuates doubt and delusion. Wrong speech injures.
Delusion may not be a very nice word to some. It may conjure images of stupid or crazy. What delusion means – from a Buddhist perspective – becomes clearer when you think in terms of its opposite: wisdom. A person who possesses wisdom does necessarily possess a high IQ or an utterly sane mind – both of which are relative states.
Think of wisdom and delusion as reciprocal states. The more wise a person becomes, the less deluded.
Consider how you would answer these two questions: Are you wise? Are you deluded? Most people, I think, would deny both, for a wise person would not likely brag about it. A deluded person would not likely have the wisdom to know it, so would react with indignation.
With this as background, I turn to the current election and the role speech plays in the campaigns.
When voters like and believe in what they hear from a candidate, they “jump on the bandwagon.” To keep voters on the bandwagon – and more importantly to keep them from jumping to the other guy’s – candidates try to ensure that the other guy’s party is not where voters want to be. Sometimes the tactics used to gain and keep voters are less than honest, designed more to delude and confuse rather than to shed light on important issues. At some point truth becomes irrelevant to both the ticket and the electorate who would vote for it.
Where in all of this is right speech? Is what the candidates (and their supporters) say truthful, harmonious, pleasant, and meaningful? Does what they say foster clarity and insight, or induce doubt and perpetuate delusion?
When a candidate is less than honest with voters – intentionally less than honest – in a campaign, can that candidate, once elected, be expected to be honest with the United States citizenry during the normal course of business? Or would such an executive continue a pattern of deluding the public?
And what of the voters who would ignore evidence of deception and vote merely on emotion? Are they wise? Are they deluded? Are they capable of knowing the difference?
Can there be anything right about speech that is intended to divide, confuse, mislead, and further delude the electorate in an effort to inspire disdain – if not hatred – for the opposition? Is such speech wise? Is it moral?
5 Comments
Peter, this is one of the best definitions I have read of the Middle Way because you have made it simple and accessible.
I have always believed that the most dangerous people seek the power in any society and that perhaps a degree of delusion is necessary for one to believe that he or she is wise enough to govern. Also troubling is the matter of campaign promises, which under our system a candidate is not required to keep once elected. Most sadly, I do not think that the American people expect scrupulous honesty or they would demand it, both before and after a person takes office.
It is always well to remember, no matter what ones station in life, that it is impossible to build up oneself by destroying others. Hatred breeds nothing but more hatred, and none of us wants or needs to live in a climate of hate.
PAUL, I’m so sorry. For some reason, I often confuse Peter and Paul, but as long as Peter is robbed to pay Paul, I guess it works out ok. (Very Buddhist, huh?)
No offense taken. My father’s name is Peter. His middle name is Paul. My mother, who didn’t care for the name Peter, almost always called him Paul. I was often called Little Paul. And then there were the references to the trio. “Where’s Mary?” my friends would ask. “That’s my aunt,” I would say.
Anyway, I agree that those who seek power are often deluded to believing they are wise enough to lead.
We in this country don’t hold wisdom in very high esteem. We really hate it in our leaders. These days it’s harder for a wise person to get elected president than to get through the eye of a needle (with proper acknowledgement of the famous metaphor).
Thanks for dropping by.
Hi, Peter here. Peter and Paul are easy to confuse/conflate. Is it just because they both begin with a P? Or that both are prominent New Testament figures? No matter: Paul, I do agree with Heart in SF–you’ve written an excellent overview of the meaning of “right speech.” I have been thinking and writing on this same topic a great deal in The Buddha Diaries recently, because the current political dialogue is so obviously an egregious failure in this area. I personally believe that Obama has made–and continues to make–every effort to keep to the straight and narrow in his campaign; the most vicious and shameless of the lies come from the opposite direction. Both sides, though, would do well to read–and heed–your lucid explanation of the way in which speech can be harmful to oneself and others.
Thanks for the kind words, Peter. I agree, Obama has tried very hard to keep it clean. But he is trapped. If he doesn’t respond in kind, he’s accused of buckling or not hitting back hard enough. Can’t have that in a leader, can we?
What’s more, there are forces out there filled with so much hatred for him (as well as anyone “liberal”) who will do anything and say anything to see that he fails. Negative ads work. I don’t know why, but they work on the masses. Obama said Americans aren’t stupid. is there a problem with that statement? At best one could say it’s a half-truth.
With the current administration we had the image of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Millions of people could not see or, worse, chose not to see what was right in front of them. Now, we have a bloc of people who really don’t like McCain but will vote to elect him president because they like – really like – his second in command. If he is elected I imagine they will begin counting his very limited remaining heartbeats.
PaulG