The Buddhist Concepts of Right Thought and Right Speech and the Perception of Others

Our thoughts color our perception of reality. Whatever we see is filtered through the lens of thought, and it often becomes twisted and transformed into something else. The great German philosopher Kant reminds us that we can never see “how things really are,” all we are left with is our version of how things may appear to us; it would never be on purely scientific criteria. Even science becomes limited due to our undeniable subjectivity.

Yet all of this is not a real problem. It can be used to our benefit. Existentialism underscores this unique capability of ours, something that, as Descartes has observed, truly sets us apart from other kinds of beings: Our capacity to create meaning, our ability to look for an underlying reality, the reality behind the veil of reality.

Religions have dealt with such ideas extensively. Whether it be the City of God as idealized by St. Augustine, or “Maya”, the world of illusion of Buddhism, or the Nirguna Brahman versus the manifested Saguna Brahman, each tradition has their own, yet highly similar take on perception versus reality, and appearance versus truth.

But all these varying points of view aside, there are some very important pragmatic and moral truths expressed in the Buddhist practice of the eightfold path. These days I am quite taken by two of them, namely “right thought” and “right speech.”

Right thought or intention refers to how we represent a particular event or person within us. Mostly we deconstruct or break down the person and only focus on peculiar characteristics. For example, we claim that John is a backstabber. This belief, regardless of its truth and validity, primes most of our perceptions of this particular person.

Instead of seeing John as a complex and holistic person, we define each of his acts with our perception of his lack of trustworthiness. Even a good deed would then be either construed as a hidden act of betrayal or shelved away as an exceptional circumstance, but with our perception in mind we would not easily shake off the tendency to see him as a backstabber.

As we can see our thought process interferes with how we make meaning of and how we relate to a person. This can be very deceiving. When we are upset with a person, we carry around this anger and we feel its presence in various other subsequent meetings with this person and all of this causes unnecessary tension.

We tend not to actually listen or perceive the person but only focus on what annoys us about the person; we would actually prolong and perpetuate a stifling and uncomfortable climate between the two of us instead of looking past the previous differences or giving the other person a fair and balanced hearing.

As Krishnamurti states, it is our thought process here that needs to change for us to effectively communicate and “see” the other person. Once we manage to control these waves of mostly negative thoughts, it would become easier to retain a sense of peace and harmony among each other.

To me, that is a case of right thought. Even if we may have been actually wronged by the other person, it would take a conscious effort to forgive and erase this source of tension, so that we can start on a new clean slate with the other person, without grudges or past grievances.

Right speech goes hand in hand with it. If our thoughts are tinged with negativity towards the other person, then it is often expressed in words. It can also be used as talking behind the person's back. In this case, we are influencing the perception of a third person, so that the next time this third party comes into contact with the person in question his or her perception would be primed and steered by those negative characteristics.

Some people are bitter about life and constantly express negativity. They complain about everything and everybody; their family and friends, the bus driver, their boss and co-workers. By doing this, they unwillingly create more negativity for themselves, and it becomes a vicious cycle they may escape from only with a high degree of effort and difficulty. Yet it can be done by breaking the chain of karma and seeing everything in its “right” light.

One can practice resisting the temptation to have negative thoughts about others; one can learn to stop blaming others by accepting responsibility and action and to weigh one's words before uttering them because words have powerful lingering effects and can be destructive weapons. Once one's thoughts are cleared and one's speech is purified, one can get closer to a life of harmony, gratefulness, and yes - even true happiness.

What are you on (about), dear Socrates?

Socrates is an enigmatic, highly influential figure of Western philosophy. Although we see him through the eyes of his admiring student Plato, Socrates has been accredited for creating his own method, the elenchus.

The elenchus is a constant and rigorous questioning of values. In fact, it is so intense and rigorous, sharpened by the merciless stiletto of logic that his friends and fellow philosophers are left baffled and speechless on numerous accounts.

In Plato's Dialogues, there are several instances where his friends cry out that they do not understand or have great difficulty following this brilliant philosopher's speeding train of thought. Socrates is often asked to clarify what he means by this or that and how he jumps to certain conclusions – most of which are indeed not immediately self-evident.

In the end, however, almost anybody who comes into contact with this famously “ugly-looking” thinker will leave the conversation in a state of perplexity and utter confusion. Socrates, to their great dismay, has not only left their questions unanswered; he has led them through the shady paths and dark alleys of doubt and has added fuel to the fire by eliciting even more questions!

So, dear readers, a piece of advice or warning: Don't look for answers when dealing with Socrates. Be ready to sacrifice the little knowledge you thought you had. Because as Socrates states himself, he is wise only because he knows that he knows nothing.

Zoos, Habit(at)s and Thoughts on Animal and Human Freedom

In Yann Martel's acclaimed book Life of Pi the first person narrator defends the case for zoos and discusses notions of freedom from the point of view of animals. Some people criticize zoos for being confined spaces as opposed to the natural habitat and forms of life, and it mostly boils down to questions of freedom and happiness.

Are zoos a form of jail for the animals and are they unhappy there? Are they stressed because of all the human attention and the clicking cameras and the pointy fingers?

A zoo is indeed a confined space, but it comes with various advantages. One of them is safety; another is a steady supply of food. In the wild, it is literally a jungle. All the animals need to hunt for food in order to avoid starvation, but with it there is the constant danger of becoming prey to other stronger and fiercer animals. In the zoo, they may lose some of those killer instincts, but they are fed and protected by humans.

In the book, there is an analysis of how animals are actually very conservative creatures. Animals generally prefer recurring habits and routine over going out and searching for adventure beyond their territory or safety zone. It is not out of sheer fun that they go hunting; it is a necessity. If they could stay home and order a pizza, they would immediately opt for that.

When we look at it, we humans are not that different. We also run on routines and safety zones. We are equally traditional deep inside. Although we may have notions of freedom, we often still cling to a “settled life,” having our house, a shelter, a roof over our heads, and we do not roam the country and sleep outside “free as a bird.”

Freedom becomes a matter of expressing one's thoughts and ideas and also in choosing lifestyles and actions that best suit us, with a little of occasional foreign travel thrown in. Yet it is not wild anarchy since life follows its own rhythm; it is dependent on basic necessities and certain habits, whether they be expressed through work, a spouse, or certain recurring reassuring activities.

If animals are taken care of, have enough space and one that reflects their own habitat, when they are fed on a regular basis, then the zoo would seem an ideal place. They would not be able to survive in their natural habitat, the jungle - something the animals in Madagascar realized the hard way - but they would become their own brand of species. And if treated well, it would be a great way to preserve species from extinction. If only, of course, they would adapt to the crazy “famous” lifestyle and the paparazzi of foreign tourists and local people, including swarms of shouting and running kids.