LTF 15: The Last Two of the Four Destructive Actions of Speech

Now we are up to the third destructive action of speech, which is using harsh and abusive language. This includes all forms of sarcasm, insults, ridicule, and swearing. Being sarcastic is a way of saying something that can be quite nasty – sort of making fun of somebody. Insulting is, of course, putting someone down – saying they’re a terrible person. Ridiculing is also another way of making fun of somebody. Swearing is using dirty words toward somebody. In other words, harsh and abusive speech is to say something or to make a gesture – it doesn’t have to be with words; it could be giving someone the finger or making some nasty facial expression and so on – that will hurt another’s feelings. 

Now, what we say to somebody that is harsh and abusive could be either true or false. It doesn’t really matter. If we call a cripple a cripple or a person a pig, the other person, in both cases, will feel bad. So, it doesn’t matter whether what we say is true or false. Even if we say these types of things in a very pleasant and loving tone of voice, it still hurts. This is a major destructive action because it makes both us and the other person unhappy. It’s not from a happy frame of mind that we call somebody a nasty name, curse them, or swear at them and things like that. 

Particularly serious is if our harsh and abusive language is directed at our spiritual master or our parents. Often, when we yell at somebody, what we say falls into this category of harsh, abusive language. Sometimes we might need to yell to someone to watch out – to get out of the way of a car, for example. That’s a different; that’s speaking loudly. Yelling at somebody, “You bastard! You did blah, blah, blah, and this and that.” This type of thing is harsh and abusive language. 

The Basis

The basis for this action has to be somebody whose feelings would be hurt by what we say. So, it has to be somebody else. In that sense, even a dog gets hurt when we yell at the dog, doesn’t it? It’s feelings get hurt.

Motivating Mental Framework – Unmistaken Distinguishing, Motivating Intention, Motivating Emotion

When the urge arises to say something cruel, we must be distinguishing correctly that this is the person whom we wish to hurt. Our speech has to be directed at the correct person. Our intention has to be the full intention to speak such words, and one of the three disturbing emotions needs to be present. So, out of desire or attachment, we might use harsh, abusive language in order to be accepted by a gang of ruffians, a gang of very crude people who always use very bad language and scream and yell at people. In order to be accepted by them, we might also use the same type of language as they do. Then, with deep hostility, we could use this harsh language to rouse an enemy so that they’ll fight – for instance, if we’re an army sergeant, we could yell in a harsh and abusive way at our soldiers in order to get them to fight. With close-minded ignorance, or naivety, we might use such language, thinking that it’s fashionable and clever and that it doesn’t matter if we hurt other people’s feelings because others don’t really have feelings anyway. So, one of the three poisonous emotions needs to be involved. 

Implementation of a Method

The method for implementing harsh and abusive speech has to be actually speaking such words, words that point out other people’s faults or weak points, which, again, may or may not be true. That’s what you use harsh and abusive speech for, isn’t it? To say nasty things about or to somebody. You don’t say nasty things to them regarding their good points; you say nasty things about their weak points. Or you say something sarcastic to them because of some silly mistake that they made or something like that. 

Participant: Or their insecurities, no?

Dr Berzin: Or their insecurities. That’s right. 

Also included is causing somebody else to say these type of nasty words for us. That also would be included in this example. 

Finale

The action reaches its completion when the other person understands what we say, believes that we mean it, and becomes hurt. That’s an interesting point. If the other person doesn’t believe that we really mean it – they think that we’re just joking… There is a British expression for this: “Taking the piss out of somebody.” It’s not a very nice expression, but it means when friends, usually male, say nasty things to each other – usually at a pub – about each other’s mothers or things like that in order to make fun of each other, nobody takes it seriously. They don’t think that the other person actually means it, so their feelings don’t get hurt. Although, I wonder: can we say something nasty to somebody without their feelings getting hurt? The classic example that we have in America is saying, “Your mother wears army boots.” If somebody said that to us, would we get hurt? 

Participant: I don’t understand the expression.

Dr Berzin: It’s like saying, “Your mother is so ugly,” or something like that. 

Participant: Well, I think one could get hurt.

Dr Berzin: I’m raising the question that if it’s among friends who are just teasing each other, is that harsh and abusive language?

Participant: Well, isn’t there the motivation?

Participant: Quite often among male friends, they only pretend that it doesn’t hurt, and respond,  “Ha, ha, ha,” when, actually, they are a little bit hurt. But it’s just the way they make jokes. 

Participant: That’s not always the case!

Dr Berzin: What about in Mexico? In Mexico, I’m sure the macho men say nasty things to each other about their mothers and stuff like that.

Participant: Yeah, and about each other, like joking about doing each other sexually even though they’re both male and heterosexual. But I guess it is so wide spread in a way that nobody takes it seriously.

Participant: Maybe they don’t take it seriously but have a moment of feeling a little bit hurt.

Participant: Probably, especially if they lose in the exchange and they were the last one to get…

Dr Berzin: Right. But the point here is that you have to think that the other person means it. 

Participant: In the case of this kind of action, it’s not that they literally mean what they’re saying; they are just trying to tease you and hurt you. 

Dr Berzin: Yeah, they are trying to hurt the other person. 

Participant: But I don’t think it’s always the case that they will be even a little bit hurt.

Dr Berzin: What about being sarcastic? What’s an example of being sarcastic? For example, when you come in late, and we say, “Ah, Mexicans are always late.” This is being sarcastic. “Oh, you finally decided to come! How nice.” This is being sarcastic but speaking sarcastically in a pleasant voice, isn’t it? Is that harsh and abusive language? 

Participant: I wouldn’t quite call it harsh and abusive, but it could still leave a certain atmosphere. 

Dr Berzin: Well, does it hurt your feelings? As it says here, you could be sarcastic in a pleasant voice, and what you say could also be true – “How kind of you to actually show up! You honor us by your presence. You’ve made the royal entrance – fashionably late.” 

Participant: Only three quarters of an hour!

Dr Berzin: Only three quarters of an hour late today. Thank you. Is that a destructive action of speech? I would say yes, that it probably is.

Participant: When the person blushes, then it’s probably the case.

Dr Berzin: If the person blushes, then, yes, they do feel slightly hurt. They feel embarrassed.

Participant: That could be skillful as well and make them… 

Dr Berzin: Well, to shame them. But remember, one of the three disturbing emotions has to be present. You see, one always has to analyze. Are all of the factors there? Was I angry when I said that, slightly angry or slightly annoyed, so I wanted to make fun of you? Was I attached to you being on time – “It’s my class. How dare you come late”?

Participant: You’re just exercising a little bit of power in teasing.

Dr Berzin: Exercising power in teasing. That’s also a disturbing emotion. Or wanting everybody in the class to laugh, wanting to be the joker, the entertainer – that’s also a big ego-trip. Or just being naive… well, then it gets into idle chatter, just saying something stupid. 

These destructive actions of speech are actually very difficult to avoid. Also, it says that if we abuse an inanimate object, like swearing at our computer when it won’t do what we want it to do, the results won’t be as severe because nobody’s feelings were hurt. 

Participant: But there will be results.

Dr Berzin: Well, this is just it: it wouldn’t be a complete destructive action. There are still results because you are speaking with anger. 

Participant: You’re saying something emotional, no?

Dr Berzin: Right. But the whole thing in the analysis here is whether we will experience the fullest, heaviest results. Some of these factors could be missing – like if we scream and yell at somebody, “You are always late! You are always this and that,” with the intention to hurt them,  but then it turns out that it wasn’t that person, that it was somebody else who was late and that the person we were yelling at was just in the bathroom or something like that. Well, if we yelled at the wrong person, the result is not as heavy, although we could hurt the wrong person’s feelings as well. So, there has to be the intention to say something that’s really going to hurt the other person or to make fun of them in front of everybody else so that we get a good laugh. This is harsh and abusive language. Any questions on that?

Then the next one is indulging in idle chatter. This has three varieties: 

[1] First of all, there is idle chatter that’s perverse, such as chanting black magic spells or praying for bad, terrible things to happen. So, it’s perverse idle chatter. 

Participant: Nobody’s feeling were hurt, maybe, so it’s joking.

Dr Berzin: It’s joking. That will come later on. That’s a form of idle chatter. 

[2] Second is idle chatter that is about worldly matters, such as repeating meaningless talk about things that are none of our business or of no concern to us – like the private life of movie stars or various political things. Just general gossip, actually, comes into this category. 

[3] Third is idle chatter that is true, such as explaining the Dharma to those who are improper vessels for receiving the Dharma – for instance, explaining Dharma to people who have no respect for it, no interest in it and, especially, explaining it to people who are hostile toward the Dharma. That’s really idle chatter.

Participant: What could be the motivation there? Just because I tell somebody else what I’m doing…

Dr Berzin: The motivation could be that “I’m going to go out and convert and save the world” – so, a big ego-trip. It could be self-righteousness, like saying, “Oh, you shouldn’t put your books on the floor. You’re going to go to hell!” and that type of thing to somebody who thinks it’s absolutely stupid. Or it could be trying to convert somebody who is super Christian to Buddhism. That’s idle chatter. 

The worst form of idle chatter and the one that has the heaviest consequences is to interrupt a meditator or somebody who is praying or doing various positive types of things with our meaningless talk or singing. We interrupt them with just “blah, blah, blah,” something that really could wait or is totally insignificant. Or we play loud music or something like that while somebody is trying to meditate or practice. 

The Basis

The basis for idle chatter needs to be something trivial or pointless that we consider to be meaningful or important. This is an interesting point. When we talk about the love lives of various movie stars, which is really not only none of our business but also quite meaningless, do we consider it meaningful?  “Wow, this couple just broke up,” or “They say this movie star was with that other movie star…” 

Participant: Well, sometimes it could be meaningful. For instance, you see that even the marriages of big stars break up… impermanence and so on. 

Dr Berzin: Usually, though, when we chatter about movie stars, football or sports players, or even sometimes political things, such as complaining about the president of this country or that country – that’s really idle chatter. 

Participant: What about if you are into some kind of academic work and you start to delve into something that sounds very profound in principle but that in actually is just, in a way, idle chatter because it’s not… Well, how do you decide that something is meaningful?

Dr Berzin: OK. So, what about the academic professor or research scholar who does research into something that apparently is quite trivial and meaningless but they treat it as something meaningful? I don’t know. What do you think? Then they give lectures about it and talk on and on to you. Well, if they interrupt a meditator to tell them about basket weaving in Tibet in the 1620’s… That’s hard to say – what is ultimately meaningful. Unfortunately, we would have to say that what is ultimately meaningful is the Dharma, which sounds awfully prejudiced, doesn’t it? 

Participant: Yeah. So, all other things would fall under the category of idle chatter – all kinds of information.

Dr Berzin: Well, if there is something that can be of benefit, if you can teach somebody something beneficial concerning basket weaving in Tibet in 1620… I don’t know. 

Participant: It’s really hard to know because, for example, various kinds of research could at some point lead to some pharmacological compounds for Alzheimer’s and so on. I don’t know if that’s really…

Dr Berzin: OK. So, someone is doing research on biochemicals that could produce a drug that could be useful for Alzheimer’s disease. The intention is good and speaking about it is for a positive aim. Now, whether or not they actually come up with a new medication doesn’t really matter because what they are doing  is meaningful. They aren’t doing it just for the fun of it. 

Participant: So, always the intention is important.

Dr Berzin: Yes.

Participant: In most democracies, it is seen as meaningful to discuss political topics, mostly before elections. Can that be idle chatter?

Dr Berzin: I’ll repeat: most countries say that it is beneficial to discuss political matters before an election. However, what they discuss is really dirty politics –  scandals of what somebody did in the past, like having hired an illegal immigrant to watch their children thirty years ago. Or like now, in America, Bush has brought this proposal before Congress to debate this whole thing of forbidding gay marriages – which has no chance whatsoever of passing. It’s quite clear that he’s doing that just to get votes from the super-conservatives. That, I think, is a very good example of idle chatter. It’s meaningless. It’s done out of attachment and greed. It’s making something meaningless into something meaningful or, rather, considering something meaningless to be very meaningful. 

Discussing, let’s say, the different candidates’ policies about Iraq or of the war – that would be more meaningful. Or in Germany, discussing the tax policies and these sorts of things would be more meaningful. But it’s hard to say. How do you define meaningful and meaningless? The people who are discussing gay marriage bans say that it’s meaningful to ban because it’s the work of the devil and destroys family values and Christianity. So, they consider it meaningful to discuss that and to avoid discussing important things like the war. So, I don’t know. Is everything relative? 

Participant: I think it also comes down to the point about what kind of relationship you have with society as somebody who tries to practice the Dharma. I mean, people talk about things like politics and so on, and even if you’re not terribly into it, it’s hard not to interface with the people around you. So, just on a social level – what about that? Of course, you can just be quiet, but that’s probably also destructive.

Dr Berzin: Right. Well, on a social level, what happens when you engage in what we call in English “small talk”? You get together with people, you’re having lunch with a group of people…

Participant: That’s idle chatter.

Dr Berzin: That’s total idle chatter – small talk. But if you don’t, if you just sit there silently, that’s considered very rude. Well, didn’t Shantideva say that, generally, you don’t speak to people, that you stay by yourself, but that when you see somebody on the road, you look up and you smile and say, “How are you doing?”? 

Participant: Otherwise, you would not make a lot of contact, but it could be important for something constructive.

Dr Berzin: Right. One could make some sort of contact that could be constructive. That’s true. But to just go and make small talk with people… 

Participant: There were some studies that suggest that there is a positive effect due to gossip, a positive social impact within the groups, and that societies are healthier where people…

Participant: Not gossip: small talk. 

Dr Berzin: About the weather. 

Participant: Also about other people.

Dr Berzin: But that is gossip. Isn’t it talking about something that really is none of our affair?

Participant: Yeah, but you give some information about the group or to the other people. 

Dr Berzin: Well, this is a very difficult point, I must say. I know some people who are quite fanatical about this. They will never say something to somebody else about a third party; they’ll only speak to somebody face to face. That, of course, can be challenging because  sometimes it is necessary to give information about somebody else. So, then the question is: can you only give positive information, or can you also give negative information? 

Participant: Depends on the motivation.

Dr Berzin: Depends on the motivation. If somebody asks me how the translation was at Holiness’s teachings the other weekend or how this or that translator did, do I answer? And if I think that one of the translators didn’t do so well, do I say that? Is that gossip? They are asking me is a question about something that’s really of no concern to them, isn’t it? So, what do I say – “It’s none of your business”?

Participant: It’s also rude and kind of an aggression, actually, not to say anything. 

Dr Berzin: Right. 

Participant: It could be worthwhile information. Maybe, next time, they would choose a different language or a different translator.

Dr Berzin: Right. So, it could be helpful information because then they could choose a different translation language or a different translator. But what about when people get together and talk about the weather? I speak to my elderly aunt and uncle every week. The first topic of conversation in every telephone call is about the weather. They tell me what the weather is like in America, and I have to tell them what the weather is like in Berlin, which is the most ridiculous, unimportant thing. What difference does it make what the weather is like there or here? But that is what they always ask. So, you have to answer.

Participant: It’s a way of starting contact. Anyway, what kind of meaningful conversation  would you like to launch immediately? I think conversation kind of builds up gradually, not just…

Dr Berzin: Right. Well, that’s also a cultural difference.

Participant: Talking first about the weather… I mean, that way you get a picture in your mind.

Dr Berzin: OK. So, the weather with the elderly. But that’s a special thing with elderly people. There’s also a cultural difference. Americans, when they get together, first discuss business and get that out of the way. Then you have the social conversation. Europeans, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. First, you set up the ambience by social conversation, and then you talk about business. So, that’s cultural.

Participant: That might be cultural. But I think what’s not cultural is just to say some things, even if it is meaningless. It helps to start a connection. If you’re in the elevator or something, and people are very tense, and you make a little joke or something, it can just…

Dr Berzin: Yeah, it can. Well, you were at the speech of Bishop Tutu on the weekend. Here he is, in front of the Dalai Lama with the press and the whole business, and he starts off like a TV comedian and tells jokes for the first few minutes. Now, of course, he won everybody’s hearts because he was really good. But it seemed a bit strange, I must say. His Holiness wouldn’t do something like that. He wouldn’t start off telling jokes.

Participant: It was a bit strange. But if it had been the normal thing, it would have just been boring, like all the introductory talks and things like that. They’re completely boring. 

Dr Berzin: So, this is the question: is being interesting or being boring  important? When you give a Dharma talk, do you just give information or do you entertain? There are some Dharma teachers who are basically clowns, entertainers. Serkong Rinpoche was very critical of that. He said, “If you want to have entertainment and to hear a clown, go to the circus. Don’t come to a Dharma center.”

Participant: But they get more people. They get more money.

Dr Berzin: More people would go to the circus, and they make more money. But that’s not the point of teaching Dharma. However, I have a friend who goes to the other extreme. He thinks talking about anything – like, “How have you been? How’s your health?” or “What’s happening with your family?” – is totally trivial. He will only talk about deep and meaningful things, which is really very tiring. It’s exhausting to speak with him. 

Participant: Communication has a lot of levels. There is not just the level of words. 

Dr Berzin: Right. Communication has a lot of levels – not just words. 

Participant: This introductory part also serves the purpose of seeing what mood the other person is in and how one is going to interact with them today.

Dr Berzin: Right, it sets up a framework to help you know what type of mood the person is in and what type of interaction you can have. So, the introductory small talk can be helpful. But just to relax the person and for yourself to relax… You can make the same argument for having a drink before getting into a conversation. “Let’s both have a cocktail, and then we’ll have our discussion because then it will be more relaxed.” 

Participant: Actually, certain business people who go to pubs are said to have higher incomes. There is a study about this. Because they have this kind of socializing, they are able to have more communication.

Dr Berzin: So, businessmen who go to pubs and have a drink with their client first, sell more. That’s probably true. 

Participant: In fact, they have higher incomes.

Dr Berzin: OK. So, let’s go on.

The basis for idle chatter has to be something trivial, insignificant, or pointless that we consider meaningful, significant, or important. Unlike the other three types of destructive actions (this is interesting), it’s not necessary that there be anybody who hears or understands what we’re talking about. It could be just talking to ourselves – like singing out loud, singing in the shower…

Participant: Is it also forbidden? Like you said, it’s useless.

Dr Berzin: Is it forbidden and useless? It could be talking to your plants or talking to your dog all day long. 

Participant: [In German]

Dr Berzin: But that’s the point: they don’t have to understand what we talk about. There are people who just talk on and on: “Oh, baby; little, cute…” on and on to their fish or to…

Participant: Well, those are maybe sick fish, and so they need that.

Dr Berzin: Well, they may be sick, they may be very lonely, and this is only being that they relate to. That could be true. But the point is, do they think that what they are saying is really meaningful and that the fish is really going to understand what they say? If you realize that it’s meaningless, but you say it anyway, why do it? I don’t know. It’s a difficult point, isn’t it?

Participant: It could be quite meaningful from the words or from making the sounds – well, maybe not to the the fish, but to the cat or dog. You kind of comfort them because they recognize the sounds. 

Dr Berzin: Right. It could make the animal feel comfortable – not necessarily a fish, but a cat or a dog. I stayed with somebody in Mexico once who had nine dogs. They collect street dogs that have been injured or are in really in bad shape, and they take them home and take care of them. They give them, to quote him, “the love they deserve.” He speaks tremendously emotional, loving words to these dogs. Does it make the dogs feel better? Maybe. I don’t know. 

Participant: At least the person will feel better.

Dr Berzin: He himself feels better. Sure. 

Participant: If they can be offended by bad language, I’m sure they can be uplifted by…

Dr Berzin: Right. If a dog could be hurt by bad language, a dog could also be affected by kind, loving language. But to talk to your dog about the weather – “Wow, it’s really raining outside today. I think we shouldn’t go outside; you’re going to get wet.” I don’t know. 

So, it is not necessary that there be anyone to whom we express our words or who understands what we mean. We can just be talking to the air. 

Motivating Mental Framework – Unmistaken Distinguishing, Motivating Intention, Motivating Emotion

When the urge arises to talk, we must correctly distinguish that what we wish to say is meaningful, significant, or important. We have to consider it important. Then, we must have the full intention to express the words, and one of the three disturbing emotions must be present. So, out of attachment, we might indulge in idle chatter, just talk on and on with somebody because we wish to spend time with them. It’s like the people who never get off the telephone and who just go on and on for a couple hours. It’s because they are lonely. That’s perhaps the case in your example with the dog as well. Out of deep hostility, we might talk in order to disturb them because we want to prevent them from doing something positive. This could be that you really want to annoy somebody, so you make a lot of noise or something like that. But most often we chatter and gossip out of naivety because we feel that there is nothing wrong with it, that it doesn’t matter. 

Implementation of a Method; Finale

The method is unnecessarily undertaking to speak idle words or causing somebody else to do this for us. Our action reaches its finale when we actually express the words out loud. Those are the factors.

There are seven types of idle chatter that can be distinguished from the point of view of the basis of what we say.  

Bickering

The first type is bickering, speaking behind someone else’s back, being argumentative, and speaking provocatively. Bickering is like what my aunt and uncle do all the time: “It’s blue,” “No, it’s not blue; it’s dark blue,” “What do mean it’s dark blue? It’s blue.” They argue with each other about things that are absolutely meaningless.

Participant: There are a lot of reasons behind it. It’s mostly about the power in the relationship.

Dr Berzin: Power in a relationship? Perhaps. With my aunt and uncle, though, it’s very interesting. They’ve been doing this all their married life together, and they’ve been married a very long time. She is ninety-five and he is ninety-six. But I think that one of the things that keeps them alive is this constant bickering with each other. I really think it does because they are constantly stimulated, constantly slightly annoyed. 

One thing occurs to me that is very interesting. I remember when my mother had Alzheimer’s. She had very severe Alzheimer’s for many years before she died. They said in the nursing home that, actually, it was good to annoy the Alzheimer patients because it stimulated them to actually say something or to react. If you are just nice, they don’t react, don’t use their minds. If they are slightly annoyed, though, then they do react. For instance, my mother didn’t want to eat, so they were constantly trying to stick a spoon into her mouth to make her eat. That annoyed her like anything, but she responded rather than just sitting there like a zombie. It’s interesting. 

But, again, there are always exceptions. One has to see the circumstances, as His Holiness said this weekend in Belgium. He was asked a question about abortion and euthanasia. He said that you can’t just give an answer that covers every case; you have to see it according to the circumstances, which, of course, is a nice way of not committing himself one way or the other. But it’s true. So, of course, there will be certain exceptional cases. 

However, there are people that no matter what you say to them, their first response is “no,” and they give you a hard time. This is idle chatter. Here, it also includes speaking behind somebody’s back, which means saying things to somebody about somebody else, a third party. As I said, sometimes you have to give information, but just gossiping is not so cool. And what really is not very nice, although they don’t specifically say it here, is when somebody tells you something in secret or in private and then you tell these private things to other people. That really is not very nice. Very destructive.

Reciting Liturgies of Other Religions and Repeating Political or Commercial Slogans

The second type is reciting or chanting liturgies of other religions for no constructive reason and repeating political or commercial slogans and jingles. So, going around singing television commercials is real idle chatter. That’s a difficult one because when you hear a commercial or a song on the TV or radio, sometimes you can’t it out of your head. That’s terrible. But to then go around singing it out loud is even worse, especially because it annoys other people… or singing “Hari Krishna” and these types of things for no reason at all, for no constructive reason. 

And repeating political slogans – this is an interesting thing. Is it idle chatter to go in front of a Chinese embassy and scream, “Free Tibet”? Is that idle chatter? 

Participant: It’s a question of motivation.

Dr Berzin: Question of motivation? Well, here it wouldn’t be a case of considering something that’s meaningless to be meaningful because it does have meaning, but it might be considering something that’s ineffective to be effective. Screaming “Free Tibet” in front of an embassy isn’t going to make any difference to the number two official in the place who hears this; it’s not going to change the policy of the government of China. It’s a bit pointless. The second secretary has no power. Even an ambassador has no power. 

Participant: When five hundred Tibetan people go in front of the embassy – that, I think, has some meaning.

Dr Berzin: So, when five-hundred people go in front of the embassy, it could have some meaning. Well, there were mass demonstrations, and the Berlin wall came down, so, sometimes it does have an effect. But that’s an interesting question: are these protests meaningful? Is protesting a meaningful activity, or is it a waste of time? 

Participant: It may be also meaningful in the sense that you attract other people, bystanders or whatever, to the situation that Tibet is in.

Dr Berzin: Right, so you get publicity. Publicity spreads the message, and other people become aware. So, then it becomes meaningful. However, I think it’s important to be realistic about what meaning it could have. 

Participant: It’s very meaningful. Every single person who comes counts, really. But everybody thinks, “I’m not necessary.”

Dr Berzin: Right. If everybody thinks, “I’m not necessary,” then nothing will happen.

Participant: Is there any explanation about what is considered meaningful in this context? I mean, what is meaningful? Just everything starting from what leads to a better rebirth or… What’s meaningful?

Dr Berzin: What’s meaningful would probably be what is of benefit to others. And then benefit, you’d have to say, also includes worldly benefit, not just spiritual benefit. I don’t know. We are discussing this. These are not easy points.

What’s a meaningful protest? Some people protest, and you wonder if it could ever possibly make a difference. I’ll use an example. When I was in Mexico last month, there was this debate going on in the United States about the illegal immigrants from Mexico coming into the United States. So, on May 1, Workers’ Day, they had a boycott throughout Mexico to get people not to buy any American products. So, nobody would drink a Coca-Cola; nobody would go to McDonald’s; nobody would go to Walmart’s; nobody would buy anything American that day. And a lot of people didn’t buy American that day. There were some people in McDonald’s, but not that many. And maybe some people drank Coca-Cola, but most people didn’t. So, that could have an effect, a monetary effect – although not really; just one day doesn’t make that much of a difference. If they stopped forever, it would make a big difference. But what about the people who won’t fly on an airplane because airplanes deplete the ozone level and pollute the air? Could that ever possibly make a difference in terms of how many airplanes fly? 

Participant: Yes, I think so.

Dr Berzin: You think so? 

Participant: Sure. If you think about the whole life of this person, and you add up the number of flights that they would have made…

Participant: Maybe it would make a difference if thousands and tens of thousands wouldn’t fly.

Participant: It works only on this scale. Of course, if you think, “I’m the only one,” it doesn’t work.

Participant: But on an individual level, every person who pops onto an airplane causes increased emissions because of the weight.

Dr Berzin: Well, do you think that you not eating meat is going to cause fewer animals to be slaughtered? 

Participant: Sure, because there’s less profit in it.

Participant: I think so, too, because you have, as a consumer, a certain influence. I can see it already in the supermarket. I buy things, and they’re influenced by what I buy. They order more or less depending on my purchases, whether it’s the toilet paper that’s not bleached or the soya beans or some other thing. So, if I buy the regular thing, they make different orders. Otherwise, they will not order these things. They want me as a customer. 

Dr Berzin: So, what you would argue is that these protests do have a meaningful effect. 

I got a petition today. Somebody sent me an email with a petition to sign and to send out to all my friends about a glacier in Chile. The petition said that this glacier gives pure water, that all the native Indians in southern Chile use it for their agriculture… and blah, blah, blah. Someone had discovered that there was gold and other precious metals underneath the glacier, so big American corporations with George Bush’s father, the former President Bush, on the board of directors were coming in. The Chilean government had given permission for them to basically destroy the glacier and to mine for the gold underneath it. Of course, all the profit would go back to the United States, and the local people would get nothing. And, of course, the mining would totally destroy their ecological system and environment. So, do you sign the petition? If one hundred people sign it, it gets sent to the Chilean government. Is there any chance whatsoever that the government of Chile is going to turn down all the money that this big corporation will give them in order to save the glacier? 

Participant: I would think this depends very much on the contributing factors. I only know the example of the Tibetan women who give out lists that you can sign for some political prisoners in Tibet to be freed. A list was given to the Foreign Ministry of Affairs in Germany where there was one person in charge who was, at that moment, a contributing factor because she was very interested in the topic. When Angela Merkel went to China one month ago, she took the list with her. It is very certain that she named one of the three names from the list to the Chinese government. So, it’s not just you, alone, signing the list that will contribute in a way that is sufficient to bring about change; it’s everybody contributing to it, including the civil servants in the Foreign Ministry, Angela Merkel and so on, that will bring about change. It doesn’t seem correct to say that an individual action is not necessary, because all this coming together…

Dr Berzin: OK. So, change comes about through a collection of conditions and causes. And if we sign a petition, then maybe – like in this case of Tibetan political prisoners – we can effect change. And sometimes the Chinese do release some of these prisoners in order to show themselves in a favorable light before making some sort of official visit or something. But in the case of the Chilean government, it’s hard to say. So the question is, does just working ourselves make a change for the whole planet, for a larger thing? Probably, we’d have to say yes, given our discussion.

Participant: Just look at what civilization has done to the world. 

Dr Berzin: Yes. Also, we have to take into consideration that this is the age of degeneration and that no matter what we do, things are going to go downhill. So, we can’t be too Utopian. However, within that downhill that’s predicted by everybody, we can make it less bad.

Participant: This thing with the contributing factors – I guess you’d need to be a Buddha to know what the most effective thing that you can do and say is. But as a normal person, you just have to try to stay within the bounds of meaningful activities and do your best to guess what you think would make the most difference.

Dr Berzin: Well, you have to stand up for what you think is right. But what about these Tibetan nuns in Tibet who know that they’ll go to prison for twenty or thirty years and yet wave a flag of Tibet or show a picture of the Dalai Lama? They immediately get beaten up and thrown in a concentration camp. All you have to do is to say, “Long live the Dalai Lama” in Tibet, and that’s it. So, is that idle chatter? Is that considering something meaningless as meaningful?

Participant: It isn’t meaningless because it’s also symbolic of the courage that the whole population has. It might give a lot of strength to other people. 

Dr Berzin: It might give a lot strength to the other people, so it could be meaningful.

Participant: Although the reaction is absolutely radical, still, it might have some effect, even, I would think, on the oppressors.

Participant: And if nobody rebelled or revolted, no regime could fall.

Dr Berzin: Right. If nobody revolted, then regimes wouldn’t fall.

Participant: And it’s not like some people who, in a way, demonstrate for selfish reasons. We have this in the West – people protesting just in order be seen when something happens. But these monks – they demonstrate for very unselfish reasons. And the Dalai Lama may also be there.

Dr Berzin: Right. So, motivation is very important here. Some people go to demonstrations just to be cool and to be seen and accepted by the crowd for whatever reason. But if you are really sincere in trying to bring about a change that would be of benefit to people – that motivation is much better. That’s true. Let’s go through more of this list.

Complaining, Moaning, or Grumbling

The third of the the seven types of idle chatter is complaining, moaning, and grumbling. That’s a hard one. What happens when we just point out a problem? For instance, at the four-day event over the weekend in Brussels for His Holiness’s teachings, they charged 40 cents to use the toilet at an event where there were five thousand people. Everybody must have had to use the toilet at least three times during the day, and the people charged them 40 cents every time. They were also very aggressive in terms of collecting the 40 cents. Now, if you remarked, “This really is a bit much in terms of the profit. Surely, the toilet paper and paper towels didn’t cost twenty thousand euros” (which was what we calculated that they made from the toilets), would that be complaining?

Participant: Well, the tone does make a difference. If you just say, “I think it is a bit much” – that’s not really complaining, is it? 

Dr Berzin: Well, this is my question. If the tone of voice, the motivating emotion is something like, “They’re awful. They’re horrible,” then it gets into harsh language as well. 

Participant: Go on strike. 

Dr Berzin: Ah, that’s sarcasm. It’s another form of harsh and abusive speech to say, “Go on strike.”

Participant: What if the Dalai Lama would complain, “Well, listen. We’re not here to fight for the money for the toilet”?

Dr Berzin: Right. What if Dalai Lama complained? I don’t know. I spoke with the head organizer of the committee who is somebody I know. I said to him, “Everything is going perfectly at this event. Congratulations. The only thing that I hear complaints about is the toilets – that they are charging money to use the toilets at such a huge public event.” First of all, he didn’t really know about that. He must have been using a private toilet for the VIP’s that he didn’t have to pay for. But he said he would speak to them about that. Indeed, he did try to speak to them, but then he said that it was the rule of the building; it had nothing to do with him. It was the owners of the building that set up this rule, so he couldn’t do anything about it. 

Participant: Was that a complaint – what you said to the organizer?

Dr Berzin: When I said that to the organizer, I was informing him. But, actually, I must say that I was annoyed as well that you had to pay that amount of money.

Participant: I think there can be constructive or destructive complaints. 

Dr Berzin: OK – constructive and destructive complaints. 

Participant: Constructiveness can also accompany one kind of complaint. Constructive complaints can improve things, actually. 

Dr Berzin: Well, that’s like criticism. You can give constructive criticism to try to improve things. But what about if you say, “Oh, the city transportation system is so poor,” or “The architecture is so poor,” or “The food was so terrible at this restaurant, and the service was so bad” –  aren’t those complaints?

Participant: Those are complaints.

Dr Berzin: Or is it just stating a fact? But it’s interesting. It comes down to the motivation, doesn’t it? 

Participant: How one perceives this is so relative. And different people could see these examples quite differently.

Dr Berzin: I don’t know, it’s a difficult one. But certainly, I think, most of us complain or moan or grumble. 

Joking, Being Silly, Singing, Humming, or Whistling for No Positive Reason

Now, the next one is even more terrible: joking, being silly, fooling around, singing, humming, and whistling for no particular positive reason (Goodbye! Give back your red string!). It’s idle chatter to go around whistling, humming songs, singing, and this type of thing for no positive reason. If you are doing it to… 

Participant: To lull a baby or something…

Dr Berzin: Right, to sing a baby to sleep or to relax… It was really funny. I was with His Holiness once when he was being interviewed. Actually, the plane was late and we were in a VIP lounge in Bulgaria. Somebody came and interviewed him in the lounge, and they asked him about music. His Holiness said that, actually, he didn’t like music, and that he never listened to music. The person was really quite shocked at that because he was a musician. Then I mentioned to His Holiness that Western people like music because often they now have a little choir or some entertainer sing a song before His Holiness gives a speech, which I know His Holiness doesn’t enjoy and thinks is a complete waste of time. But what do you do in that situation? Is that idle chatter? Is that a good reason – to greet His Holiness?

Participant: Wouldn’t it be disrespectful of art and musicians and so on to say that it’s idle chatter?

Dr Berzin: Right. It’s disrespectful to artists and musicians to say, “This is stupid; it’s idle chatter.” And it’s also disrespectful to the culture. So, His Holiness certainly gives the appearance of enjoying it. He’s not sitting there and looking at his watch, waiting for them to finish, or yawning. 

Participant: I think this might be a cultural thing because, in the West, it’s also considered that music can be very uplifting and inspiring. You have music as part of many spiritual traditions as well. 

Dr Berzin: Well, chanting is something else. His Holiness likes the Buddhist chanting very much. But just popular songs… Well, it’s a different culture. Anyway, here we also have joking. What about joking and being silly? Here, it’s specified as joking and being silly for no particular reason, no good reason. 

Participant: But, also, you could argue that laughing is healthy. 

Dr Berzin: Laughing is healthy. That’s for sure. If you tell jokes and are silly in order to benefit the other person by helping them to laugh – that’s one thing. If you do it in order to be the center of attention – that’s something else, isn’t it? Is it for your own benefit or for the benefit of others? Or is it just mindless – that you just tell jokes because you are naive and think it’s cute? 

Participant: Is there an explanation about what is unwholesome about the act itself?

Dr Berzin: What they say is that it doesn’t matter whether anybody understands or even hears your joke. 

Participant: Wouldn’t that then be neutral? 

Dr Berzin: Well, it says that the main thing that’s unwholesome about it is that it’s a waste of time.

Participant: In other words, we’re going back to the point about what’s meaningful and what’s not.

Dr Berzin: What’s meaningful and what’s not meaningful? And sometimes you need to relax. 

Uselessly Telling Stories or Gossiping about Leaders, Celebrities, Political Affairs, Etc.

The fifth point is telling stories and gossiping about government leaders, celebrities, political affairs, wars, crimes, and so forth when there is no way that we can affect or improve the situation. We are just being busy bodies. We’re just talking about something that really is none of our business and that we can’t do anything about, which makes it a little bit like complaining. 

Participant: That concerns really almost all discussions about political things. And we have no influence at all over most of that.

Dr Berzin: Well, most of it is complaints, actually. If you think about it, it’s complaining about high taxes, complaining about the war, or complaining about the price of benzene.

Participant: What about high-quality newspapers that inform us about political situations in different countries? It’s really not our business, but it kind of gives us some feeling of interconnectedness. 

Dr Berzin: Well, that’s a good question. What about information – the news, world news? Or is the only thing of interest the crimes that occurred in the city that day? That’s what most of the news on American television is about, actually. It’s about all the crimes that occurred that day in your city, which I find dreadful to watch. It’s very much of a downer to watch that. But finding out about some political event, like an election of a president in some small country in Africa that you’ve never even heard of – is it good to pass on that information? Or is that idle chatter? Well, I don’t think it’s idle chatter to want to inform the world about things that are happening elsewhere because everything is very much connected in this world now. If there’s a new dictator in some African country that starts a war or something like that, it affects a lot of people. 

Talking Nonsense Like a Drunk or Mad Person

The next type of idle chatter is speaking like a drunk or a mad person, talking nonsense, and speaking stupidly. There are some people who do that quite a lot. They really speak dumbly, you would say. That’s idle chatter. 

Flattering, Bullying, Bribing, etc. in Order to Get Something from Others

The last type of idle chatter is talking in a way that involves the five wrong livelihoods, which are formulated primarily for monastics begging for alms, but could apply to laypersons as well. So, this would be monks or nuns trying to procure things from somebody by using (1) flattery – you know, praising somebody in order to get something; (2) coercion – pressuring them by bullying or threatening them; (3) bribery; (4) contrived manners – bragging and speaking pretentiously; (5) hinting – hinting that they need something. All these of types of things are idle chatter in order to get somebody to give you something.

It’s like a salesman trying to sell you some financial package or insurance policy, which basically will give them more money because they get a percentage of whatever they sell. They speak to you about how this is really going to benefit you, whereas their actual concern is how they’ll benefit from the commission that they’ll get from selling it to you.                 

These are the different forms of idle chatter. 

Participant: Where is this list from?

Dr Berzin: This is based on Lam-rim chen-mo, on Tsongkapa’s detailed explanation of this. It’s a combination of that and Pabongka’s Lam-rim. Basically, it’s what Geshe Dhargey taught in India. So, it comes from a few sources. But Tsongkapa is very good at listing the seven types of this and the five types of that – all these sorts of things. Especially the details on our next topic, the three destructive actions of mind – that’s right from Lam-rim chen-mo.

OK? We actually only have a few more minutes left before nine o’clock. It’s probably not really worthwhile to start the destructive actions of mind because we certainly won’t be able to get through even one of them. Do you have more questions or points about what we’ve discussed about harsh and abusive language and idle chatter? 

Atisha said – I think it was in his Garland of Bodhisattva Gems (Bodhisattva-mani-avali) – “When by yourself, keep a check on your mind; when with others, keep a check on your speech.” We don’t usually go around killing, stealing from others and having inappropriate sex with them. That would be fairly rare. But we speak to people all the time. So that’s really where we have to exercise mindfulness and alertness. 

We need mindfulness to keep a mental hold on the discipline of restraining ourselves when the urge to speak in these ways comes up – to say something stupid or to just talk on and on. Then we need alertness to be aware of when we lose that mental hold and are just speaking on and on. We’ve run out of things to say to somebody, but because of attachment to the person, we spend a half-hour saying goodbye. That happens in many cultures – that the goodbye talk at the door goes on forever. It’s basically idle chatter out of attachment. 

Attachment, I think, is often the motivating emotion behind idle chatter. We want to be with the person, but we don’t really have anything meaningful to say or discuss. We can’t just sit there quietly with them and stare lovingly into each other’s eyes, so we talk about anything. We just say anything in order to make conversation. That’s always a difficult issue when we visit somebody. We have to do something or speak the whole time. At least, often we feel that we do.

Participant: It’s rare to find a friend who you can really be quiet with. It’s very rare.

Dr Berzin: Usually, when somebody visits us for a weekend, we feel as though we have to schedule things to do. We have to do something. We can’t just stay at home, even though we don’t really feel like going out or whatever. We have to entertain them. 

Participant: What do you do if you’re invited for a party and things like that? 

Dr Berzin: I’m never invited to parties. OK, let’s say you are invited for a party or a birthday. What do you do? That’s difficult because usually it’s just entirely small talk. If you find somebody to speak with, the thing is to try to turn the conversation to something meaningful rather than talk about the weather. Now, what’s meaningful doesn’t necessarily have to be the Dharma. I remember when I was invited to a birthday party this year. There was somebody there who was an Israeli Arab – not a Palestinian, but an Arab living in Israel. I spent the entire party speaking to this person about what it was like to be an Arab in Israel. What was particularly interesting was his attitude and also the general attitude of Israeli Arabs toward Palestinian Arabs and the prejudice that they had against them. The Israeli Arabs were very, very much against them. They very much held the Israeli position, which was interesting to hear. 

So, was that idle chatter? It really was none of my business. But he was bored as well and had nobody to speak with, and I learned something from it. Learning something is meaningful, isn’t it? Even in general, you need to know about the world if you want to be able to help people and so on. 

Participant: Well, still, I have doubts of how academic topics  can become idle speech.

Dr Berzin: Well, you could become very academic speaking about completely trivial things as if they were very important. Therefore, if you are going to be an academic, you try to do something in academia that is meaningful and that could be of some benefit rather than something that one would call “mental masturbation” – just playing with ideas because they are amusing. 

So, these are destructive actions of speech. It is easier to do the constructive action of speaking meaningfully, speaking kindly, and so on. What’s much more difficult is to stop yourself from speaking harshly, destructively, stupidly, or idly. That’s much more difficult. When you feel like speaking like that, as Shantideva would say, “Remain like a block of wood.” That’s a very interesting phenomenon – that when something comes to your mind that you want to say, it’s very hard not to say it, to just keep your mouth shut. 

Participant: Even if you decide not to…

Dr Berzin: Even if you decide not to, eventually, you say it anyway. 

Participant: That’s quite true. I had to learn it, actually, the other way around – to learn to say something because I was so damn shy.

Dr Berzin: Right, it could be the other way around. You are very shy, and you had to learn to actually say something, not just to keep your mouth shut. That’s very true – that you can go to the other extreme. That usually involves low self-esteem – that  “What I have to say is not important. It’s not very meaningful, and people will think it’s stupid.” But again – middle path. 

But I think It is very difficult to exercise self-control over our speech. That’s why Atisha said that when we are with others, to keep a watch on our speech. 

OK? Next time we’ll do the mental actions. They’re very interesting. Tsongkhapa gives very good details on what is involved with the destructive ways of thinking, which help us to know quite specifically what these mental actions are about. For instance, for each of them, he lists five additional disturbing attitudes or emotions that have to accompany the mental action for it to be complete. That gives us a much fuller picture than we’d ordinarily have of what these destructive ways of thinking are.