What’s all the Rush about?

You don’t have to be an enlightened being to know that Rush Limbaugh is very skilled at Wrong Speech. His most recent epithet regarding a Georgetown University law student really should come as no surprise even when measured by Limbaugh’s standards. Neither should his non-apology apology. And of course, none of us would ever do or say anything like what Rush Limbaugh said or did, right?

OK sweeties, let’s take a step back for a moment and seriously contemplate this thing called speech, because as many commentators have said and written, most of our “bad karma” is created by speech, by what we say and not by what we do (although our actions create plenty of bad karma as well). And it may come as a surprise to some of you that the rationalizations Limbaugh went through in his non-apology apology are often the same rationalizations we employ when confronted with foot-in-mouth syndrome.

“What? Me as boorish as Rush Limbaugh? That’s simply not possible!” I know, some of you are shocked. But rather than look at the specifics of what Limbaugh said and how he “apologized,” let’s look at their elements and characteristics.

As mentioned in the Abhayarajakumara Sutta (MN 58) and explained in this post, there are three elements to Right Speech: (1) Whether the speech is true; (2) Whether the speech is beneficial; and (3) Whether the speech is pleasing to others.

It’s easy to see how Rush Limbaugh utterly failed on all three of these, but how easy is it for us to look at our own speech to see how it may fail as well? Granted, determining whether what we say is true is probably simple enough – or is it?

This brings to mind a mother of one of the students killed in a recent school shooting in an Ohio suburb. This mother forgives the alleged shooter despite the fact she lost her son. But she admits that she doesn’t know everything about the situation, particularly what drove a young man to take such desperate action and shoot inside a cafeteria filled with other students.

Like her, we often only know part of the truth, and that part is often what’s inside our head, colored and distorted by our mind. It’s also why the Buddha warned us that just because something is true doesn’t mean we ought to say it. There remain two other factors, whether the speech is beneficial and pleasing.

Limbaugh gave a rather pathetic excuse in his non-apology apology that he was attempting to be funny. We’ll just ignore that. Yet, his comment is very telling. How often do we find ourselves saying something that we know might be offensive, but quickly follow up with the comment, “just kidding”? And when our quip comes off lame, how often do we blame the listener for not “getting it,” and chide them for being unable to “take a joke”? I’ll be the first to admit that at times I can be thin-skinned, which is ironic given my career in editing. I have plenty of experience listening to irate people on the phone lambasting me and the publication I was working for over something that was printed. But when someone reacts to something I say in a manner that reveals that they were offended despite my intention to be playful, clever or whatever, who failed “to get it”? I suggest that it’s me, the speaker, that didn’t get it, not the listener. Which, despite this being about point 3 (is the speech pleasing to others), brings us back to point 2, whether the speech beneficial.

Determining benefit may not only be a bit onerous, but it may also be a bit unrealistic. Can’t we have a little fun? Must everything bring benefit? Well, yes, it should and it can because if we look at who benefits, as opposed to whether there is any benefit, things become more clear. Because most, if not all, of the bad karma we create is the result of actions or speech that were motivated by selfish ends.

If all I’m concerned about is how funny or sharp I appear to others, then I’m not thinking about the person I am teasing or making my comment about. I’m thinking about me. So it's perfectly acceptable to come with some quips that get people laughing or smiling at the least, provided that is my intent. But as soon as my intent is about how I will appear clever and be admired for what I say, my words will fail. I’ll be like the pretty boats in the photo with this post: nice to look at but the tide will have disappeared leaving me stranded.

What about only on Tuesdays?

So I laid it out in my previous post, I made the assertion that monogamy was more skillful than polygamy or polyandry. And I asked if anyone disagreed to challenge my assertion.

And someone did. And it was successful. At least I cannot see any legitimate retort.

The counter argument came from Shane Hennesey, who authors Zenfant’s Home for Dirty Dharma. If you haven’t read his blog, you ought to. The brother is a righteous writer. But Shane’s rebuttal wasn’t on his blog. He’s still working out the details for that. Rather, his retort was posted as a comment on this blog’s Facebook page. And here’s what he said in part:

“first off, i disagree that a monogamous situation is better than a multiple partner situation. they are both just situations, neither good or bad. they both have their stories we give them and they are just that…stories. Both situations can be done with skillful means on in unskillful ways. People can thrive in these situations or crater or something in between. One is not better than the other. Why be limited by these two situations? What about celibacy by choice? What about only sex with toys and only on Tuesdays?”

Shane is very persuasive here. Because if I’m honest in my self-evaluation – and what does Buddhism teach if not to evaluate what is self? – I must recognize that my preference for monogamy may be a form of rejection of my own behavior of going through multiple partners to “find the one.” By stating that monogamy is better, am I not merely trying to prettify my own life, to rationalize how I go through other guys ostensibly to find the perfect partner? And what if it is? What’s wrong with that? And if I feel uncomfortable with that, isn’t that discomfort coming from within me rather than from the rubric of multiple partners in and of itself?

However, I also acknowledge this line of thinking does lend itself to a slippery slope. There must be legitimate consent involved here. But by and large, where consent is involved and all those participating are granting informed consent, sex is sex, whether with one or many, all at once or one at a time. After all, I have to admit that I met a couple one time involved in a happily monogamous and committed relationship that had gone on for years, and you know where they met? In a bathhouse. At least that's what they told me, and I have no reason to disbelieve them.

I do want monogamy for myself. But that doesn’t make it superior to anyone else’s situation or preferences. And for me to assert that was pretty damned arrogant.

Regardless of what you do, it’s about skillfulness. It’s about not doing harm. And I’d be a liar if I were to say I’ve never harmed someone through living a “superior” lifestyle.

Thanks Shane for setting me “straight.” Now would you get on with writing your freaking blog?

Is one too many and a hundred not enough?

First, let’s get the abject apology out of the way. Seriously, I haven’t been blogging lately. And maybe you’ve been wondering, “What’s that My Buddha is Pink dude been up to? He hasn’t posted anything in, like, for-ever!” And you’d be right to wonder that. But I have to admit, I’ve been stymied.

I ran into a discussion on my Facebook page (and if you haven’t visited, please do and help me get some discussions going, I mean seriously, all day I’m talking to people about successful use of social media and my Facebook page is a black hole for silence) that positively left me clueless as to a response. And it was about sex for goodness sake! Me clueless and unable to give a response about sex? I may have to give my toaster back! (you may only get that last reference if you were a diligent viewer of Ellen DeGeneres’ ill-fated TV series, you know, before she became the talk-show goddess that she is today)

Ellen, can you hear me? Can you feel me near you? Ellen, can you feel me? Can I help to cheer you? Ooo-oo-oo, Ellen, Ellen, Ellen.

OK, enough references to 1960s rock operas (but seriously, don’t you think Tommy was just a tad gay?)

Someone had posited that having multiple sex partners was fine and within the intention of the Third Precept as long as everything was consensual. Why would there be a preference inferred within the Third Precept for monogamy over polygamy or polyamory? And I have to say when this question was asked, I had no easy response. Instead, I asked more questions. And one of the questions I asked was whether this individual (who I know will read this because it will be posted to my Facebook page) had read any of the Buddhist literature, such as the Pali canon.

His reply was he had not.

His position that as long as one was behaving through proper social norms, having multiple sex partners would be within the intent of the Third Precept; just don’t be possessive of another and make sure that it’s consensual. I have to admit it’s a very beguiling argument, but my gut told me it was specious nonetheless. But what to say?

Look, I’ve never presented myself as an “expert” on Buddhism. I’ve “studied” a lot of the literature, and while my grounding is in the Thai Forest tradition, I’ve read a great deal of other publications in the Mahayana sphere. But I’m no academic, and I’m certainly no monk. Although, I have to admit that I’ve met some monks that my initial reaction was to think, “How can I get this monk to disrobe?” And I mean that both metaphorically and literally.

But I digress.

I had to agree that if one remained uncommitted, multiple sexual partners under the rubric of everything being consensual was probably not necessarily a violation of the Third Precept. But was such activity skillful? That was what was troubling me. Because my gut said no, it is not skillful, and it holds tremendous potential for future pain, suffering, anguish, misunderstanding, mistrust, and – not to forget – some nasty little diseases that may crop up.

Having said that, I needed something to back me up, to support my conclusion. Because sometimes the trouble with Buddhism is there are a lot of people who will identify as Buddhist who really don’t know much about what the Buddha taught. And it just seemed prudent to me that if you are going to identify as Buddhist, it would be wise to know something about the subject before deciding what is considered skillful Buddhist behavior.

I’m just sayin’.

And finally, I found my response. All it took was me picking up my copy of the Majjhima Nikāya and start reading it again. You see, I had stopped reading it regularly. In fact, I had stopped reading any Buddhist doctrine or literature on a regular basis. My practice had become irrelevant. It was time to make it relevant.

And what I found was the Ratthapala Sutta! Oh yeah, this guy Ratthapala had it goin’ on! While I’m sure there are other suttas that will address this question more specifically, I found Ratthapala’s discussion on the four teachings of the Buddha that attracted him to Buddhism very, how shall we say? – Enlightening.

The first: The world is swept away. It does not endure.

The second: The world is without shelter, without protector.

The third: The world is without ownership. One has to pass on, leaving everything behind.

The fourth: The world is insufficient, insatiable, a slave to craving.

When I read these, I was like, whoa! And the fourth item is what really clicked with me regarding my dilemma over multiple sexual partners.

When asked what he meant when he said, “The world is insufficient, insatiable, a slave to craving,” Ratthapala asked King Koravya if he was informed of another rich country that he could conquer and add to his own kingdom, what would he do? The king replied he would attack and conquer that country. And if another? He would conquer that too. On and on and to what end?

So, for someone who believes it’s OK to have multiple sexual partners as a regular lifestyle, someone comes up to you and says, “Hey, I know this hot dude who’d love to meet you.” Would you want to meet him? And if so, what if someone else comes along and says, “Hey this hot dude wants to get with you?’ Hey, why the heck not? And then maybe even this hot dude says, “Hey, I know this really hot guy who’d love a threesome.” Are you gonna go for it?

It’s all well and good except for one thing: you remain a slave to sensuality. You remain a slave to sensual indulgences. You think you’re free, but in reality, you’re a slave.

The other issue is the lack of intimacy in these relationships. I know someone who fits this, who told me he thinks he found someone he could “make a relationship with,” although it was clear to me there was no love. It was a matter of convenience. And even after saying he was interested in this guy, he was still sleeping with other men.

Now, lest you think that I am some holier-than-thou puritan of gay sex, let me make clear I am not. But I am seeking someone who can be a true partner. I don’t want multiple sex partners as much fun as it is. I’m like Hedwig. I seek my other half. And even as I say that, I realize that the fact that I am searching for that, for that man, means I still cling to sensuality.

But I accept that. I am fully aware that my desire to be with someone – one man – to share what’s left of my life means that I remain bound to the cycle of birth, life, and death. Despite that, this is how I believe a skillful lay person should live, even if you’re not getting laid much.

As I said earlier, I’m not a monk. Don’t even want to be one. And maybe my sentiment is condescending to those who accept a polyamorous lifestyle. But don’t you think there is more skill in wanting to make up your mind than in refusing to make up your mind?

Challenge me. I like it.