Much has been written about what the Buddha taught which is only right given its clarity, consistency and the fact that 2500 years later millions still accept and live by its principles. However, beyond what the Buddha said, perhaps almost as important is how he said it, i.e. the aesthetic quality of his voice, not just the ethical components of his words. How someone speaks—the tone, volume, pitch and intonation of their voice—tells us much about what they are thinking, their emotional state and their personality, and can convey something to the listener quite apart from what their words alone do. Words spoken in anger or with disapproval, can be received quite differently if said in a calm and quiet manner. The exclamation ‘No!’ can affect the person to who it is addressed completely differently if said sharply and emphatically or softly and gently.
We are fortunate to have a few snippets of information about how the Buddha spoke, i.e. the tone and timbre of his voice. In one passage from the Tipiṭaka, an individual who had attended one of the Buddha’s talks described his delivery as being “clear and intelligible, lovely and pleasant to hear, bindu, concise, deep and resonant” (M.II,140). The third and fourth of these qualities (mañju and savanīya), suggest a soft captivating cadence which could have charmed the listener. The word (bindu) means ‘round’ and in this context it is difficult to know what is meant; perhaps something like orotund or well-rounded as we might say in English, meaning the tone and speed of what he said was evenly balanced. To say that someone’s voice is deep, gambhīra, means that it has a low pitch which the Buddha’s voice may have become when he wanted to transmit the importance or seriousness of what he was saying. Whatever the case, the impression given by this description is that the Buddha’s voice was elegant, effective in transmitting its message and was well received by his audience.
The brahman Soṇadaṇḍa who had engaged in dialogue with the Buddha on several occasions, found his speech “welcoming, friendly and polite, abbhākuṭika, uttāna mukho and pubba bhāsi (D.I,116). The first three of Soṇadaṇḍa’s description here—welcoming, friendly and polit—would have been a combination of what the Buddha said, how he said it together with perhaps a slightly smiling expression. The word abbhākuṭika literally means ‘not frowning’, and suggests that the Buddha would smile on first meeting someone, communicating his approachability and his wish that their encounter with him would be a friendly one. These qualities could be seen as a vocal expression of the Buddha’s general attitude of good-will and mettā. The last two qualities need a bit of explaining. Uttāna mukho literally means ‘clear mouthed’ and may have meant that the words were clearly enunciated, or alternatively it might have been a way of indicating that the Buddha said what he meant, that he was ‘a straight-talker’. The term pubba bhāsi is a little more difficult to understand. Pubba means ‘before’ so the term literally means something like ‘speaks before’ and may mean that the Buddha would initiate the conversation with someone who had come to meet him, or that he directed any conversation taking place, stopping it getting bogged down, or keeping it from straying from the subject at hand.
The Buddha encouraged his disciples to follow his example and speak in ways that were “blameless, easy on the ear, lovely, going to the heart, urbane, liked and pleasing to the many folk” (nelā kaṇṇasukhā pemanīyā hadayaṅgamā porī bahujana kantā bahujana manāpā, (D.I,4). Once again, several of these qualities refer to the meaning of the words spoken while others such as easy on the ear (kaṇṇasukhā), lovely, (pemanīyā,) going to the heart (hadayaṅgamā) and urbane (porī) pertain to the sound of the voice and the emotions it evokes.
Once someone asked the Buddha if he could ever say anything that would upset or annoy another and he replied that he could. He then added that if he ever did such a thing his words would always be truthful (bhūta), useful (atthasṃhitaṃ), spoken at the appropriate time (kālena) and motivated by compassion or empathy (anukampa, M.I,395). Being a teacher, a spiritual guide to this disciples, it is only natural that the Buddha would sometimes have to reprimand or even scold some of those under his tutelage. There were occasions when a monk completely misunderstood his Dhamma and expressed it in conversations with others or even taught it to them. When the Buddha came to know of this he was quick to correct the person. His correction usually began with this reproach: “Foolish man! Have you ever heard me teach the Dhamma to anyone like that? (M.I,132). It would be easy to imagine the words “Foolish man!” (mogha purisa!) being delivered with anger and or at least in a raised voice accompanied by a frown, but it would also be possible to say them calmly, perhaps accompanied by shaking the head in disappointment and maybe with just a hint of exasperation in the voice.
However, one, and only one, of the Buddha’s reproaches is more difficult to explain. Once, having just finished talking to a large audience when Devadatta approached the Buddha and suggested that he retire and hand over the leadership of the Saṅgha to him, something he had been positioning himself to do for some time. Knowing full well Devadatta’s desire for power, influence and recognition the Buddha refused. Undeterred, Devadatta asked again and again the Buddha refused. When Devadatta persisted and asked a third time the Buddha said “I would not entrust the Saṅgha even to Sāriputta and Moggallāna, let alone to you who eats the spittle of a corpse!” (Vin.II,188). The last part of this statement (pana tuyhaṃ chavassa-kheḷa-assaka) could be and indeed has been translated in several different ways apart from the one just given. For example, “you, a wretched one to be vomited like spittle,” “you, a wretched devourer of junk,” and “you a wretched lick-spittle.” Nonetheless, however the Buddha’s words here are rendered they are more than a rebuke; they are clearly an insult, and being delivered in front of a large audience they must have also humiliated Devadatta. If the Buddha had dismissed his requests in an icy voice, it would be understandable and perhaps justified. But why the insult? Were the Buddha’s words spoken in anger? Perhaps the Buddha thought there are times when an incorrigible person intent of on evil, needs to be uncompromisingly called-out. While the Buddha’s trenchant comment to Devadatta seem problematic, his words more usually left his audience “informed, motivated, uplifted and gladdened” (sandassitā, samādapitā, samuttejitā, sampahaṃsitā, M.I,176) and another comment recorded in the Tipiṭaka says that when one of his talks was over “the audience rose from their seats and left reluctantly, while keeping their gaze on him” (M.II,140). King Pasenadi noticed that when the Buddha was giving a talk even to large crowds hardly a sound could be heard from the audience, such was their attentiveness (M.II,122).
It seems that public discourse nowadays, whether at political meetings, in parliament, or on television talk shows, has declined. It has become more acceptable to shout, interrupt another speaker, wildly gesticulate, use words laced with sarcasm and insults, and resort to exaggerations or sweeping generalizations bordering on lies. Sadly, one sometimes even hears sermons by certain religious personalities delivered in a similar distasteful manner. It is almost as if such speakers believe that the louder they shout the truer their assertions are. Given the power of speech to motivate people for good or evil, to encourage them to consider carefully or unthinkingly accept whatever they hear, to obscure the truth or illuminate it; it is no surprise that the Buddha included Right Speech (sammā vācā) as one of the eight essential steps leading to human growth and freedom. But Right Speech is not just what we say but how we say it, and the Buddha have given us a model of the most skillful way to communicate with others.
Shravasti
Dhammika
