While at the Zen monastery, I made a comment about Theravada Buddhism, which I expressed to the master as “conservative” or “orthodox”. The master was quick to tell me I should not speak in this way, that Theravada practitioners follow the traditional teachings of the Buddha. Frankly, I was a little disappointed to hear this. In my mind, we use these words to label the characteristics of people’s practice. I quickly resisted, saying that commentaries and books seemingly say with ease about calling them as “conversative”. You can even do a quick Google search and hardly no ordinary person would disagree with these labels. So why should I not speak this way?

Returning back to my mindfulness, I thought about what we say about people that we do not truly know. We are quick to label, to discuss, and to spread false information that is not truly what they are.

There are also some “outs” that are used in how we speak. For one, there are just about finite expressions of words, so swapping around words and descriptions can only be done so well. Another out, is to accept that whatever I said, there is both right and wrong and simultaneously neither. I have generally accepted these “outs” whenever I spoke.

There are many sutras which express the importance of refraining from false descriptions of the Buddha and the practice. I never really thought too much about it. There are so many contradictions in the sutras worthy of endless discussion that I never really thought about the consequences they spoke of. I am learning to be more mindful of this. I would like to discover a balance in sharing what I love, while being silent when I need to be silent, and being true when I need to be true.