[UPDATED] If you’re just tuning in, check out posts on week 1 and week 2.
Apologies to the Hardcore crew. I wasn’t able to be at Hardcore Dharma last night. My excuse is legit but excuses aren’t very hardcore. Recalling our contemplation from last week, I can say that my intention to post on time was pure like the mountain stream.
I’m listening to the class and I’ll have thoughts up tomorrow. In the meantime, let’s try an experiment in user-generated content- What was your favorite funny/thoughtful moment from class last night? What did I miss?
So! It sounds like class was most excellent, and the part that caught my attention was the discussion about comedy and Right Speech. The non-virtuous qualities of Right Speech include speaking falsely or lying, speaking harshly or non-effectively, and speaking divisively. Folks were talking about the nuances of Right Speech, such as withholding the truth from someone for a period of time to avoid speaking harshly/non-effectively (i.e., when trying to convince a friend to quit smoking, it helps to avoid screaming at them) when Matt asked, “does comedy get off the hook under these rules?” He expanded on this idea in a comment below:

So then we talked about comedy [as it applies to the non-virtuous qualities of Right Speech]. This was less clear [than art]; actually it’s all kind of unclear. As a painter I think about whether or not my painting practice is mindful and I believe that it becomes more mindful as I practice. So I thought “what would mindful comedy be?” Would it even be funny? Is it in comedy’s nature to be mindful? Comedy seems to be at the expense of someone or something. The butt of a joke. Do we laugh at jokes because of awkwardness/discomfort (defense/coping mechanism)? Do we laugh at jokes from a lofty place (we’re better than stupid people that do stupid things, etc.)? Is there comedy that is not at the expense of something else? The Comedian in The Watchmen comes to mind. He wasn’t funny at all (and existed at the expense of hundreds of people, which I’d guess was the point of his being called “The Comedian”).
I was walking somewhere the other day and just sort of giggled because I was happy for whatever reason (I blame it on the beautiful sunlight). It occurred to me that the laugh was a true expression of my happiness – then I thought that maybe the laugh was a response to the awkwardness of the pure expression of emotion in a repressed being.
Can there be comedy that isn’t at the expense of someone/something? Is laughter only a coping-mechanism?

When you think about it, comedy is premised on making fun of people, and it is often the pathos of the comedian’s material (I think of Richard Pryor talking about his early memories of his mother’s prostituion – heartbreaking stuff he managed to make hilarious) that makes us laugh. It’s cathartic. Comedy seems to me inherently mindful because it seeks to see the world as it is, without pretense or whitewash. It provides relief from the lurking despair of everyday existence by making things mock-able, managable.
Some comedians make us squirm with discomfort (Andy Kaufman has that effect on me) and some make us feel detached and slightly smarter than everybody else (Jerry Seinfeld’s sharp wit, Eddie Izzard’s bird’s-eye view of our inane and self-interested historical narratives – “Do you have a flaaag?”). Others simply report on the silly minutue of life (Mitch Hedberg, Mike Birbiglia). Either way, comedy causes the audience to see the familiar/tragic/angering in a new and novel way and it is this analytic quality, the de-stabilization of one’s perspective that I think the Buddha would have found useful, if not always adhereing to the details of Right Speech. Oftentimes comedy is both at the expense of someone/something and a coping mechanism, and that’s OK.
It crosses over into the non-virtuous territoiry of Right Speech when it ceases to be skillful. Kim’s comment drove this home for me:

I think what matters is the motivation of the artist, what they are trying to convey, from where they get their inspiration (ego or spirit), and how does it effect people. Is a positive, uplifting message, or does it perpetuate delusion and depravity?

Plenty of comedy is not positive or uplifting in the way a gospel choir is positive and uplifting, but when it’s skillful, the power of comedy to question (and mock) ignorance is unparalleled. It disarms us with chuckles before it drives home the sharp point of insight. George Carlin practiced this kind of (admittedly) harsh truth-telling his entire career, attacking materialism and vanity, among other things.
Unskillful comedy, however, is the kind that perpetuates delusion and depravity. Comedy based on hateful or racist speech falls under this idea. My friend Alex and I used to be huge fans of Family Guy until it lost its fresh, skillful quality. In one episode towards the end of our fandom, the show mocks a character who is dying of cancer. Alex, whose aunt was struggling with cancer at the time, later said to me, “you don’t realize how mean Family Guy is until they’re mocking something close to you.”
The good news is, not a lot of hateful comedy gains widespread popularity because its unskillful. How successful comedy becomes seems directly related to how truthful and insightful it is. The positive, de-stabilizing qualities of comedy are built in to the DNA of its appeal.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Listening to class, I was curious to know if the sutras say anything about comedy/art/theater. Maybe Ethan can answer that question? Or some of the fancy-pants kids from the advanced Hardcore Dharma class?
Wait, was that gently mocking tone Right Speech? I’m so confused.