The fourth precept - Abstain from False Speech

Bunks

How literal should we take this given that there are times that false speech is actually for the greater good?

sova

well, a precept states "abstain from X" so... even a literal interpretation allows for wiggle room if you catch my drift. that said, it is better to be honest or to not say anything than to lie, but you know, situations vary...

Daozen

Precept are there to guide you; no-one is standing over your shoulder to punish you - with two exceptions.

1. What is against the precepts may also be against the law. In the case of false speech, this would include libel, defamation, perjury, giving false witness, and so on. In these cases, false speech could lead you into real trouble.

2. You may make the "greater good" argument, but perhaps there are things you have not considered, and you may find in the long run that truth was the better policy.

Good luck - life sometimes gives us tough choices, but it's how we rise to them that determines who we are.

Namaste

vinlyn

According to the Five Mindfulness Trainings, as written by Thich Nath Hanh, rather than simply saying "false speech", it is better to understand it as "unmindful speech". He goes on to translate its meaning as "I am committed to cultivate loving speech and deep listening in order to bring joy and happiness to others and relieve others of their suffering. Knowing that words can create happiness or suffering, I am committed to learn to speak truthfully, with words that inspire self-confidence, joy, and hope. I am determined not to spread news that I do not know to be certain and not to criticize or condemn things of which I am not sure. I will refrain from uttering words that can cause division or discord, or that can cause the family or the community to break. I will make all efforts to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small."

That takes it beyond just lying, and also (in my view) gives you some room to make judgements about how to express yourself.

sova

@vinlyn thank you for that -- unmindful speech is a very nice rendering!

caz

Bunks said:

How literal should we take this given that there are times that false speech is actually for the greater good?

Avoid false speech at all costs so instead use wisdom when speaking.

Citta

At least one Dzogchen school reconfigures the fourth precept to mean " Refrain from expressing the lie of duality ".

DairyLama

Bunks said:

How literal should we take this given that there are times that false speech is actually for the greater good?

As I understand it Right Speech is basically truthful and helpful, so IMO it is better to remain silent than to start telling "white lies".

lobster

Right Speech has layers. For a childish mentality, it means always speak the truth or retain Noble Silence. For the skilled practitioner it may involve impacts that generate truth.

For example my maths teacher, when I was 11 was hopeless. The whole class would spend their time correcting her blackboard mistakes . . . How was it she was able to also teach advanced maths to senior students?

It was a game to get us interested. She was in fact a skilled calculator. We did not realise how we were being formulated into numerates. :mullet:

DairyLama

lobster said:

Right Speech has layers. For a childish mentality, it means always speak the truth or retain Noble Silence. For the skilled practitioner it may involve impacts that generate truth.

Could you give some examples of circumstances where you think it's OK for a skilled practitioner to lie?

Citta

I would be interested to have an example of " childishness " in this context.

RebeccaS

Citta said:

I would be interested to have an example of " childishness " in this context.

I think maybe when people speak what they perceive to be the truth but it's actually false. Ann Coulter does it a lot She thinks she's some beacon of the truth that the rest of us are just too scared to speak but in reality she's just a loudmouth bore. I think you also see it in people who purport to "speak for people without voices".

The book radical honesty is a good example of the childish use of the "truth".

I can't say I understand what @lobster is talking about, but this is what popped into my head.

lobster

'Do I look fat in this?' does not expect or require 'the truth', a child might say, 'you look fat in everything'. So even this banal example shows how the truth of adults is not the same as that of a child. Taken up a step it becomes more complex. For example we may project a teaching for those who are determined to hear about the dharma in a way that accords above their capacity to presently deal with. It would be wrong to continue such a dialogue in a truthful manner - who as an adult wants to hear that some things are beyond their present comprehension?

The dharma is a raft of partial truths, the practices are of approximate similitude to required qualities. A template if you like. If you know this or you do not, you can still travel.

. . . perhaps a more concrete example . . . due to planning permission, a dwelling for practitioners, had to be a hall. The planning permission was obtained as a hall. The building inspected and passed as a hall by the Rinpoche assuring the planning inspector of its use. When gone it was turned the same day, into individual practice rooms . . . This is a real world situation, real solutions required. Lying used.

It is childish to think the world can operate to the benefit of everyone if the Purelands were exposed as a fabrication run by the flying spaghetti monster . . . or that Father Christmas and all works of imagination and art should be burnt as lies . . .

Maybe I am just being naive . . .

The Buddha spoke to individuals according to their proclivities and abilities and in accord with his own. The idea of Buddha=Superman is still widely accepted. Is it true? Skilful?

You decide . . .

Citta

So who gets to decide who can cope with what level of truth ? Are you the adult in this scenario lobster ?

I_AM_THAT

Just a reminder that False Speech includes written words as wells verbal...

In my opinion it is best to use your mindfulness techniques to help you determine what should or should not be said or written. After all, you are responsible for what you say or write.

lobster

imagine Ann Coulter was a dharma practitioner. She would be right. Her path would be the right way. Everyone else is practicing false dharma. This is an infantile approach. How would you, indeed would you engage with her?
Let us say you had compassion. You would have to understand her on quite a deep level. You might also have to wait for or generate impacts that would enable a greater maturity.
Personally I could not, nor would I engage with those who already have all the answers. I would leave her to the more able and compassionate.

Praise be to Buddha that Ann Coulter is in the Christians domain . . .

fivebells

I've met plenty of Buddhist Ann Coulters.

Bunks

Let's say a group of rowdy young male neighbours are constantly having parties and disturbing your sleep.

After several fairly friendly verbal warnings from you they still do this each weekend.

Finally, in desperation you call the police anonymously and the neighbour is given a $500 fine for noise disturbance.

They confront you somewhat aggressively and demand to know if it was you who called the cops.

You have a two year old daughter and an eight month pregnant wife at home that you wish to protect.

What do you say?

RebeccaS

You say no.

Same as if you were hiding jews in your attic in the 40s.

Context is everything.

There is no black and white rule for anything in life. There will always be grey areas. Spiritual evolution is about being able to discern the context.

vinlyn

RebeccaS said:

You say no.

Same as if you were hiding jews in your attic in the 40s.

Context is everything.

There is no black and white rule for anything in life. There will always be grey areas. Spiritual evolution is about being able to discern the context.

I agree, but the problem is that some people take that to mean they can "fudge" (for wont of a better term here) on way too much.

caz

Bunks said:

Let's say a group of rowdy young male neighbours are constantly having parties and disturbing your sleep.

After several fairly friendly verbal warnings from you they still do this each weekend.

Finally, in desperation you call the police anonymously and the neighbour is given a $500 fine for noise disturbance.

They confront you somewhat aggressively and demand to know if it was you who called the cops.

You have a two year old daughter and an eight month pregnant wife at home that you wish to protect.

What do you say?

Would you like to go to court for harassment ? That generally shuts them up.

DairyLama

lobster said:

. . . perhaps a more concrete example . . . due to planning permission, a dwelling for practitioners, had to be a hall. The planning permission was obtained as a hall. The building inspected and passed as a hall by the Rinpoche assuring the planning inspector of its use. When gone it was turned the same day, into individual practice rooms . . . This is a real world situation, real solutions required. Lying used.

I think it is it better not to lie in situations like this, because the consequences may be unpredictable. Say somebody complained and the planning inspector returned a few months later and shut the building down, and everyone living there was made homeless? Which would also mean that a genuine future planning application would be looked on with skepticism and probably wouldn't succeed....

Zero

PedanticPorpoise said:

I think it is it better not to lie in situations like this, because the consequences may be unpredictable. Say somebody complained and the planning inspector returned a few months later and shut the building down, and everyone living there was made homeless? Which would also mean that a genuine future planning application would be looked on with skepticism and probably wouldn't succeed....

you haven't been involved in a planning issue before I'm guessing?! Law firms in the UK lap up ex-in-house counsel from local authority planning departments - they rarely know jack about law and planning but are friends with all the right people... I have friends in planning fraud law - it's an open secret!

It's all relative - i meet up with a friend who is properly into gyming and we talk big game - I meet up with a friend who is starting out and what I don't do is tell him he looks like a stick man and the exercises he's doing, I double up on for warm ups - it's true but it motivates him so much more when I tell him he looks good, his guns are stacked and I'm loving his great routine - also makes him more open to suggestions for improvement.

Raw truth can cause great contention as I suppose lies can also...

'big or small, I love your butt just as it is'... has served me well in the past!

DairyLama

Zero said:

PedanticPorpoise said:

I think it is it better not to lie in situations like this, because the consequences may be unpredictable....

you haven't been involved in a planning issue before I'm guessing?! Law firms in the UK lap up ex-in-house counsel from local authority planning departments - they rarely know jack about law and planning but are friends with all the right people... I have friends in planning fraud law - it's an open secret!

Are you suggesting that because the system is corrupt we should be corrupt too? I don't agree.

DairyLama

RebeccaS said:

Same as if you were hiding jews in your attic in the 40s.

That's the exception that proves the rule. I think in the other 99.9% of cases honesty is the best policy.

Bunks

caz said:

Bunks said:

Let's say a group of rowdy young male neighbours are constantly having parties and disturbing your sleep.

After several fairly friendly verbal warnings from you they still do this each weekend.

Finally, in desperation you call the police anonymously and the neighbour is given a $500 fine for noise disturbance.

They confront you somewhat aggressively and demand to know if it was you who called the cops.

You have a two year old daughter and an eight month pregnant wife at home that you wish to protect.

What do you say?

Would you like to go to court for harassment ? That generally shuts them up.

Thanks for the advice @caz but I live in country Australia. We don't threaten each other with lawsuits here!

Zero

PedanticPorpoise said:

Are you suggesting that because the system is corrupt we should be corrupt too? I don't agree.

Nope - I'm suggesting that if you want your planning application to succeed then you may have to face some harsh realities - otherwise no point in putting in your planning application in the first place - problem solved.

PedanticPorpoise said:

That's the exception that proves the rule. I think in the other 99.9% of cases honesty is the best policy.

There are 7 billion people - how many subjectively distinct scenarios are running simultaneously? It is likely a number that dwarfs 7 billion... so let's just take 7 billion as a seriously conservative estimate... 0.1% of 7 billion is.... 7 million cases where honesty isn't the best policy... 7 million cases right now where honesty is not the best policy...

seeker242

Always liked this little story.

We already talked about the precepts. This is very important part for the Buddha‘s teaching. In Theravada Buddhist practice, you follow the precepts in order to keep a pure mind. If your mind is pure, maybe someday you can attain nirvana and get out of this suffering realm. The precepts are like a fence that protects you from evil. They keep the thieves form stealing your treasure. Mahayana precepts are the same precepts, but we practice with them a little differently. In Mahayana practice, my precepts and my practice are not for me: they only for all beings. So I keep these precepts not for myself, but to help other beings. This means that sometimes, in some situations, breaking the precepts can help others much better than holding the precepts. If you mind is clear, then keeping the precepts is correct practice, and breaking the precepts is also correct practice. The most important is, why do you do it? Is it only for you, or for all beings?

If you keep these precepts just for yourself, to keep yourself pure, sometimes that is not very clear practice. Let‘s say that one day you are gathering firewood in the mountains. A rabbit runs down the path next to where you are. It reaches a fork in the road and runs down the right fork. A few moments later, a hunter comes running after it. He is carrying a high-powered rifle. The hunter sees you standing there and asks, ―Which way did the rabbit go? You have just taken Five Precepts. One of the most important of the precepts that Buddha himself taught is to refrain from telling lies. On many occasion during his life, the Buddha emphasized the need to keep this precept. Now, if you think, ―I just took these Five Precepts. I am a correct Buddhist. I must keep a pure mind, so I must keep the precepts—I cannot tell a lie‖ then you will tell the hunter which way the rabbit ran. You will tell the truth. Then this hunter will find the rabbit and kill it. The rabbit dies, and the hunter makes bad karma with the rabbit. That is called keeping the precepts only for yourself. It is a very narrow of the precepts.

But there is another way. It is a very wide way on which you travel to liberation with all other beings. This wide way is the function of your moment-to-moment clear mind to help others. So when this hunter comes down the road, you are filled with sadness for the rabbit, who may die if you tell the truth. Also you look at this hunter and you know that, by killing the rabbit, he will only make more bad karma for himself. This bad karma will cause him a great deal of suffering in the future. So you point down the left fork in the road, and you say, ―The rabbit went that way! He went that way! Hurry up! You send him down the wrong path. By saying this, you have broken one of the most important precepts given to us by the Buddha. But this precept is not for you, to help your own situation and condition at that moment. We must realize what the precepts are for: they give our practice its basic direction. The precepts exist so that we may help all beings. So, by breaking this precept, in this situation, you have spared the rabbit‘s life. You have also saved this hunter from making more bad karma. In the Mahayana tradition, the precepts are not for me—to keep my mind pure—but for all beings. We sometimes call this a clear-mind precept. How do the precepts function, from moment to moment, to help all beings? So our precepts ceremonies we say, ―Know when the precepts are open, and when they are closed; know when to keep them and when to break them This is a very important kind of practice.

DairyLama

From the Sallekha Sutta:

Effacement
12. "But herein, Cunda, effacement should be practiced by you:

(5) Others will speak falsehood; we shall abstain from false speech here — thus effacement can be done.
(6) Others win speak maliciously; we shall abstain from malicious speech here — thus effacement can be done.
(7) Others will speak harshly; we shall abstain from harsh speech here — thus effacement can be done.
(8) Others will gossip; we shall abstain from gossip here — thus effacement can be done.
(13) Others will use wrong speech; we shall use right speech here — thus effacement can be done.
(30) Others will be fraudulent; we shall not be fraudulent here — thus effacement can be done.

tmottes

I was listening to a podcast by Thanissaro Bhikku when he addressed this issue. He said that the choice isn't between telling the truth and telling a lie, but more-so between telling the truth and not saying anything.

If I were asked which way the rabbit went, I would tell him I see a lot of rabbits and don't know where they ultimate go. This is telling the truth and yet gives him nothing more than he already had.

In the case of the Nazis and the Jews without knowing a more skillful way to navigate the situation, I would just have to be willing to break the precept in favor of saving their lives. We can only make decisions with the information we have and that is the best we can do.

I can't help but wonder, perhaps the Buddha put so much emphasis on right speech because it creates mental fermentations we feel we must hold onto in order to maintain the world created by the words. If we answer honestly and to the best of our ability, we don't have to hold on to anything.

Edit: perhaps I tell the hunter that it is his job to track his prey, not mine. There are many many things I could say to him that would be honest and still not aid him.

DairyLama

tmottes said:

If I were asked which way the rabbit went, I would tell him I see a lot of rabbits and don't know where they ultimate go. This is telling the truth and yet gives him nothing more than he already had.

I would answer a question with a question, like "Have you tried Quorn fillets, they are a tasty non-meat option?"

caz

Bunks said:

caz said:

Bunks said:

Let's say a group of rowdy young male neighbours are constantly having parties and disturbing your sleep.

After several fairly friendly verbal warnings from you they still do this each weekend.

Finally, in desperation you call the police anonymously and the neighbour is given a $500 fine for noise disturbance.

They confront you somewhat aggressively and demand to know if it was you who called the cops.

You have a two year old daughter and an eight month pregnant wife at home that you wish to protect.

What do you say?

Would you like to go to court for harassment ? That generally shuts them up.

Thanks for the advice @caz but I live in country Australia. We don't threaten each other with lawsuits here!

I live in England it is not often said over here but works just the same in every country on earth

tmottes

@Bunks is this a hypothetical or a real situation?

caz

From what I know the complete destruction of a vow depends upon 3 parts, Intention, Action and Rejoicing in said action. If one of these is not present you do not violate a vow but instead damage it.

tmottes

caz said:

From what I know the complete destruction of a vow depends upon 3 parts, Intention, Action and Rejoicing in said action. If one of these is not present you do not violate a vow but instead damage it.

Is there a sutta that talks about this?

I_AM_THAT

Bunks said:

Let's say a group of rowdy young male neighbours are constantly having parties and disturbing your sleep.

After several fairly friendly verbal warnings from you they still do this each weekend.

Finally, in desperation you call the police anonymously and the neighbour is given a $500 fine for noise disturbance.

They confront you somewhat aggressively and demand to know if it was you who called the cops.

You have a two year old daughter and an eight month pregnant wife at home that you wish to protect.

What do you say?

True peace and freedom starts from within and how we let our emotions rise and fall based on external stimuli. What is truly is behind the anger when the noise from a neighbors party is keeping you awake?

From my point of view as a practicing buddhist, I would have to look within myself to determine why another persons'/groups' activities are having a negative impact on me.

A buddhist practice comes with a deep self evaluation on how I interact with this world and how my six senses and subsequent emotions bring about pain and suffering within myself. I would use my mindfulness to determine the proper direction I would choose to take, since I would ultimately be responsible for that choice. This truly takes practice, patience, and a commitment with ones self to find how to achieve that inner peace.

For me personally; I would not get involved for an issue associated with noise. Noise is an issue that can be overcome in many different ways by the individual that is being impacted by it. And more than likely I would not get into a confrontation since there truly is no need. After all, we are all just trying to move through this life and some may need to party more than others .


:rocker:

caz

tmottes said:

caz said:

From what I know the complete destruction of a vow depends upon 3 parts, Intention, Action and Rejoicing in said action. If one of these is not present you do not violate a vow but instead damage it.

Is there a sutta that talks about this?

I am not very familiar with the contents of various Sutta's and Sutra's alike but rather the works of my own teacher which all come from somewhere amongst the Sutra's and Tantra's. It will be found somewhere.

Bunks

I_AM_THAT said:

Bunks said:

Let's say a group of rowdy young male neighbours are constantly having parties and disturbing your sleep.

After several fairly friendly verbal warnings from you they still do this each weekend.

Finally, in desperation you call the police anonymously and the neighbour is given a $500 fine for noise disturbance.

They confront you somewhat aggressively and demand to know if it was you who called the cops.

You have a two year old daughter and an eight month pregnant wife at home that you wish to protect.

What do you say?

True peace and freedom starts from within and how we let our emotions rise and fall based on external stimuli. What is truly is behind the anger when the noise from a neighbors party is keeping you awake?

From my point of view as a practicing buddhist, I would have to look within myself to determine why another persons'/groups' activities are having a negative impact on me.

A buddhist practice comes with a deep self evaluation on how I interact with this world and how my six senses and subsequent emotions bring about pain and suffering within myself. I would use my mindfulness to determine the proper direction I would choose to take, since I would ultimately be responsible for that choice. This truly takes practice, patience, and a commitment with ones self to find how to achieve that inner peace.

For me personally; I would not get involved for an issue associated with noise. Noise is an issue that can be overcome in many different ways by the individual that is being impacted by it. And more than likely I would not get into a confrontation since there truly is no need. After all, we are all just trying to move through this life and some may need to party more than others .


:rocker:

Yeah, it's a good point you make.

I was thinking about this yesterday.

My wife is 8 months pregnant and a bit of an insomniac at the moment (I guess it's hard to sleep with another person kicking you and moving around in your tummy!). Anyway, the night before last she woke me by tossing and turning, yawning etc. Finally she got up and went in to the lounge room and put the TV on. The TV was a bit loud but I felt sorry for her and let it go and fell asleep again.

If it had've been the young guys over the road doing it I would have had a word.

Perhaps I need to work on developing equanimity

lobster

Truth is a lie we can not comprehend. Just as the Buddha experienced everyone as enlightened , when they are 'not'.
As we progress on the path our understanding flips many times. As a general rule, a precept for the uniform branch of Buddhism, we have simplistic answers. When we apply them in real life dramas we do not always have the luxury of being or acting with child like certitude. Right speech like Newtonian physics works in most situations. Apply it to every quanta and it falls . . . and that's no lie . . . :scratch:

driedleaf

I could be wrong but I just think people are taking this precept too literally. False speech to me is just deceptive speech or using hurtful speech for self benefit.

DairyLama

driedleaf said:

I could be wrong but I just think people are taking this precept too literally. False speech to me is just deceptive speech or using hurtful speech for self benefit.

So would you lie for somebody elses' benefit? It seems like a slippery slope to me.

Citta

It might help if people reacquaint themselves with what the precept actually says in Pali...and then find a good translation...I havent time now, but later I will haul out my notes.

Citta

Ok ....what the Pali says is " Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadavami."
First point this is not a vow in our western sense..it is a undertaking to accept a rule of training..its not a one off, its not an absolute.
And the rule of training is to refrain from deceitful speech.
This is less clear cut than it might appear...if we say something that we sincerely believe but is not true..is this deceitful speech ?
If we do not know something but offer an opinion is that deceitful speech ?
Its all about a training in awareness. Of becoming more and more sensitive to the nuances within our utterances..this is not a one off vow..it takes time and is part of an overall raising of awareness in speech and action.

driedleaf

Having to lie because of dire situations seems a bit more sane than being honest all the time I would think. I believe the precepts are meant for developing skillfulness or kusala in our actions. That means we should avoid what is unskillful (things conducive to harm and pain) in our speech. Refraining from deceitful speech means we should not use false speech to cause harm and pain to anyone including ourselves. It would be rare in my opinion that we would need to cause harm and pain to ourselves or others for the greater good.

DairyLama

Citta said:

Its all about a training in awareness. Of becoming more and more sensitive to the nuances within our utterances..this is not a one off vow..it takes time and is part of an overall raising of awareness in speech and action.

Sure, and part of this is looking involves looking honestly at why our speech isn't always honest and helpful.