Speaking the Truth

Jason

Who cares what the Buddha would do. If you wouldn't lie to protect someone's life there is something seriously wrong with you.

I tend to agree with Aristotle that lying isn't legitimate unless overridden by some higher virtue, such as the lying to save someone's life. In most circumstances, if I'm forced into a position where I have to either lie or watch someone die because I tell the truth, I'm going to lie my fucking ass off. The only issue I have with statements like this, however, is that they generally assume lying is the only way to do that.

Epicurus

That was not my intention. Like I said before, I personally only lie as a last resort, but like you I would do it in a heartbeat if I thought it would save someone's life.

Death is final. (lol, I kinda forgot I'm on a buddhist forum ) A lie isn't.

Talisman

There are ways of speaking while remaining silent. There is never, in any situation, any obligation whatsoever to disclose that which is being asked. In regards to our hypothetical situation regarding Tony and Tommy, there is no obligation, WHATSOEVER, to tell Tony where Tommy has gone.

Perhaps instead, a mindful and wise person would address the issue at hand which is Tony's anger, hatred, aggression, and folly which is leading to his own suffering as well as the suffering of others.

The story goes:

A group of young men, in the company of several beautiful young women, were picnicking in the forest near town. After several drinks, and a busy afternoon, the men fell asleep. Upon waking, the women had stolen their money and belongings and fled into the woods.

While searching the forest for the thieves, in order to exact justice, the men came accros the Buddha on the road from the nearby town. They asked the Buddha,

"Did you see some young women running this way? They have stolen our things, and we must find them."

The Buddha replied,

"Which is more important, seeking these women in a fit of anger and scorn, or seeking yourself for the sake of liberation?"

The men saw the folly of their destructive and ignorant ways and beseached the Buddha to teach them further.

Thao

Who cares what the Buddha would do. If you wouldn't lie to protect someone's life there is something seriously wrong with you.

I am with you here. and i think what the dalai lama said in his book on ethics is good enough for me. but if someone wants to find the scripture about the deer, well, that would be interesting as well.

i personally know a woman that lost her childhood faith in god when she was taught to never lie, and the german's came to her class and asked her if her dad was jewish, and she said, yes, and never saw him again. she has been harmed by this all of her life.

federicka, this stories are not supposed to be written because you may be in the same circumstance, they are written to teach a lesson about protecting another by lying, whether is is man or animal.

vinlyn

Then please kindly supply a link/reference, or sutta/sutra as to where this forms part of the buddha's teachings.
Many thanks.

It almost seems as if you are taking a Catholic-sort-of-approach to Buddhism. In the Catholic Church you MUST believe Church doctrine or you can be excommunicated. If you do not go to confession to a priest, for example, you cannot participate in the sacrament of holy communion without committing another sin. In Buddhism, there is no such premise. As many on this site have said, in Buddhism, to a large extent, life is up to you and you must interpret Buddhist scripture and how you balance various aspects of Buddhist culture. And, unlike many other religions, there is no deity that will punish you if you break or bend one of the precepts. There may (often will) be repercussions -- that's karma.

And again, no one here is saying a person should go around lying all the time. Usually honesty is the best policy. But one time I was invited to a Thanksgiving party, and I was the only non-Jewish person at the party. Now I don't know if it's something about Jewish cooking or what, but it was the worst turkey/dressing/etc. food I had ever eaten. And I was asked by the hostess, "How did you like the food?" Sorry, I was not going to tell the truth: "Your food was the worst I have ever tasted." Nor was I going to say, "I'd rather not say." No, I complimented her, rather than hurt and insult her -- because in my view hurting and insulting people is also not right speech or right action.

Epicurus

^Well that's not a good example at all. You should say the truth there. What are you afraid of? People respect people that say the truth. Besides the food's taste quality isn't OBJECTIVE. It's subjective.

If it were me I'd probably say something like "Is that a rhetorical question?" and then the other person's guard would drop down enabling me to perform some sort of leftfield 8-hit speech combo. Dodge the question.

Or just say "Not too much but I've been told I'm weird" and then proceed with leftfield 8-hit combo.


Why is EVERYONE politically correct? People are politically correct all their lives, it never really changes how they feel about things. What does that say about OUR way of dealing with the TRUTH and honesty?

vinlyn

^Well that's not a good example at all. You should say the truth there. What are you afraid of? People respect people that say the truth. Besides the food's taste quality isn't OBJECTIVE. It's subjective.

If it were me I'd probably say something like "Is that a rhetorical question?" and then the other person's guard would drop down enabling me to perform some sort of leftfield 8-hit speech combo. Dodge the question.

Or just say "Not too much but I've been told I'm weird" and then proceed with leftfield 8-hit combo.


Why is EVERYONE politically correct? People are politically correct all their lives, it never really changes how they feel about things. What does that say about OUR way of dealing with the TRUTH and honesty?

Ah, but I see dodging a question as a lack of honesty, as well.

Thao

vinlyn, i think the way you handle things is superb. You are correct as far as I am concern and so agree with your statement: "because in my view hurting and insulting people is also not right speech or right action."

I would think that the page number that was given in regards to the Dalai Lama's comment would be enough, and I just ordered the book because it seems like a good one, and when I find the quote I will post it here. But I guess we can then argue that the Dalai Lama is wrong.

Malachy12

Just use your own logic to decide in the situation and see what your intentions are when you lie. Being honest all the time would kind of bad. I'm always trying to tone done how blunt I am around loved one's. I once read something in one of my astrology books that said "Refrain from telling hurtful truths". I really do need to heed that advice. My love ones are always asking for my input, but I need to be delicate about how choose my wording.
Reminds me of my sister who pointed at a heavy woman and asked "Why are you so fat?" when she was eight.

Jason

Being honest ≠ being blunt. Moreover, tact is also a part of right speech. MN 58, for example, lays down some pretty good guidelines for determining what is worth saying. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes at the beginning of his translation:

In this discourse, the Buddha shows the factors that go into deciding what is and is not worth saying. The main factors are three: whether or not a statement is true, whether or not it is beneficial, and whether or not it is pleasing to others. The Buddha himself would state only those things that are true and beneficial, and would have a sense of time for when pleasing and unpleasing things should be said. Notice that the possibility that a statement might be untrue yet beneficial is not even entertained.

Epicurus

^Well that's not a good example at all. You should say the truth there. What are you afraid of? People respect people that say the truth. Besides the food's taste quality isn't OBJECTIVE. It's subjective.

If it were me I'd probably say something like "Is that a rhetorical question?" and then the other person's guard would drop down enabling me to perform some sort of leftfield 8-hit speech combo. Dodge the question.

Or just say "Not too much but I've been told I'm weird" and then proceed with leftfield 8-hit combo.


Why is EVERYONE politically correct? People are politically correct all their lives, it never really changes how they feel about things. What does that say about OUR way of dealing with the TRUTH and honesty?

Ah, but I see dodging a question as a lack of honesty, as well.

That's like saying you always have to answer people's questions even if you don't want to.

vinlyn

That's like saying you always have to answer people's questions even if you don't want to.

Yes, you're correct. There are definitely times you can choose not to answer. But I think when you take that course, you invite a karmic reaction. What happens, for example, when a politician answers a reporter's question by saying, "No comment"?

And by the way, let me say once again, most of the time, honesty is the best policy.

compassionate_warrior

I tend to agree with Aristotle that lying isn't legitimate unless overridden by some higher virtue, such as the lying to save someone's life.

This is how the precepts are interpreted as well. It's kind of a no-brainer, really.

Epicurus

That's like saying you always have to answer people's questions even if you don't want to.

Yes, you're correct. There are definitely times you can choose not to answer. But I think when you take that course, you invite a karmic reaction. What happens, for example, when a politician answers a reporter's question by saying, "No comment"?

And by the way, let me say once again, most of the time, honesty is the best policy.

Oh i agree. Honesty is almost always the best course of action. Certainly when it's something as small as one's opinion on a jewish dish. Only when there's any real danger to other people should one consider an alternative.

As for karmic reactions, a politician has the obligation of answering the questions related to his work if he is responsible at his job (if they were questions about personal life he could ignore them).

federica

Then please kindly supply a link/reference, or sutta/sutra as to where this forms part of the buddha's teachings.
Many thanks.

There's nothing wrong with asking people to supply a link or reference to their quotations or refences to what they purport to be quoting. It's a simple back-up, that's all. You will notice Jason never has any problem underpinning his statements. This at least gives credence to his posts and gives reason to his thinking.

It almost seems as if you are taking a Catholic-sort-of-approach to Buddhism. In the Catholic Church you MUST believe Church doctrine or you can be excommunicated. If you do not go to confession to a priest, for example, you cannot participate in the sacrament of holy communion without committing another sin.

Having been an active member of the RC church for the better part of my life, I'm aware of their insistent and coercive attitude.....so as you rightly point out: In Catholicism, challenge and question is seen as rebellious. In Buddhism, it's expected, encouraged and absolutely necessary. You think I haven't done that?

In Buddhism, there is no such premise. As many on this site have said, in Buddhism, to a large extent, life is up to you and you must interpret Buddhist scripture and how you balance various aspects of Buddhist culture. And, unlike many other religions, there is no deity that will punish you if you break or bend one of the precepts. There may (often will) be repercussions -- that's karma.

Yes, right...... what's your point, here?
The passage I quoted at length illustrates the Buddha's teaching. jason has pointed out that throughout the 550 jakata tales, the one precept the Buddha did not break was that of lying. Having examined the teachings at length, and considered the points carefully for myself, I have come to the conclusion that the man was right. Lying - is - unnacceptable.
Interpretation, is one thing. A clear and contrary attitude to what is being offered in the teachings seems to be taking too liberal an approach.
Karma, indeed.

And again, no one here is saying a person should go around lying all the time. Usually honesty is the best policy.

You're right, no-one is saying that. And I have repeatedly said in this thread, that however you wish to work things and interpret them, is up to 'you'. I just disagree with some. As I believe, I am entitled to....

But one time I was invited to a Thanksgiving party, and I was the only non-Jewish person at the party. Now I don't know if it's something about Jewish cooking or what, but it was the worst turkey/dressing/etc. food I had ever eaten. And I was asked by the hostess, "How did you like the food?" Sorry, I was not going to tell the truth: "Your food was the worst I have ever tasted." Nor was I going to say, "I'd rather not say." No, I complimented her, rather than hurt and insult her -- because in my view hurting and insulting people is also not right speech or right action.

Did everyone else eat it? Did others enjoy and compliment the food? Did some have second helpings?
If so, how about -

"Well, it was unusal to me, as I'm not used to this cuisine. I think, for me, it might take some getting used to. But the dishes were good."

When somebody asks you a question, there is nothing written anywhere, that says you cannot pause for thought before answering.

hermitwin

To lie to save a life? most of us would do it.
Just dont use that line to think that its ok to lie in many many
other situations.

hermitwin

Show of hands, how many people had to lie to save a life?

federica

exactly.

Cloud

I still don't think it would require a lie in most if not all situations. We generally seem to turn our brain off and not think hard enough of alternatives. For instance the thing with eating food you disliked and being asked how it was, "It's sure different, it really filled me up. Thank you very much for your hard work preparing this meal!" would be taken positively and you'd get a "You're welcome!" most of the time. You're not saying good so not lying, not saying bad so not harming feelings, just answering in a wise way which includes properly thanking them for their karma toward your benefit (purchasing/preparing food for you).

It all depends how seriously we want to purify our karma. It's a very convoluted world, full of gray areas, but we have to decide where we want to be. What we want our actions to reflect. I think it's very possible to be both truthful and compassionate at the same time in almost all situations, if you really think about it. It's the trying itself that's important, that's part of our right effort. We can be half-assed about it, but we'll get half-assed results (sometimes creating unwholesome results).

vinlyn

I still don't think it would require a lie in most if not all situations. We generally seem to turn our brain off and not think hard enough of alternatives. For instance the thing with eating food you disliked and being asked how it was, "It's sure different, it really filled me up. Thank you very much for your hard work preparing this meal!" would be taken positively and you'd get a "You're welcome!" most of the time. You're not saying good so not lying, not saying bad so not harming feelings, just answering in a wise way which includes properly thanking them for their karma toward your benefit (purchasing/preparing food for you).

It all depends how seriously we want to purify our karma. It's a very convoluted world, full of gray areas, but we have to decide where we want to be. What we want our actions to reflect. I think it's very possible to be both truthful and compassionate at the same time in almost all situations, if you really think about it.

I've told a lie to save someone from being beaten, but not to save someone from being killed.

But, I find it odd that it's somehow inappropriate to set up a hypothetical situation (although the examples I have given throughout this thread have been actual), when much of what we find in the Dhamma are parables.

Cloud

I never said it's inappropriate to set up a hypothetical situation. We should be thinking of situations that might come up, so we know how we'd handle them... (but at the same time trying to find a way to not break the precepts, unless we're being half-assed about keeping them of course).

Before finding Buddhism, I also had to lie to keep someone from getting beaten up. There was a party at my house and someone came to find and beat up one of my guests. Today if that same thing happened, I would've simply told them they were not welcome and had to leave or I was calling the police; no lie needed, just a true threat to get them out. I wouldn't be mean about it, just firm.

It's really on us. Our own state of mind, and whether suffering or non-suffering (of ourselves and others) are the result, depend on our karma. If we're not trying, we're missing the point... missing the path.

federica

hypothetical situations only work effectively if they're realistic and contemporary. if something is so unlikely as to be completely imaginary and impossible to replicate - it's pointless.

(And I'm talking about killing the hungry lioness who's stalking us to feed her cubs, or lying to the Nazis to protect the Jews in our attic.....)

Cloud

To lie to save a life? most of us would do it.
Just dont use that line to think that its ok to lie in many many
other situations.

I think this makes a good point. If you can't think of anything to do but lie to save a life, then of course it would be okay to lie. The alternative is much worse. But that doesn't mean we can just throw out the precept because we think white lies and such are okay. The precept is a training rule; fully understanding that, we'd know that if we have trouble keeping these precepts that's what we have to work on! That's our training!

Anyway it's been suggested by more than one person that this thread has run its course, and we wholeheartedly agree. Closing it for now. If the OP has good reason to want it re-opened, please send a PM.

Thank you everyone for contributing.