Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Speaking the Truth
What does Buddhist philosophy have to say about telling the truth?
What about white lies?
For example:
Today I paid for a cab to get to a desired destination. Later on in the day my mother calls me and asks how I got to my destination. Beyond a reasonable doubt (from knowing my mother), if I were to tell her I paid XX$ to take a cab(rather than whatever other alternatives), she would get upset. This is how I believe and know she would react from my life experience with her. Now, to save myself a potential argument, and perhaps to save my mother the potential misery of getting upset over such a trivial thing, I elect to beat around the bush and not answer the question.
What if I had lied and said I took the bus? Walked? Ran? Taken the train?
If my intention is to prevent conflict, and perhaps suffering(i.e preventing my mother from becoming miserable and projecting that misery onto myself) is it not then justified?
Thoughts?
What about white lies?
For example:
Today I paid for a cab to get to a desired destination. Later on in the day my mother calls me and asks how I got to my destination. Beyond a reasonable doubt (from knowing my mother), if I were to tell her I paid XX$ to take a cab(rather than whatever other alternatives), she would get upset. This is how I believe and know she would react from my life experience with her. Now, to save myself a potential argument, and perhaps to save my mother the potential misery of getting upset over such a trivial thing, I elect to beat around the bush and not answer the question.
What if I had lied and said I took the bus? Walked? Ran? Taken the train?
If my intention is to prevent conflict, and perhaps suffering(i.e preventing my mother from becoming miserable and projecting that misery onto myself) is it not then justified?
Thoughts?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It violates the precepts to lie and the N8 on Right Speech.
That being said:
Tom is looking for Tony, to physically harm Tony. I know where Tony is at. Do I lie to Tom?
Yes I would.
It's all in the context of what is going on and one's intention.
This is my understanding.
All the best,
Todd
It would probably be useful to develop the capacity to politely people to mind their own business when they offer you unsolicited advice about matters which are your personal responsibility. ("Mum, it was my money, my responsibility. I enjoyed the cab ride. Now, how's your day been?")
In my experience it does not matter how you say things, but how others will hear what you say. That is how I practice right speech.
For example, the dreaded moment every married man faces.
"does this make me look fat?"
You're like a deer in the headlights, you need to think fast and if you hesitate for even a moment you're a dead man. What do you do?
"No honey, of course not. You look beautiful no matter what you wear. But you know I'd really like to see you wear that other dress, it suits you."
In that little example, I mostly told the truth, but what I actually said was "You look beautiful no matter what you wear to ME because I love you... but others are not so forgiving. So wear this other dress, it shows off the features you have and hides the ones you don't and you will save face"
You just need to find a way to re-word what you say so that if said plainly would be extremely detrimental so instead it comes across as something very beneficial.
We won't relieve suffering, by fueling people attachments and enforcing their insecurities. Being kind is making people come to grips with the truth, not helping them hide from it.
Of course, I also ignore requests and questions when I don't think it will help them in the slightest. But these would have to be kind of life or death situations or something.
The Buddha thought speech to be such an important matter, that he included it not only in the Rightfold Path, but also the 5 Precepts.
Very simply put - it is completely unskilful to tell a lie, of any kind. Practice makes perfect. If you allow yourself to lapse, and to lie, then eventually, you will worsen both matters, and your practice. Part of the skill of practising Buddhism, is to refine and improve your approach to all factors of the path - including being honest and truthful.
Lying, in Buddhist philosophy, is therefore, unacceptable.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/
I recently read, for example, in a discussion about telling the truth and not lying in Buddhism that one should, "Be truthful in everything you do and bring love and kindness into your environment." But I also know from personal experiences on both sides that, "The truth [sometimes] hurts. Another discussion said, in part, "Right speech is the first principle of ethical conduct in the eightfold path. Ethical conduct is viewed as a guideline to moral discipline...This aspect is not self-sufficient, however, essential, because mental purification can only be achieved through the cultivation of ethical conduct. The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace. Buddha explained right speech as follows: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary." Again, telling the whole truth may not be "firendly, warm, and gentle. This is too complex to be said simply.
But that's a good question. One that I asked in my topic too. Which is more important? To be gentle or to say the truth? For me the answer is simple.
When my wife and were caring for her mother, who has Alzheimer's, we frequently had to tell lies to keep her from becoming upset and potentially harming herself or us. One night she had the idea that her brother and father were suppose to return "home" (meaning our house). She was on this for hours and was getting upset. Finally I called from a different phone, pretended to be her brother and said that it would be another night or two before we came home. She calmed right down.
This was, in my view, a wiser course than telling that her father is dead and that she'll never see her brother again ether.
think about it. we either talk about the past, which has already happened. or the future, which is nothing but potential.
what makes us see a future (which in reality is infinite potential) in a finite way? our conditioning.
when we use a word, it is abstracted from the actual object or experience.
so everything is a lie and everything is truth when you open your mouth.
Truth is simple, lying is complex.
To be a good liar, you must have a good memory.
I posted a link to illustrate that the Buddha's opinion of lying is quite unambiguous. He makes it repeatedly clear that lying is completely unskilful.
But anybody can argue, find flaw and make allowances and exceptions when they want to.....
VINLYN: "I'm not sure it's always as simple as you have portrayed."
I portrayed nothing. That is the Buddha's teaching, not mine.
STATICTOYBOX: "I really don't think it's a simple as lying always being wrong."
Er...yes, it is. Find me anywhere, in any teachings in any tradition that indicates that an occasional lie is ok.
TAIYAKI: "when we speak we are all lying."
In that case, are you saying we can take nothing you say at face value?
Your post is abstract and irrelevant to the discussion.
We're talking about being deliberately untruthful in specific circumstances, so really, your comment really doesn't fit.
You can all argue until you're blue in the face. Lying is wrong, it's unacceptable, and really, you're just going to have to find more skilful ways of telling your truth, because anything else is just not the right Way.
And that probably doesn't sit very well with any of you, but it's the truth.
And while the truth may smart a little, it's better than the damage the alternative can do.
When telling truth would cause confusion in the mind of the listener, what to do:
Tell a deliberate lie and face the unwholesome entanglement?
Or abstain from speech with forbearance, not creating new entanglement?
What would Buddha do?
What about white lies?"
The Buddha said:
"And how is one made pure in four ways by verbal action? There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he does know, he says, 'I know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I have seen.'
Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world. Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech.
What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord.
Abandoning abusive speech, he abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large. Abandoning idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter.
He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya. He speaks words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the goal. This is how one is made pure in four ways by verbal action."
AN 10.176
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html#speech
effect on ourselves.
It doesn't matter how much it cost, I took a cab because it was necessary.
I'm sorry you find that upsetting mother, but that's how it is.
I'm sorry it bothers you, but to save you further upset, we don't need to discuss it now, ok? Better your approach, or the one above. But lying? No.
I mean, why? There's the clue.
Your mother becoming miserable is her own Mind working. If she is miserable, it is because she chooses to think that way.
And if you in turn, accept the projection of her misery, that too, is of your making and acceptance.
Nothing justifies lies, deceit and subterfuge.
This is known as 'picking and choosing' and if that's how you wish to play it, that's ok, that's your choice.
The question hinged on what the Buddhist philosophy is on lying. I responded with accurate reference.
But each must decide for themselves. However, the teachings are quite clear. Whether you decide to take heed or not is your bag...
The precepts are there for a reason. They are there to guide Buddhists in Right Living and Right attitude, and the second, third, fourth & fifth precepts all stem from the first. And the First includes ourselves.
so Doing No Harm entails adhering to numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 to prevent harm to others but ourselves also.
Compassion is useless unless it is supported by and coupled with Wisdom.
There is no Compassion or Wisdom in lying.
I'm serious, truly.
It is not the abstaining from speech that causes upset but confusion.
Why would we want to confuse and entangle our minds even more by telling a white lie?
The honest meditator notices the sign of unsatisfactoriness & observes equanimity.
:om:
It also comes down to what you believe the truth is. There is a difference from telling the "truth" and telling the "whole truth". Situation: you are having a family argument about another close family member's disintegrating marriage. Your 90 year-old grandmother says, "Your grandfather was never unfaithful to me." However, you know that the truth is that once, many years before your grandfather's death, he had a one night fling when he was unfaithful. You tell the truth...the whole truth. You shatter your grandmother's memory of an otherwise perfect marriage. She becomes a bitter person in her few remaining months. Because you told the whole truth. Now perhaps you will say that you should have abstained from speaking. If you do that, then you are not telling the truth.
You see, the choice here is whether to tell the WHOLE truth or be compassionate.
When the policeman catches YOU going 30 miles over the speed limit and the law says that turns in into not only speeding, but also reckless driving. But, the officer says, "I'm going to give you a break and mark this down as 29 miles over the limit," I know you are not going to be truly honest and go to court and demand a trial in front of a judge so that you can testify against yourself and tell the WHOLE truth, receive a larger fine and lose your license. No, you're going to thank the officer for giving you a break, sign the ticket, making yourself complicit in the lie, and you're going to drive away happy.
When it's YOUR son sitting in court and the only witness that can send him to prison for a truly victimless crime is taking the stand, you're going to hope and pray that that witness will decide to be compassionate and lie, or shade the truth just a bit (which is lying), or spin the truth just a bit (which is lying), to save your son from going to prison.
There are times when, as a school administrator, had I told a parent the WHOLE truth about what their son or daughter had done, I knew that child would have been beaten. But I withheld the WHOLE truth to spare that child.
To be perfectly HONEST, I find your reverence for universal truth to be child-like. A 10 year old might see the truth as inviolate. As a sort of moment when the sun shines and the human condition glows with golden purity. And then real life comes along.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that lying should be a way of life. In general, the vast majority of the time, truth is the best policy. But there are times when I have seen that nothing good can come from the truth. And that's when you balance principles such as honesty and compassion, because sometimes you can't be both honest and compassionate. And sometimes you have to even be compassionate toward yourself.
The TRUTH is an IDEAL to strive for. But so is WISDOM.
If he is "around here" then you could say "Tony likes to hang out at the bowling alley (or wherever he likes to hang out), maybe you should look for him there"...
Metta,
Guy
I think the point is to keep a pure mind, always having the intent to be honest and compassionate (both). It's not a choice between truth or lie, it's a choice of what truth is appropriate to the situation. Truth, but wise truth. You can withhold what you think is inappropriate. Use good judgment!
Metta,
Guy
Or better yet something along the lines of what GuyC was saying, such as "Did you try the alley?". This is a deflection, asking a question instead of answering. It's completely appropriate, serves the purpose of not causing someone to be harmed, and does not break the precept. The other person may assume this means you don't know, but you're not responsible for their assumptions, only your own speech (which should be born of both wisdom and compassion). It will likely lead them to go search the alley if they haven't, or stop asking you and move on.
The precept against inappropriate speech isn't a compulsion to always answer, or always give the answer someone else wants. If someone asks your age, it's appropriate to say "I'd rather not say", but not to lie about it or say "none of your f-ing business!" (which is harsh speech)... at least based on the precept. What you do choose to say is your karma.
Don't try to pee up my leg and tell me it's snow. You're all desperately seeking excuses and justifications, and frankly, it's really quite funny...
Nothing anybody has said in mitigation, alters the fact that the Buddha taught and instructed that LYING - IS - NOT - ACCEPTABLE! No I know the Buddha wasn't a god (capital or no capital) but he was enlightebned, and this is a Buddhist forum, and the question was asked in a Buddhist context.
If you can't accept that, or don't follow Buddhist teaching then quite frankly, it's not worth my while trying to discuss the point with you. No, Buddhism IS a religion.
And it really doesn't matter to me how you choose to perceive the Dhamma, or what you want to pick and choose according to what suits your whims. That's precisely what you're doing, just taking what you agree with and opting out of other parts.
That's just taking the easy way out, isn't it?
Whatever works for you....
Stupid example.
I don't get involved in family arguments. I really don't.
And you're introducing ridiculous hypotheticals which are both pointless and futile.
Until such a case arises, I really don't need to even think about this... A law-abiding officer wouldn't do that. If any officer stopping me did that, I'd take his rap, then report him.
And I answered this one, because it actually happened to me.
I reported an incident concerning a police officer who offered to let me off an offence, if I would have a drink with him.
He got suspended, I didn't face any charges, because they were more concerned with the corrupt officer than my transgression. Absolutely, completely not. if he's in court, I assume he's done something to deserve being there. So he deserves everything he gets. If I found out anybody had lied under oath, I"d go ballistic. Child protection services are there for a reason. Like I said, you do what you think you have to do. I don't have to consider you correct. And I don't.
And by the way - I used to be a School Governor, so I know what having to deal with kids/parents is like.
Sometimes telling lies gets you into trouble.
Sometimes, telling the truth gets you into trouble.
Forgive me if I choose to risk the latter.
At least I can do it without compromising my principles, thanks. You seem to think there is a distinction between the two.
I think the two go hand in hand and are mutually supportive.
The only thing you've succeeded in telling me is that I should never consider you completely trustworthy.
The way the Buddha would deal with these issues is that he probably wouldn't. He wasn't a saint how to help everyone in a down-to-earth manner. I mean he left his kid and his wife. For anyone asking what the Buddha would do, just keep in mind the guy had very different priorities in mind.
The Buddha was a saint in every way. Siddhartha Gautama was not. See where I'm goin'?
For example, you and I clearly disagree with what "right speech" is. To me, saying, "Don't try to pee up my leg and tell me it's snow," is not right speech. It offends me, and I don't think its a conducive manner for two Buddhists to discuss something. I don't remember Buddha ever using language like that. However, I respect that you have free speech, and I understand that you are interpreting a part of Buddhism differently than am I. That's your right.
I also disagree with you when you say, "No, Buddhism IS a religion." And in fact, the debate about whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy is one of the great debates within Buddhist circles. When I read the Dhamma, I don't see it as a religion, but when I see the way Buddhism is practiced, I do see it as a religion. I can only tell you that in discussions I have had with Theravada Buddhist monks, I have been told that I can be a Christian AND be a Buddhist. In fact, the very first Buddhist book I ever picked up, which was a Thai Theravada Buddhist book said (paraphrased) -- as you read this book, contemplate what you are reading. See what you can accept and bring into your life. Some things you read here you may not be able to accept at this time, but as you experience more in Buddhism you may later find that you can accept.
What you saw as a "Stupid example" (and, by the way, personally I see that part of your response as being an example of violating "Right Speech" because it is insulting) was not only not stupid, but a real occurrence. And while you may not get involved in family arguments ("I don't get involved in family arguments"), you appear to be rather hot under the collar in this discussion. No, they're not "ridiculous hypotheticals". Each of the examples I gave were true stories that I or someone very close to me has actually experienced.
Law-abiding officers often give warnings when the law says they should give a ticket.
When you say, "if he's in court, I assume he's done something to deserve being there. So he deserves everything he gets", it appears that you are saying that you don't believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".
I cannot speak for every child protective services office in the country, but having dealt with them many times over my career, they would only investigate situations where we had some evidence to support that a crime against a child had been committed. They would not intervene before something had happened.
You said, "Where on earth do you think I've been for 54 years? Hiding in a cave? I've been practising Buddhism for over 20 years, now.... so I think I'm fairly well-placed to speak about my "real life"!" I'm not even sure what that means. I haven't been hiding in a cave for 61 years, either. And, I've been practicing Buddhism for about 26 years. And, I've lived in a nation that is 95% Buddhist and visited hundreds of Buddhist temples. Those facts don't make me right or wrong. What is your point?
"At least I can do it without compromising my principles, thanks." And, principles are a great thing to have...usually. I know fundamentalist Christians who are ready to condemn you to hell because you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. That's their principle. They see your worship of Buddha as a sacrilege. That's their principle. Everyone has principles. I have friends who are staunch Democrats, and they have principles. And I have friends who are staunchly Republican, and they have their principles. They're at odds, yet they are both principled...and incidentally, both good people. Theravada Buddhists have certain principles that are in disagreement with some principles of Mahayana Buddhists...that doesn't make either group inherently wrong.
you do what works for you.
I'll do what works for me.
You maintain parts of my post offended you.
I'm sincerely sorry for that - truly, I am.
And for that I apologise.
But the Buddha is quite clear on his teachings, and those in this thread who pick and choose, and argue white is black, and black is white, and choose to interpret some things, ignore others and dispute it simply because it doesn't fit with what they decide to do, sure as hell offend the heck out of me.
Calling me a fundamentalist, when I had the good grace to back up my post with a reference, when all others have done is merely insist their corner on their own whims, is frankly, a bit rich.
If any of you can come up with a contrary citation, then I'll be glad to read it.
But you can't.
Which simply proves my point.
This is all said because it's the way you want it to be, not because of the way It Is.
Disputing the writings is a weak argument, and a classic sign of people clutching at straws.
The point is not whether the writing is authentic and from the Buddha. the point is whether it is testable and accurate.
The fact that the teaching is repeated in several suttas, and is part of the 8Fold Path and 5 precepts, is fair assessment of its accuracy.
If you choose to forget about that and conveniently ignore it, then I'm a Fundamentalist?
What, pray, does it make those who cherry-pick?
I'm well aware of what the precepts say. I also do not believe that following a teaching simply because it says so, regardless of circumstance, is a very skillful course of action. If you want to call this "cherry-picking" so be it. It's no skin off my back ether way.
If your only concern is strictly what is written in the precepts and suttas than the OP's question could have been answered in a single post and the thread locked. But then what would be the point of this message board if not fluid conversation and discussion (including personal viewpoints)?
But tell me, if you will, what would you have done in the situation I originally posted about? What action would you have taken? Perhaps you could help me to handle similar situations more skillfully should they arise in the future.
What Static Toybox is doing is protecting his mother. I find that honorable.
What the original poster is doing may or may not be protecting his/her mother so much as protecting him/herself.
As for the taxi cab, well, I am not so sure. It is as if you mother is asking to be lied to, because you know she doesn't want you taking a taxi, so why does she ask?
In her case i would tell the truth.I have the same situation with one of my sisters. Every time she comes to visit we eat out, and some of the places where we eat the food is terrible. She will always, and I mean, always ask me how I like the food. I tell her the truth, and when I don't like it, she goes on and on about how I don't like anything, and it gets to be annoying. Once I said, "Why do you ask since if I tell you I don't like it you go on and on?" She will still ask. I could lie to her, but it wouldn't feel right, but with Static's mom, I would lie because it is protecting her. With my sister, if i lied, she would know it, and then that would cause problems too, but that isn't why i don't lie to her.
We really have to use our own judgment.
Seriously though, the point I'm making is that Buddhism will often relativize a lot of our own sense of social responsibility in a variety of ways. As for the Buddha being a saint, I don't know how much of the nitty gritty tasks he did himself. He had a good heart no doubt, but he wouldn't advocate certain types of personal sacrifice for others. (which isn't necessarily bad).
One day the Buddha is teaching a group of students in a clearing. Suddenly a deer burst through the foliage and then bounded off to the south. A few minutes later a hunter came through the clearing and asked the Buddha which way the deer had gone. The Buddha told the hunter "The deer has gone North". The hunter then went north and presumably never caught the deer. A student asked the Buddha, "But Shakyamuni, you lied to the hunter." The Buddha replied "Yes, I did, but I saved the deer's life."
His Holiness the Dalai Lama addresses a conflict between the precepts in "Ethics for the New Millenium" on page 153.
Imagine, for example, a situation where we witness someone running away from a group of people armed with knives and clearly intent on doing him harm. We see the fugitive disappear into a doorway. Moments later, one of the pursuers comes up to us and asks us which way he went. Now, on the one hand, we do not want to lie, to injure the other's trust. On the other, if we tell the truth, we realize that we may contribute to the injury or death of a fellow human being. Whatever we decide, the appropriate course of action would appear to involve a negative deed. Under such circumstances, because we are certain that in doing so we are serving a higher purpose - preserving someone from harm - it might well be appropriate to say, "Oh, I didn't see him" or vaguely, "I think he went the other way." We have to take into account the overall situation and weigh the benefits of telling a lie or telling the truth and do what we judge to be least harmful overall.
This agrees with my sense that lying to save a life is a no-brainer in most situations. If the secret police come knocking at the door, are you going to confirm that your son with the resistance is hiding in the basement, leading to his torture and death? Lying to protect another's feelings is a murkier proposition. It would require careful examination of your own motives. Are you really lying to make your own life easier? Does the person you are addressing actually need to hear a hard truth? Anyway, that's my take on it.
Like I said, already many times, if this is what floats your boat, feel free to practice as you see fit. I've thought about situations like this before, and the classic - and to my mind, only - answer I could possibly give would be to shrug my shoulders and say, "Hey - don't ask me, I couldn't possibly tell you!" I'll tell you what - The day the secret Police come knocking on my door asking where my son, with the Resistance, is hiding - I'll be sure to let you know. However, as I don't predict this is going to happen any time soon, I'll just ignore the question for now, because - and pardon my bluntness - it's been posed so many times, on so many forums asking about the ethics of lying to the Nazis/Secret Police, that really, it's not a relevant question for our age time and place. If it were pertinent, I might give it more thought. but it's so completely alien and hypothetical, and so unlikely as to be completely imaginary, I might as well reply that I would knock them all out with my magic sleeping potion, allowing my son to make his escape......
Are we lying to make life better for someone else, or really lying to protect ourselves from the fall-out, and possibly negative consequences of telling the truth?
I have already said, doubtless there are times when telling the truth brings a heavy and burdensome result. I accept that.
And furthermore, I am prepared to accept that not everyone would be happy with my honesty.
but phraseology counts; and timing, tone and personal connection and approach counts.
I prefer to tell my Truth. Tell it as it is.
I have truly never seen adequate, pressing or resoundingly overwhelming persuasive reason to do otherwise.
People know this of me.
I'm not going to prevaricate, be evasive or lie.
Take that, or leave it, judge it as you see fit.
But if "Tommy the Snake" wants to break poor old Tony's legs in a dark alley, does the above apply or not?...I am not so sure now.
I suppose one argument for saying "I know where Tony is" is simply self-preservation - i.e. if Tommy found out you were trying to keep Tony's location hidden then he might break your legs too!
In addition, if Tony has done something to upset Tommy (such as borrow some money to gamble on bowling which he then lost and hasn't paid it back in time) then I think we could be forgiven for thinking that, even if we don't rat out Tony on this occassion, it's just a matter of time before Tony reaps the fruit of his actions. This line of thinking would make us more inclined to be truthful rather than risk getting caught up in the problem by lying to Tommy.
Fortunately, I do not associate with people like Tony or Tommy in my life, so it seems unlikely that I will ever have to deal with such a situation. My mental energy could probably be better spent thinking about other things than some hypothetical extreme moral dilemma which will probably not face any one of us on this forum. But, given such a stressful situation, I think that no matter whether we consider ourselves primarily as proponents of truth or proponents of non-violence it is highly unlikely (if not impossible) that "we" (i.e. the person facing the moral dilemma) would be able to resolve this situation in such a way where all parties involved are happy and don't experience any form of suffering - such is Samsara.
Metta,
Guy
this story on buddha's lying is one that i have heard from teachers. it isn't fictional, and it is repeated in hinduism. and it does pertain to this day and age. and it is why one of my buddhist teachers said that it was okay to lie to protect another person.
Many thanks.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes that throughout the 550 birth stories contained in the Jakata, the precept against lying is the only precept the Buddha doesn't break. Moreover, the Buddha appears to hold truthfulness in pretty high regard (see examples of his words on truthfulness here). I doubt you'll find a single example of the Buddha condoning or advising lying in the entirety of the Pali Canon, even when it comes to saying something that's potentially disagreeable to others (MN 58).
That said, I think it's understandable to think that lying is sometimes OK is it's done to protect someone or prevent a conflict. I'm sure there are almost always ways of doing this without having to lie, but I can see how lying is probably easier. The real question is, how much effort do we want to put into observing the fourth precept?
At times, I've put forth a lot; others, not so much. Looking back, though, I don't think I've ever really had a good reason to lie when I did as much as I simply found it to be more expedient. Jut something to think about, I guess.