Not Always Telling The Truth

[rockyysdt]

Remembering that a boddhisatva is still a Buddha in training....not yet enlightened.

The Buddha, throughout his long training in the perfections as a Boddhisatva was born in the animal realm, and in the hel_l realm.

Boddhisatvas are never born as tiny creatures (smaller than a mouse)....never in the deepest hells, nor as hungry ghosts, nor as females..... so as not to be overwhelmed in their long struggle.

I was under the impression that we all have Buddha nature, and that enlightenment is about removing the veils which hide this.

If Boddhisatvas are never born as tiny creatures (smaller than a mouse)....never in the deepest hells, nor as hungry ghosts, nor as females, then does this mean that many will never have a chance, not to mention irrational exclusion based on gender?

Wikipedia quotes:

The Mahayana encourages everyone to become bodhisattvas and to take the bodhisattva vows.

Edited December 28, 2008 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

According to an excellent book I read recently, most Thais believe they will attain Nirvana simply by merit-making over countless lifetimes, but this idea isn't supported in the Pali Canon.

Camerata

What is the name of this book, please.

Xangsamhua

[camerata]

Buddhadasa: Theravada Buddhism and Modernist Reform in Thailand by Peter A. Jackson.

[Xangsamhua]

Buddhadasa: Theravada Buddhism and Modernist Reform in Thailand by Peter A. Jackson.

Thanks Camerata. I think I've seen it at Kinokuniya.

[wolfmanjack]

I accept that telling a lie or not telling the whole truth or sidestepping the truth is done for protecting someone or saving face. What i don't get is telling a lie when the truth would have been just as good if not better. For an example getting directions. I very seldom get an I don't know for an answer. Almost every person i ask will act like they know exactly how to get where I am asking. I learned a long time ago that i have to ask many people in the same area and then take the directions that i got the most often.

[Pierrot]

Sorry to intervene in a subject where I know very little and please consider my answer as a question as well.

It is my understanding that Thailand as a Buddhist society places social harmony at the highest level therefore if a lie helps maintains harmony amongst people it is considered "acceptable".

On a more "philosophical" level, again it is my understanding that one should not only consider what one says only in a mathematical perspective (true/false) but also the full consequences, which blurs a little bit the line. I always feel a great divide between east and west is that civilization / religions from Europe and the Middle-East are much more black and white.

Actually, it's not really an answer, much more a reflection in progress.

[sabaijai]

Sorry to intervene in a subject where I know very little and please consider my answer as a question as well.

It is my understanding that Thailand as a Buddhist society places social harmony at the highest level therefore if a lie helps maintains harmony amongst people it is considered "acceptable".

On a more "philosophical" level, again it is my understanding that one should not only consider what one says only in a mathematical perspective (true/false) but also the full consequences, which blurs a little bit the line. I always feel a great divide between east and west is that civilization / religions from Europe and the Middle-East are much more black and white.

Actually, it's not really an answer, much more a reflection in progress.

I agree. People in Western societies tend to 'stand on principle' more than Thais (and perhaps other SE Asians) do. I was reminded of this yet again at the annual meeting of my condo co-owners association last weekend. As required by law Westerners are a minority in co-ownership. In this case only 4 Western owners were present at a meeting of around 18 co-owners total, yet they spent an inordinate amount of time niggling over small points in the approval of the new by-laws required by recent changes in Thai condo law.

The Thai fellow co-owners, as well as myself (having lived here so long I suppose I've adopted the 'let's be flexible' over the 'let's stand on principle' approach), were quite exasperated by all this niggling, which the Thais clearly regarded as a waste of time.

To the Thai co-owners, the approval of the by-laws was just a formality and the document itself simply pieces of paper that would have little to do with the day-to-day running of the condo. To the Westerners the document seemed to be a matter of great importance, something they would gamble their lives on. The Thai attitude was 'we trust the committee we elected and the management we hired to make sure the condo runs well,' while the Western attitude seemed to be 'We need an airtight document to rule over the committee and management and ensure everything is legal and ethical.' Clearly the Thais were willing to be flexible with anything written in they by-laws, while the Westerners saw them as truth with a capital T. I acted as Thai-English/English-Thai interpreter between both 'sides' and it was truly a hellish day.

Is this a 'Buddhist' or a 'Thai' orientation towards 'truth'? Difficult to say.

[Brucenkhamen]

To the Thai co-owners, the approval of the by-laws was just a formality and the document itself simply pieces of paper that would have little to do with the day-to-day running of the condo. To the Westerners the document seemed to be a matter of great importance, something they would gamble their lives on. The Thai attitude was 'we trust the committee we elected and the management we hired to make sure the condo runs well,' while the Western attitude seemed to be 'We need an airtight document to rule over the committee and management and ensure everything is legal and ethical.' Clearly the Thais were willing to be flexible with anything written in they by-laws, while the Westerners saw them as truth with a capital T. I acted as Thai-English/English-Thai interpreter between both 'sides' and it was truly a hellish day.

Is this a 'Buddhist' or a 'Thai' orientation towards 'truth'? Difficult to say.

I'm sure there is a cultural difference in the way we operate. However in this particular situation if the by-laws were left as flexible as the Thais preferred if in future a dispute over a gray area were to arise between a Thai and a foreigner who do you think would win?

Foreigners don't have much in the way of rights or protection in Thailand so it's understandable that those who've made an investment in a condo would want to get a sense of security by defining rules.

[Brucenkhamen]

It is my understanding that Thailand as a Buddhist society places social harmony at the highest level therefore if a lie helps maintains harmony amongst people it is considered "acceptable".

This is true of Thai society, however it is in direct contrast to Buddhism.

Buddhism is about facing up to the reality of life and finding the truth for yourself, you can't expect this to happen if you can't tell the truth yourself or distinguish truth from lies or exaggeration etc.

[Pierrot]

To the Thai co-owners, the approval of the by-laws was just a formality and the document itself simply pieces of paper that would have little to do with the day-to-day running of the condo. To the Westerners the document seemed to be a matter of great importance, something they would gamble their lives on. The Thai attitude was 'we trust the committee we elected and the management we hired to make sure the condo runs well,' while the Western attitude seemed to be 'We need an airtight document to rule over the committee and management and ensure everything is legal and ethical.' Clearly the Thais were willing to be flexible with anything written in they by-laws, while the Westerners saw them as truth with a capital T. I acted as Thai-English/English-Thai interpreter between both 'sides' and it was truly a hellish day.

Is this a 'Buddhist' or a 'Thai' orientation towards 'truth'? Difficult to say.

I'm sure there is a cultural difference in the way we operate. However in this particular situation if the by-laws were left as flexible as the Thais preferred if in future a dispute over a gray area were to arise between a Thai and a foreigner who do you think would win?

Foreigners don't have much in the way of rights or protection in Thailand so it's understandable that those who've made an investment in a condo would want to get a sense of security by defining rules.

Thais have as much to lose as foreigners and they are not better protected. Actually, they often lose more as they are not as argumentative as foreigners when it comes to protect their interest. In Sabaijai example, if a Thai owner has a problem with the building management, he will usually accept a bad settlement and move on.

Sometime I believe that Thai are not enough prepared to handle confrontation and foreigners are usually "overtrained".

Edited January 23, 2009 by Pierrot

[BigSnake]

Same came be said for most all religions, Catholie, Christian, you name them, there are the Unholy ones(liars, cheaters, wife beaters) in them all

[Pierrot]

It is my understanding that Thailand as a Buddhist society places social harmony at the highest level therefore if a lie helps maintains harmony amongst people it is considered "acceptable".

This is true of Thai society, however it is in direct contrast to Buddhism.

Buddhism is about facing up to the reality of life and finding the truth for yourself, you can't expect this to happen if you can't tell the truth yourself or distinguish truth from lies or exaggeration etc.

What if saying the truth hurts someone ? damages a relation ?

To go to the extreme, if telling the truth will lead to a murder or a suicide, is telling the truth the right thing to do ?

[sabaijai]

It is my understanding that Thailand as a Buddhist society places social harmony at the highest level therefore if a lie helps maintains harmony amongst people it is considered "acceptable".

This is true of Thai society, however it is in direct contrast to Buddhism.

Buddhism is about facing up to the reality of life and finding the truth for yourself, you can't expect this to happen if you can't tell the truth yourself or distinguish truth from lies or exaggeration etc.

I raised the example of the condo meeting to suggest that cultural differences between Thai and Western ways of thinking perhaps speak more to the OP's question than Buddhism.

That said, I think you could argue that the Buddhist way is to focus on intention more than on objective truth, which overlaps to some degree with the Thai flexibility.

Foreigners don't have much in the way of rights or protection in Thailand so it's understandable that those who've made an investment in a condo would want to get a sense of security by defining rules

I agree, very understandable. Personally I have come to prefer the Thai way of handling things, ie, I trust personal flexibility over principle, whether the explanation is Buddhist or cultural.

[phetaroi]

I accept that telling a lie or not telling the whole truth or sidestepping the truth is done for protecting someone or saving face. What i don't get is telling a lie when the truth would have been just as good if not better. For an example getting directions. I very seldom get an I don't know for an answer. Almost every person i ask will act like they know exactly how to get where I am asking. I learned a long time ago that i have to ask many people in the same area and then take the directions that i got the most often.

I just retired as a school principal and former teacher. Among Southeast Asians, in particular, I sometimes/often (debating internally where the line was) found that they would answer a question in the way they thought you wanted the question answered in order to please you. I saw this in a lot of different situations, although most often when you would be talking with them, perhaps explaining something, and you would say, "Do you understand?" Their answer was usually "yes". It took me some time to learn that was usually not the real answer. Like you, I have seen this attitude in Thailand over the years.

[Brucenkhamen]

What if saying the truth hurts someone ? damages a relation ?

To go to the extreme, if telling the truth will lead to a murder or a suicide, is telling the truth the right thing to do ?

Then one should probably elect to say nothing, unless one is in a torture chamber why feel obligated to talk at all if you know the results either way will be negative.

[Pierrot]

"In certain cases a bodhisattva may kill, steal,commit adultery, or take drugs, but he may not lie. Intentional lying contradicts reality."

~Jatakas 431 ~ (What Would Buddha Do?/Franz Metcalf)

It is my understanding that Thailand as a Buddhist society places social harmony at the highest level therefore if a lie helps maintains harmony amongst people it is considered "acceptable".

This is true of Thai society, however it is in direct contrast to Buddhism.

Buddhism is about facing up to the reality of life and finding the truth for yourself, you can't expect this to happen if you can't tell the truth yourself or distinguish truth from lies or exaggeration etc.

Actually the way I understand Buddhism, if the intention is to deceive, then lying is a "sin", if the intention is to protect someone or any other "good" intention, then to know if it's acceptable or not, you will have to analyse the intention and the consequence to decide. Basically, nothing is good or bad "per se", it all depends of the intention and the consequences.

On the other hand I never thought about this problem of "reality". Could someone please explain in simple terms ?

[Brucenkhamen]

Actually the way I understand Buddhism, if the intention is to deceive, then lying is a "sin", if the intention is to protect someone or any other "good" intention, then to know if it's acceptable or not, you will have to analyse the intention and the consequence to decide. Basically, nothing is good or bad "per se", it all depends of the intention and the consequences.

On the other hand I never thought about this problem of "reality". Could someone please explain in simple terms ?

You are correct that intention is important when considering whether somebody's actions were moral or not, and the degree of it.

Though I'm not aware of any scripture where there Buddha is quoted as saying something along the lines of if you intend to protect someone it's ok to lie, does anyone know of anything?

I'm sure there are extreme circumstances where you or I might feel this is necessary, but this thread isn't so much about whether such extreme circumstances exist but about it's contrasting a culture where lying is the norm and expected of everyone with the teaching of Buddhism.

The "problem' with reality is that the in normal human condition reality is obscured by greed, aversion, and delusion. Seeing through all this to what your life really is is the whole point of the Buddha's path.

[MaximumSecurity]

If so how do Buddhists reconcile

this conflict in their personal values?

A lot like Christians and Jews reconcile the conflict of disobeying the commandments, supposedly handed down directly from God, against killing, lying, and coveting. Being a Buddhist doesn't make one a Buddha. It just means one wishes to try.

[camerata]

I'm not exactly sure by what is implied by a white lie , but certainly in the Lotus Sutra there is even a chapter called the Expedient Means, chapter 2 (Jpn.: Hoben-bon).. The parable of the Burning House , chapter 3 (Hiyu) is also such wherein expedient means are used to display Shakyamuni Buddha's great compassion.

The Parable of the Burning House

One day, a fire broke out in the house of a wealthy man who had many children. The wealthy man shouted at his children inside the burning house to flee. But, the children were absorbed in their games and did not heed his warning, though the house was being consumed by flames.

Then, the wealthy man devised a practical way to lure the children from the burning house. Knowing that the children were fond of interesting playthings, he called out to them, "Listen! Outside the gate are the carts that you have always wanted: carts pulled by goats, carts pulled by deer, and carts pulled by oxen. Why don't you come out and play with them?" The wealthy man knew that these things would be irresistible to his children.

The children, eager to play with these new toys rushed out of the house but, instead of the carts that he had promised, the father gave them a cart much better than any he has described - a cart draped with precious stones and pulled by white bullocks. The important thing being that the children were saved from the dangers of the house on fire.

In this parable the father, of course, is the Buddha and sentient beings are the children trapped in the burning house. The Burning House represents the world burning with the fires of old age, sickness and death. The teachings of the Buddha are like the father getting the boys to leave their pleasures for a greater pleasure, Nirvana.

A further interpretation is to see the the goat, deer, and ox carts as representing the early teachings of Buddhism, as the teachings of Hinayana Buddhism (the Mahayana term for the Buddhism that preceded it), and the cart pulled by white bullocks to 'The Lotus Sutra' which, when followed, leads to Buddhahood.

Exactly. This is why I'm not keen on the Mahayana idea of "expedient means (upaya)." As Wiki puts it: "One consequence of this is that it is possible to endorse a form of Buddhist practice as viable while simultaneously critiquing its premises or contrasting it unfavorably to another, higher practice. In some Mahayana texts, such as the Lotus Sutra, this is used as a polemic device against prior Buddhist traditions; it is said that the Buddha gave them various upayas rather than revealing the ultimate truth, for which they were not ready."

I think the episode from the Pali Canon where the Buddha talks to his son about lying is clearer:

"Rahula, do you see the small amount of water in this pot?"

"Yes, sir."

"Even so, little is the training of those who have no shame at intentional lying."

The Buddha then threw the water away and said: "Do you see this small amount of water that I have thrown away?"

"Yes, sir."

"Even so, Rahula, thrown away is the training of those who have no shame at intentional lying."

The Buddha then turned the pot over and said: "Do you see this pot that has been turned over?"

"Yes, sir."

"Even so, turned over is the training of those who have no shame at intentional lying."

The Buddha then turned the pot upright again and said: "Do you see this pot now empty and void?"

"Yes, sir."

"Even so, Rahula, empty and void is the training of those who have no shame at intentional lying."

The Buddha then impressed upon his son the importance of speaking the truth.

"Rahula, for anyone who has no shame at intentional lying, there is no evil that that person cannot do. Therefore, you should train yourself like this: 'I will not tell a lie, not even in jest.'"

Having explained what has to be done, the Buddha went on to explain to Rahula how it could be done.

"What do you think about this, Rahula? What is the purpose of a mirror?"

"The purpose of a mirror is to look at yourself."

"Even so, Rahula, one should act with body, speech or mind only after first looking at oneself. Before acting with body, speech or mind, one should think: 'What I am about to do, will it harm me or others?' If you can answer: 'Yes, it will,' then you should not act. But if you can answer: 'No, it will not,' then you should act. You should reflect in the same way while acting and after having acted. Therefore, Rahula, you should train yourself thinking: 'We will act only after repeatedly looking at ourselves, only after reflecting on ourselves.'"

To me this means that on the one hand lying is a very serious matter - even in jest it could have terrible consequences. But the important part is when he explains how it can be done, asking oneself: "What I am about to do, will it harm me or others?" To me this means that a father lying to his kids to save their lives or me telling the GF that I like her horrible new hairstyle so as not to hurt her feelings are not the kind of "lies" the Buddha is talking about because the intent is to avoid harm/hurt to others rather than get some advantage for ourselves.

[rockyysdt]

Before acting with body, speech or mind, one should think: 'What I am about to do, will it harm me or others?' If you can answer: 'Yes, it will,' then you should not act. But if you can answer: 'No, it will not,' then you should act. You should reflect in the same way while acting and after having acted. Therefore, Rahula, you should train yourself thinking: 'We will act only after repeatedly looking at ourselves, only after reflecting on ourselves.'"

To me this means that a father lying to his kids to save their lives or me telling the GF that I like her horrible new hairstyle so as not to hurt her feelings are not the kind of "lies" the Buddha is talking about because the intent is to avoid harm/hurt to others rather than get some advantage for ourselves.

In terms of what he actually said, couldn't one have interpreted "you should not act" as:

"If I can't say the truth, don't say anything?"

[rockyysdt]

Remembering that a boddhisatva is still a Buddha in training....not yet enlightened.

The Buddha, throughout his long training in the perfections as a Boddhisatva was born in the animal realm, and in the hel_l realm.

Boddhisatvas are never born as tiny creatures (smaller than a mouse)....never in the deepest hells, nor as hungry ghosts, nor as females..... so as not to be overwhelmed in their long struggle.

Did the Buddha teach this about women (females)?

Can one attain enlightenment without becoming a Boddhisatva?

Why are women marginalised, even in Buddhism?

Edited November 9, 2009 by rockyysdt

[Samuian]

@OP:

Has nothing to do with Nationality, Religion, Age nor with gender!

HUMAN Nature = human error - otherwise there wouldn't be "Enlightenment", "the Path" and liberation, agreed?!

[Samuian]

Remembering that a boddhisatva is still a Buddha in training....not yet enlightened.

The Buddha, throughout his long training in the perfections as a Boddhisatva was born in the animal realm, and in the hel_l realm.

Boddhisatvas are never born as tiny creatures (smaller than a mouse)....never in the deepest hells, nor as hungry ghosts, nor as females..... so as not to be overwhelmed in their long struggle.

Did the Buddha teach this about women (females)?

Can one attain enlightenment without becoming a Boddhisatva?

Why are women marginalised, even in Buddhism?

Because it's a patriarchart, grounded on the base of fear and false understanding/ignorance!

But as I understand not in Mahayana/Vajrayana!

Edited November 9, 2009 by Samuian

[camerata]

In terms of what he actually said, couldn't one have interpreted "you should not act" as:

"If I can't say the truth, don't say anything?"

I think it depends on the situation. I try to avoid saying anything rather than lying so as not to hurt someone's feelings. But obviously you couldn't say nothing in the parable of the burning house.

[camerata]

Because it's a patriarchart, grounded on the base of fear and false understanding/ignorance!

But as I understand not in Mahayana/Vajrayana!

The bhikkhuni lineage was never introduced into Tibet, but in modern times some women practising within the Tibetan tradition have taken bhikkhuni ordination from the East Asian Sangha. There are no bhikkhuni or female priests in Japanese Buddhism, AFAIK. However, "nuns" seem to get a better deal in Mahayana than Theravada.

[rockyysdt]

The bhikkhuni lineage was never introduced into Tibet, but in modern times some women practising within the Tibetan tradition have taken bhikkhuni ordination from the East Asian Sangha. There are no bhikkhuni or female priests in Japanese Buddhism, AFAIK. However, "nuns" seem to get a better deal in Mahayana than Theravada.

It must be my lack of knowledge.

Is the Boddhisatva status bestowed upon man by man?

No wonder females can't be Boddhisatva.

I thought Boddhisatva was an actual stage of pre enlightenment which occurs due to ones practice rather than a bestowed status.

It appears it has nothing to do with actual enlightenment or the actual state of a person.

[awd]

Didn't the buddha say that you shouldn't tell the truth unless it was necessary, helpful, wouldn't hurt anyone and was kind.

It's somewhere in what he said about right speech.

[phetaroi]

To me this means that on the one hand lying is a very serious matter - even in jest it could have terrible consequences. But the important part is when he explains how it can be done, asking oneself: "What I am about to do, will it harm me or others?" To me this means that a father lying to his kids to save their lives or me telling the GF that I like her horrible new hairstyle so as not to hurt her feelings are not the kind of "lies" the Buddha is talking about because the intent is to avoid harm/hurt to others rather than get some advantage for ourselves.

As I interpret this section of your response, I think this is very spot on.

When you mention: "What I am about to do, will it harm me or others?" The truth can do just as much harm sometimes, as a lie.

[camerata]

The bhikkhuni lineage was never introduced into Tibet, but in modern times some women practising within the Tibetan tradition have taken bhikkhuni ordination from the East Asian Sangha. There are no bhikkhuni or female priests in Japanese Buddhism, AFAIK. However, "nuns" seem to get a better deal in Mahayana than Theravada.

It must be my lack of knowledge.

Is the Boddhisatva status bestowed upon man by man?

No wonder females can't be Boddhisatva.

I thought Boddhisatva was an actual stage of pre enlightenment which occurs due to ones practice rather than a bestowed status.

It appears it has nothing to do with actual enlightenment or the actual state of a person.

Bhikkhuni is just a female monk and you go through a similar ceremony to men to become one. It's nothing to do with bodhisattvas.

In Theravada, the only bodhisattva is whoever is on his/her way to becoming the buddha of the aeon. That means according to the Pali Canon the last one was Sakyamuni and the next one is supposed to be called Maitreya. In Mahayana, anyone can become a bodhisattva and eventually a buddha. It's not a status bestowed by anyone. The Dalai Lama refers to Thailand's Ajahn Sulak (a layman) as a bodhisattva.

[rockyysdt]

In Theravada, the only bodhisattva is whoever is on his/her way to becoming the buddha of the aeon. That means according to the Pali Canon the last one was Sakyamuni and the next one is supposed to be called Maitreya. In Mahayana, anyone can become a bodhisattva and eventually a buddha. It's not a status bestowed by anyone. The Dalai Lama refers to Thailand's Ajahn Sulak (a layman) as a bodhisattva.

In an earlier post FabianFred indicated a bodhisattva is never born a female.

If this is correct then women can never become bodhisattva & therefore also can never be a Buddha.