Buddhism - on lying

[kinmaew]

I think the Thais must be HUGE Seinfeld fans as the great George Costanza once quoted "Its not a lie if you believe it"

[Shaunduhpostman]

In answer to question 2, doesn't lying bring a loss of face, it doesn't if nobody calls the liar out or otherwise makes it clear that a lie has been told.

 

This is what annoys me as much as people who lie constantly as an unconcious habit. Not only do I have to put up with the lying but I feel I am often expected to avoid any comments or actions that would call attention to any lies otherwise someone loses face and becomes angry. I am cautioned just to let it ride even if a significant problem has arisen. It seems to me that what is generally considered polite or acceptable is just to go along with whatever manner of ridiculous lying so as not to cause loss of face. I often think, they will never learn if people just allow them to lie and in fact, it is this high level of tolerance that may actaully be the cause of someone becoming a chronic liar, that they have been tolerated for too long and they have lost the plot.

 

Alternatively, you can just disengage from the liar without a word and avoid them, such as the all too common lying you get from people running shops, restaurants, etc. tho in the case of co-workers or family members this isn't always possible.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Shaunduhpostman

[jago25]

Perhaps Thailand needs some assistance in calling out lies in an assertive and friendly manner. Some people act the way they do because no one has ever called them out on bad behaviour. 

Doing this is so unexpected so if you do it in a kind way then all you get is stunned silence as coming from this direction you are saving them face.  

 

I really enjoy doing this. Curb your enthusiasm as it takes some skill to get right. 

[rockyysdt]

In answer to question 2, doesn't lying bring a loss of face, it doesn't if nobody calls the liar out or otherwise makes it clear that a lie has been told.

 

This is what annoys me as much as people who lie constantly as an unconcious habit. Not only do I have to put up with the lying but I feel I am often expected to avoid any comments or actions that would call attention to any lies otherwise someone loses face and becomes angry. I am cautioned just to let it ride even if a significant problem has arisen. It seems to me that what is generally considered polite or acceptable is just to go along with whatever manner of ridiculous lying so as not to cause loss of face. I often think, they will never learn if people just allow them to lie and in fact, it is this high level of tolerance that may actaully be the cause of someone becoming a chronic liar, that they have been tolerated for too long and they have lost the plot.

 

Alternatively, you can just disengage from the liar without a word and avoid them, such as the all too common lying you get from people running shops, restaurants, etc. tho in the case of co-workers or family members this isn't always possible.

 

Over time, with regular Mindfulness practice we can start to realize and appreciate the level our own inclination to distort the truth.

 

Armed with gained insight we can begin to take steps in curbing our own practice of lying.

 

 

If we have little control over our own lying, I suspect trying to get others to refrain would have to be a near impossible task.

 

In terms of those around us with either personal or cultural propensity to lie, I think all we can do is observe, understand, empathize and lead by example.

Edited August 4, 2014 by rockyysdt

[nithisa78]

Pretending to be a bhuddist and actually following all the rules / principles is two very very very different things. 

Besides, not even monks are perfect.

 

*edit* Face (saving face) is something that is in complete conflict with Buddhist teachings. 

Face = EGO EGO EGO

Buddhism = FREEDOM FROM EGO - DEATH OF EGO - etc .. 

COMPLETE CONFLICT .

 

 

*edit2* My home country is Christian,, and there's many Christian traditions and holidays. But very few people try to follow Christian principles.. I think it could be the same here in Thailand... The people are Buddhist, so they honor buddhist holidays and traditions and go to the temple etc. But they don't try to live by the teachings and/or they just pick and choose among the teachings that fit their own agenda. Sort of like italian mafiosos would ask for forgivness and stuff.. but then go out and kill again, and come back and ask for forgiveness again..

 

*edit3* I would go as far as saying that because of the whole "saving face"-thing, Thai people in general are missing the most important point of buddhism.

What point would that be? How would you know?

[Rorri]

CharlieH, on 03 Aug 2014 - 04:27, said:CharlieH, on 03 Aug 2014 - 04:27, said:

Post removed


11) You will not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Mmmm, this raises an interesting question...how do we discuss OP when it is related to Thais lying? Going by what the mod says it seems we can only discuss positive things about Thailand, Thais and Thai culture, this disturbs me a little, this would be racist unless extended to all races. Clearly contravening UN conventions.

 

N.B. I am not saying the mod is wrong, but it does raise an interesting question.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Rorri

[spidermike007]

In answer to question 2, doesn't lying bring a loss of face, it doesn't if nobody calls the liar out or otherwise makes it clear that a lie has been told.
 
This is what annoys me as much as people who lie constantly as an unconcious habit. Not only do I have to put up with the lying but I feel I am often expected to avoid any comments or actions that would call attention to any lies otherwise someone loses face and becomes angry. I am cautioned just to let it ride even if a significant problem has arisen. It seems to me that what is generally considered polite or acceptable is just to go along with whatever manner of ridiculous lying so as not to cause loss of face. I often think, they will never learn if people just allow them to lie and in fact, it is this high level of tolerance that may actaully be the cause of someone becoming a chronic liar, that they have been tolerated for too long and they have lost the plot.
 
Alternatively, you can just disengage from the liar without a word and avoid them, such as the all too common lying you get from people running shops, restaurants, etc. tho in the case of co-workers or family members this isn't always possible.

I like to call them out. Why do you lie like that? You know the truth. They are so shocked that someone would bust them. It is not my responsibility to maintain the values of face, a concept I disrespect and despise. It is on the liar. I will not try to protect their lie. That is their folly. So, call them out every chance you can. It is so much fun.

[sustento]

 

CharlieH, on 03 Aug 2014 - 04:27, said:CharlieH, on 03 Aug 2014 - 04:27, said:

Post removed


11) You will not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Mmmm, this raises an interesting question...how do we discuss OP when it is related to Thais lying? Going by what the mod says it seems we can only discuss positive things about Thailand, Thais and Thai culture, this disturbs me a little, this would be racist unless extended to all races. Clearly contravening UN conventions.

 

N.B. I am not saying the mod is wrong, but it does raise an interesting question.

 

I don't think the United Nations have jurisdiction over Thaivisa...

[troysantos]

An answer to both of your questions is ... do you know their intentions? That means not simply sure of their intentions. 

 

In a Buddhist context (because of the title of your post), I think this goes very deep, and is often personal. I used to live at a Buddhist temple here in Thailand where following the precepts was the foundation of practice, foundation of daily life. And the deeper you went into the precepts, the better. One day, I noticed something just before I was about to lie to a friend (yep, even hardcore Buddhists do it :) ... I was a the time, but no longer care much about calling myself a Buddhist). I realized that I was going to lie to her because there was something that I myself didn't want to face. Then it occured to me that if I wasn't prepared to deal with the truth regarding this small issue, then I sure wasn't prepared to deal with bigger truth, because I'd learned that many people feel a very strong resistance to deeper truths that they've hidden away. 

 

Also, like others have said, sometimes lieing is about doing something good for the other person. My own view is that is indeed sometimes the case, but often that is simply what we want to believe. It's my belief that even that is often for our own self, at least as much as it is for the other person. It's my own experience that I want to lie to someone to make them feel good, so I don't feel bad. You know the arguement about whether or not there is altruism truly exists? In my own opinion it's a rarity among humans.

 

Saving face ... I just look at it in the context of Thai culture as I understand it, and human beings as I understand us. 

 

BTW ... anyone seen the movie Liar Liar? LMAO :) 

 

 

[rockyysdt]

 

 

 

Also, like others have said, sometimes lieing is about doing something good for the other person. My own view is that is indeed sometimes the case, but often that is simply what we want to believe. It's my belief that even that is often for our own self, at least as much as it is for the other person. It's my own experience that I want to lie to someone to make them feel good, so I don't feel bad. You know the arguement about whether or not there is altruism truly exists? In my own opinion it's a rarity among humans.

 

Saving face ... I just look at it in the context of Thai culture as I understand it, and human beings as I understand us. 

 

BTW ... anyone seen the movie Liar Liar? LMAO

 

 

 

There are many kinds of lies.

 

Wiki describes 30 different types alone.

 

As well as your examples of losing face & not wanting to hurt somebody, another comes to mind.

 

How you desire to be seen by others!

 

Obviously people will keep aspects of themselves, through deception, exaggeration, omission, as well as lies, in order to maintain their image/reputation/standing (Ego).

 

Very few here can declare a clear record.

Edited August 4, 2014 by rockyysdt

[troysantos]

 

 

 

 

Also, like others have said, sometimes lieing is about doing something good for the other person. My own view is that is indeed sometimes the case, but often that is simply what we want to believe. It's my belief that even that is often for our own self, at least as much as it is for the other person. It's my own experience that I want to lie to someone to make them feel good, so I don't feel bad. You know the arguement about whether or not there is altruism truly exists? In my own opinion it's a rarity among humans.

 

Saving face ... I just look at it in the context of Thai culture as I understand it, and human beings as I understand us. 

 

BTW ... anyone seen the movie Liar Liar? LMAO

 

 

 

As well as your examples of losing face & not wanting to hurt somebody, another comes to mind.

 

How you desire to be seen by others!

 

Obviously people will keep aspects of themselves, through deception, exaggeration, omission, as well as lies, in order to maintain their image/reputation/standing (Ego).

 

Very few here can declare a clear record.

Yeah, does manipulating how we believe others will / might see us ever allow for expression of the truth about us? (We / us = I / me.) Good point. I doubt that anyone anywhere has a clear record ;) People often talk of how the ego won't die, well ... who's perpetuating and feeding the damned thing?! Truth is, I belive, we don't want to face the truth. 

 

Adyashanti (my favorite teacher for a few years now) often talks about how people react with fierce rejection, and strong fear when they get deep enough to see truths that they'd stuffed away for a long time. Now that I've sort of left Buddhism, when I encounter Buddhist teachings again I often marvel at their beauty. But without a good teacher, or inner clarity, it often seems to me they can be easily misunderstood, or understood in ways that I consider rather narrow and shallow, because there seems to be so much interconnectedness and depth in there. 

 

That last line is gonna come across as real arrogant to someone, I suppose. 

[Keesters]

 

I've heard that "loss of face" is a strong cultural stance by many Thais.

 

Surprising then how many of them end up with egg on it.

 

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+egg+on+face

 

[VincentRJ]

Once again we have the problem of interpreting ordinary, common words. What is a lie? At one extreme we have big fat lies, and at the other end of the spectrum we have little white lies. In between those extremes we have various shades and types of lies. Sometimes it's not clear if 'lie' is the most appropriate word. For example, is being 'economic with the truth' tantamount to lying? In other words, if a person deliberately tries to create a false impression through being selectively biased, by mentioning only certain appealing aspects of an issue (which are true statements as far as they go), and neglecting to mention known, but unappealing aspectes of an issue, is that a form of lying?

 

Could we declare that all lying comes under the broader category of deception? Is every act of deception a lie? When animals puff themselves up to appear larger than they really are, in order to be less appealing to a predator, is that a form of lying? Conversely, when a predator acts in a non-threatening manner when it's near its prey, in order to hide its predatory nature, is that a form of lying?

Can we make a distinction between deception which is an instinctive reaction, and deception which is a conscious decision?

 

I'm reminded of the fascinating example of the many varieties of the Ophrys orchid species, sometimes known as the Bee orchid, and sometimes referred to as 'the prostitute orchid'. Apparently, this plant, through a long process of evolution, has gradually developed a pattern and shape within its flower that successfully mimics the appearance, and even the scent (sex pheromone) of a female bee. Male bees are attracted to the flower, not for any reward of food or nectar, but to have sex. After struggling for a while in a failed attempt to have sex, the male bee gets covered in pollen, flies off in frustration to another orchid where it perceives another female bee in the other flower, repeats its futile attempt to have sex, and in the process tranfers the pollen to the other plant.

 

Now, I would agree that in this example we cannot accuse the orchid of lying. It has no option. It is as it is, without ego, mind or awareness. One presumes that the male bee will eventually learn to distinguish between the fake female bee in the orchid, and a real female bee, and will eventually mate successfully.

 

However, what these examples at the animal and plant level suggest is that deception (or lying) is a process that is perhaps inextricably woven into the fabric of existence, at least at some level. It seems to be necessary, either directly for survival, or for some advantage that assists in survival. Our closest animal relative, the Chimpanzee, also consciously lies.

[rockyysdt]

Once again we have the problem of interpreting ordinary, common words. 

 

Hi Vincent.

 

I know you are driven by scientifically verifiable proof in terms of Buddhist teaching.

 

Here is an excerpt from Dr Micheal Mosley's journey to learm more about the human brain.

 

In particular, the ability of our environment & experiences (both external & through mindfulness practice) to switch on and off inherited genes, and therefore have control not only over our genetic make up but also over the outcome of our lives.

 

Quote:

 

Although I won’t go into the detail here, part of Mosley’s investigation also looked at the phenomenon of epigenetics - the switching on and off of our genes dependant on environmental effects - as a means to demonstrate that we are not just a product of our genes and that we do have the capacity to change our brains through our experience. Although life events can bring about negative genetic effects, they can just as much be a force for positive change and something that we can drive consciously through the experiences we can bring about ourselves – such as choosing to embark on 7 weeks of daily mindfulness meditation practise.

An overactive right frontal cortex is not only linked to pessimistic thinking, but also to depression and anxiety. The work of Richard Davidson at the Laboratory for Affective Neuroscience, Wisconsin can attest to this. Davidson has carried out a number of research studies that support the findings in Mosley’s investigation. Over a course of 8 weeks, highly stressed, novice meditators engaged in mindfulness training. After the 8 weeks they reported less anxiety and more energy, and this was backed up by their brain activity, which had become more focused in the left frontal cortex versus the right. It seems that with meditation, people are able to notice their thoughts and mood and modify them to avoid spiralling to negative depths. Davidson hypothesises that mindfulness may strengthen neurons in the left prefrontal cortex which is then better able to inhibit messages from the amygdala, the alarm bell of our brain that can drive us into anxious thinking and highly stressed states.

 

Don't wait for others to provide proof as your life span may not last that long.

 

Isn't it better to take on the Buddhas offer to experience and experiment for yourself.

 

With much research already performed, aren't verifiable & profound outcomes waiting for your evaluation?

Edited August 5, 2014 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

 

Pretending to be a bhuddist and actually following all the rules / principles is two very very very different things. 

Besides, not even monks are perfect.

 

*edit* Face (saving face) is something that is in complete conflict with Buddhist teachings. 

Face = EGO EGO EGO

Buddhism = FREEDOM FROM EGO - DEATH OF EGO - etc .. 

COMPLETE CONFLICT .

 

 

*edit2* My home country is Christian,, and there's many Christian traditions and holidays. But very few people try to follow Christian principles.. I think it could be the same here in Thailand... The people are Buddhist, so they honor buddhist holidays and traditions and go to the temple etc. But they don't try to live by the teachings and/or they just pick and choose among the teachings that fit their own agenda. Sort of like italian mafiosos would ask for forgivness and stuff.. but then go out and kill again, and come back and ask for forgiveness again..

 

*edit3* I would go as far as saying that because of the whole "saving face"-thing, Thai people in general are missing the most important point of buddhism.

What point would that be? How would you know?

 

One of the most important teachings of Buddhism which makes it different to every other religion is the belief in Not-self... annatta.

Ego based things such as 'face' are opposite to this principle.

[Artist]

 

 

Pretending to be a bhuddist and actually following all the rules / principles is two very very very different things. 

Besides, not even monks are perfect.

 

*edit* Face (saving face) is something that is in complete conflict with Buddhist teachings. 

Face = EGO EGO EGO

Buddhism = FREEDOM FROM EGO - DEATH OF EGO - etc .. 

COMPLETE CONFLICT .

 

 

*edit2* My home country is Christian,, and there's many Christian traditions and holidays. But very few people try to follow Christian principles.. I think it could be the same here in Thailand... The people are Buddhist, so they honor buddhist holidays and traditions and go to the temple etc. But they don't try to live by the teachings and/or they just pick and choose among the teachings that fit their own agenda. Sort of like italian mafiosos would ask for forgivness and stuff.. but then go out and kill again, and come back and ask for forgiveness again..

 

*edit3* I would go as far as saying that because of the whole "saving face"-thing, Thai people in general are missing the most important point of buddhism.

What point would that be? How would you know?

 

One of the most important teachings of Buddhism which makes it different to every other religion is the belief in Not-self... annatta.

Ego based things such as 'face' are opposite to this principle.

 

Its an interesting discussion but 'face' seems to be consistently defined as an egotistical characteristic, but my understanding of 'face' is that it goes beyond that.

 

Perhaps some Thai person can enlighten me but I thought that 'saving face' was not just your 'face' but the other person's face.  In that case 'face' is not self centred but from a concern about others.

 

For example,if somebody makes a mistake you don't draw attention to it as they would lose 'face'

[hookedondhamma]

For anyone coming acoss this who is a little confused, losing face can be equated with being embarassed to the extreme; saving face can be equated with doing something to redeem oneself or to raise personal status within the community.

Many foreigners get confused with this term, as the literal translation is mainly used from thai for english (which adds to the ambiguity of the meaning). Edited August 5, 2014 by hookedondhamma

[rockyysdt]

 

Its an interesting discussion but 'face' seems to be consistently defined as an egotistical characteristic, but my understanding of 'face' is that it goes beyond that.

 

Perhaps some Thai person can enlighten me but I thought that 'saving face' was not just your 'face' but the other person's face.  In that case 'face' is not self centred but from a concern about others.

 

For example,if somebody makes a mistake you don't draw attention to it as they would lose 'face'

 

 

Your description illustrates someone who doesn't want to be a target for "loss of face" retaliation.

 

 

I can either publicly embarrass you, in which case your 'loss of face" will demand retaliation, or

 

I can remain silent, not wishing to cause you "loss of face", and its consequences.

 

 

The culture behind "loss of face", due to action either mild or severe , may wound the ego deeply and may result in an extreme retaliatory reaction.

Edited August 5, 2014 by rockyysdt

[slipperylobster]

Had to wonder all day about this.  I sent my gal, by airplane, to pack up our household goods. Her sister has a flatbed truck, and needed money, so she offered to transport everything to Chiang Mai. After four days of loading the truck, I was told that the truck would leave the next morning, and my gal would fly ahead to arrive just before the truck. The next day, I asked where was the truck with all our things. I was told the sister had got rained out and was 3 hours out of Udon, and sleeping in a hotel in Loei. This went on for 24 hours. It was the sister lying about even leaving Udon. Turned out she was trying to borrow money and had no intention of bringing our things to our new home, until she found somebody to fund a big purchase of furniture in Chiang Mai, to resell in Udon.  Well, we had already paid her to deliver our stuff, but she lied for two days about being stuck somewhere. Meanwhile, no furniture now for 5 days...no stove, no refrigerator. Darn frustration. We had to pay another driver to go to her house and offer to drive the truck. Why would she give such an obvious lie?  Cannot hide a big flatbed truck parked in front of her house for four days with all my stuff (soaking in the rain)?  Told my gal she flies back tomorrow and keeps/sells the furniture.....I will buy new, and use her allowance for 1 year to replace my things.  So now...guess what?  Truck leaves tonight? LOL...so I was told.

[Sam Gold]

Telling the truth can be harmful too. It all depends on the circumstances.

 

That is the way Thais see it. I'm actually used to it now, after so many years.

 

The question I still ask myself on occasion is why would one bother to lie when the truth isn't actually that bad? It works amongst Thais, it's universally accepted and even sometimes, I suspect, expected.

[spidermike007]

 

Its an interesting discussion but 'face' seems to be consistently defined as an egotistical characteristic, but my understanding of 'face' is that it goes beyond that.
 
Perhaps some Thai person can enlighten me but I thought that 'saving face' was not just your 'face' but the other person's face.  In that case 'face' is not self centred but from a concern about others.
 
For example,if somebody makes a mistake you don't draw attention to it as they would lose 'face'
 

 
Your description illustrates someone who doesn't want to be a target for "loss of face" retaliation.
 
 
I can either publicly embarrass you, in which case your 'loss of face" will demand retaliation, or
 
I can remain silent, not wishing to cause you "loss of face", and its consequences.
 
 
The culture behind "loss of face", due to action either mild or severe , may wound the ego deeply and may result in an extreme retaliatory reaction.

By a coward. Only half men, who are extreme cowards, and completely lacking in courage, self esteem, and the heart of a man, react in an extreme manner to a perceived slight. A man child does behaves in this manner. Real men do not react to a perceived slight. Real men are able to let this kind of silly, petty, unimportant nonsense go.


Spidermike
Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[RandomSand]

 

 

 Its an interesting discussion but 'face' seems to be consistently defined as an egotistical characteristic, but my understanding of 'face' is that it goes beyond that.
 
Perhaps some Thai person can enlighten me but I thought that 'saving face' was not just your 'face' but the other person's face.  In that case 'face' is not self centred but from a concern about others.
 
For example,if somebody makes a mistake you don't draw attention to it as they would lose 'face'

 
Your description illustrates someone who doesn't want to be a target for "loss of face" retaliation.
 
 I can either publicly embarrass you, in which case your 'loss of face" will demand retaliation, or
 
I can remain silent, not wishing to cause you "loss of face", and its consequences.
 
 The culture behind "loss of face", due to action either mild or severe , may wound the ego deeply and may result in an extreme retaliatory reaction.

By a coward. Only half men, who are extreme cowards, and completely lacking in courage, self esteem, and the heart of a man, react in an extreme manner to a perceived slight. A man child does behaves in this manner. Real men do not react to a perceived slight. Real men are able to let this kind of silly, petty, unimportant nonsense go.

Spidermike
Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

I think you make a fair point but I disagree about it being about it being "manly". It's just emotional maturity and applies to women equally.

 

Also in reply to this thread, generally, I associate "face" with pride but I think it's' also necessary to mention "honour"... especially in relation to a nation with such a history of Chinese inward ethnic migration.

 

Personally speaking one of the main reasons I like Thailand is because it's not unusual to find Thai people demonstrating confidence, humility and kindness. A subtle balance and a sign of strength, imho

 

There's been some great replies so far on the subject of lying. Thanks!

 

...face is really nothing more that the inability to look within, to introspect, to reflect, and to improve as an individual. It corrodes the soul. It prevents spiritual growth. It retards forward development. It hold a person back, from any sort of advancement.

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head and enjoyed reading your post. I still think it's worth considering "face" in the context of social-responsibility and honour within a society which does not place so much emphasis on individuality. So it might work out that a person, having less sense of individuality, maintains more responsibility for a shared social honour and hence feels the need to maintain face to an extent which seems overly elevated to outsiders. It's could be they don't personally need to maintain so much face but do so out of respect.

Edited August 5, 2014 by RandomSand

[spidermike007]

[quote name="RandomSand" post="8204225" timestamp="1407280323"][quote name="spidermike007" post="8203757" timestamp="1407258532"] [quote name="rockyysdt" post="8202780" timestamp="1407239787"] [quote name="Artist" post="8202418" timestamp="1407235169"] Its an interesting discussion but 'face' seems to be consistently defined as an egotistical characteristic, but my understanding of 'face' is that it goes beyond that.
 
Perhaps some Thai person can enlighten me but I thought that 'saving face' was not just your 'face' but the other person's face.  In that case 'face' is not self centred but from a concern about others.
 
For example,if somebody makes a mistake you don't draw attention to it as they would lose 'face'[/quote] 
Your description illustrates someone who doesn't want to be a target for "loss of face" retaliation.
 
 I can either publicly embarrass you, in which case your 'loss of face" will demand retaliation, or
 
I can remain silent, not wishing to cause you "loss of face", and its consequences.
 
 The culture behind "loss of face", due to action either mild or severe , may wound the ego deeply and may result in an extreme retaliatory reaction.[/quote]By a coward. Only half men, who are extreme cowards, and completely lacking in courage, self esteem, and the heart of a man, react in an extreme manner to a perceived slight. A man child does behaves in this manner. Real men do not react to a perceived slight. Real men are able to let this kind of silly, petty, unimportant nonsense go.

Spidermike
Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect[/quote]
I think you make a fair point but I disagree about it being about it being "manly". It's just emotional maturity and applies to women equally.
 
Also in reply to this thread, generally, I associate "face" with pride but I think it's' also necessary to mention "honour"... especially in relation to a nation with such a history of Chinese inward ethnic migration.
 
Personally speaking one of the main reasons I like Thailand is because it's not unusual to find Thai people demonstrating confidence, humility and kindness. A subtle balance and a sign of strength, imho
 
There's been some great replies so far on the subject of lying. Thanks!
 

...face is really nothing more that the inability to look within, to introspect, to reflect, and to improve as an individual. It corrodes the soul. It prevents spiritual growth. It retards forward development. It hold a person back, from any sort of advancement.

 
I think you've hit the nail on the head and enjoyed reading your post. I still think it's worth considering "face" in the context of social-responsibility and honour within a society which does not place so much emphasis on individuality. So it might work out that a person, having less sense of individuality, maintains more responsibility for a shared social honour and hence feels the need to maintain face to an extent which seems overly elevated to outsiders. It's could be they don't personally need to maintain so much face but do so out of respect.[/quote]


All of that is fine, within a strictly sociological context. But here we are talking about a spiritual context. One has to consider the possibility that lying is the contrary to the practice of the Buddhavistic teachings. It prevents spiritual growth, rather than enhancing it. One can say they are Buddhist, but are they practicing Buddhism? Much the same in the states. I meet a lot of Christians, but they are not really practicing the teachings of Christ. They do not pray, or meditate, or introspect. They do not spend any time going within. It is all outward stuff, and it is all about talking, rather than acting, or conveying the principals in their own lives. It is natural for the masses to not manifest the essence of the practice on a daily basis. But, the practice of telling lies is akin to a semi conscious state, and appears to be something that takes place with the nearly complete absence of mindfulness. Most saints and sages seem to imply that the worlds major religions are founded upon the teachings of a great saint, who taught the Essenes of truth. So, if Buddhism is founded upon truth, are lies not the antithesis of the teachings of Buddha? And how important, or completely unimportant, is the motive, at that point?


Spidermike
Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[willyumiii]

Thanks for these answers! 

 

Phuket Immigration tried to calm worried semi-qualified teachers. While their same office confirmed the order to hunt for offenders in 9 of the 13 (?) districts. Uhu. 

 

At my work place, every body was instructed to collect a shirt for some special event. The shirts weren't there. We were told to come back on a certain day the following week. Then on "Thursday". Finally, on Friday, the truth came out: No shirts!

 

But then, some staff made the rounds with a list of all employees, soliciting cash donations for the purchase of shirts "for the students". 

 

Please elaborate! 

 

What districts are they hunting in?

 

Semi qualified teachers with inquiring minds want to know!

[RandomSand]

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head and enjoyed reading your post. I still think it's worth considering "face" in the context of social-responsibility and honour within a society which does not place so much emphasis on individuality. So it might work out that a person, having less sense of individuality, maintains more responsibility for a shared social honour and hence feels the need to maintain face to an extent which seems overly elevated to outsiders. It's could be they don't personally need to maintain so much face but do so out of respect.

 

All of that is fine, within a strictly sociological context. But here we are talking about a spiritual context. One has to consider the possibility that lying is the contrary to the practice of the Buddhavistic teachings. It prevents spiritual growth, rather than enhancing it. One can say they are Buddhist, but are they practicing Buddhism? Much the same in the states. I meet a lot of Christians, but they are not really practicing the teachings of Christ. They do not pray, or meditate, or introspect. They do not spend any time going within. It is all outward stuff, and it is all about talking, rather than acting, or conveying the principals in their own lives. It is natural for the masses to not manifest the essence of the practice on a daily basis. But, the practice of telling lies is akin to a semi conscious state, and appears to be something that takes place with the nearly complete absence of mindfulness. Most saints and sages seem to imply that the worlds major religions are founded upon the teachings of a great saint, who taught the Essenes of truth. So, if Buddhism is founded upon truth, are lies not the antithesis of the teachings of Buddha? And how important, or completely unimportant, is the motive, at that point?


Spidermike
Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

I don't necessarily see a clear separation between a social or spiritual context and would comment that, ultimately, all lies are real events as much as truthful events are events ergo all events are the truth, or all lies, depending on your philosophy and any distinction between lies and truth is itself a lie. Of course; that distinction, is itself an event, so a paradox is arrived at. Skipping to the chase we ask "is there a paradox or not" but of course how could we even ask this question if there wasn't? So there is, or there is possibility, leading to the conclusion that possibility itself, i.e freedom, is the truth and therefore lies, formed intrinsically from the freedom afforded by possibility, must logically be the truth also.

 

it is all about talking, rather than acting, or conveying the principals in their own lives

 

What type of philosophy is judging others and being dismissive of their lives? I wasn't aware that Buddhism condoned such exemplified behaviour. People who'd mistakenly attempt to elevate themselves by pushing others down are themselves victims, imho.

Edited August 6, 2014 by RandomSand

[VincentRJ]

 

Once again we have the problem of interpreting ordinary, common words. 

 

Hi Vincent.

 

I know you are driven by scientifically verifiable proof in terms of Buddhist teaching.

 

 

Don't wait for others to provide proof as your life span may not last that long.

 

Isn't it better to take on the Buddhas offer to experience and experiment for yourself.

 

With much research already performed, aren't verifiable & profound outcomes waiting for your evaluation?

 

 

Hi Rocky,

I've been experiencing and experimenting for myself my whole life. I don't think that I need to be convinced of the benefits of 'self-control', in all its aspects. I'm mainly interested in Buddhism to the extent that it offers the possibility of my achieving even greater self-control and peace of mind than I already possess.

 

By self-control, I mean control over one's fears, anxieties, desires and appetites, and so on.

 

For example, I'm no longer overweight because I've achieved control over my appetite. I used to smoke, years ago, but succeeded in stopping completely, through exercise of self-control. After stopping smoking, I gradually took up drinking fine Australian wine, increasing the amount over the years until I was drinking like a Frenchman, with a glass or two, or three, with every meal. The drinking contributed to my being overweight. I now no longer drink (except very occasionally    ).

 

I could go on but that would be boasting, which would be most un-Buddhist.

 

As regards lying, I see a connection between the Buddhist position on this, and the success of science.

Whilst Buddhism and other religions consider lying to be unwise or unethical, it is science which has shown the benefits of 'telling the truth'. Science is founded upon the capacity of certain individuals to accurately and truthfully record what they observe, and develop theories that explain what they observe. In science, all proof is provisional. All accepted theories can be subject to modification in the light of new observations. In the absence of proof we have hypotheses. In many aspects of Buddhism it seems that hypotheses are all we have to go on.

[RandomSand]

As regards lying, I see a connection between the Buddhist position on this, and the success of science.

Whilst Buddhism and other religions consider lying to be unwise or unethical, it is science which has shown the benefits of 'telling the truth'. Science is founded upon the capacity of certain individuals to accurately and truthfully record what they observe, and develop theories that explain what they observe. In science, all proof is provisional. All accepted theories can be subject to modification in the light of new observations. In the absence of proof we have hypotheses. In many aspects of Buddhism it seems that hypotheses are all we have to go on.

 

It could be argued that religion is void of hypothetical reason. Scientists would certainly be sniggering, already, I'm sure but others might consider them to be blinkered by logic. For instance; Science often presumes that a scientific process must have been used in a supposed "creation" of religion. In this view scientists presume that one sect of humanity has evilly devised an outcome, oppression for instance, and then devised religion as a method to arrive at the desired outcome. However; whereas Science looks at an possible outcome and then logically devises methods; Religion could be said to be the non-hypothetical outcome of humanity's experience so far.

 

To be truly scientific; a scientist would first have to hypothecate "spiritual matters" as truth and then wrestle with his own reason.

 

In many aspects of Buddhism it seems that hypotheses are all we have to go on.

 

That might be correct if Buddhism was a revelatory religion. It is not. Siddhārtha Gautama famously suggested that others put his words to the test.

You can devise your own hypothesis or hypotheses but generally the big questions will be the same. if you're interested enough, even by academic study, I think you'll find that all religions point to the same outcome but differ only slightly in their interpretation pantheistically... which has knock-on effects for things like reincarnation.

 

Kalama Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya III.65

Do not accept anything by mere tradition ... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures ... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions ... But when you know for yourselves—these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness—then do you live acting accordingly.

Edited August 6, 2014 by RandomSand

[rockyysdt]

Hi Rocky,

I've been experiencing and experimenting for myself my whole life. I don't think that I need to be convinced of the benefits of 'self-control', in all its aspects. I'm mainly interested in Buddhism to the extent that it offers the possibility of my achieving even greater self-control and peace of mind than I already possess.

 

By self-control, I mean control over one's fears, anxieties, desires and appetites, and so on.

 

For example, I'm no longer overweight because I've achieved control over my appetite. I used to smoke, years ago, but succeeded in stopping completely, through exercise of self-control. After stopping smoking, I gradually took up drinking fine Australian wine, increasing the amount over the years until I was drinking like a Frenchman, with a glass or two, or three, with every meal. The drinking contributed to my being overweight. I now no longer drink (except very occasionally    ).

 

I could go on but that would be boasting, which would be most un-Buddhist.

 

 

Power of "self control" is a significant achievement.

 

The vast majority remain powerless in overcoming their attachments.

 

 

Significant as it is why limit yourself to "self control"?

 

Encouraged by success from the part of the Buddhas hypotheses, why don't you put his major hypothesis to the test?

 

Hypothesis:  Citta is completely independent of Form, Sensation, Perception, Mental Formations, & Consciousness, and consequently we live illusory lives due to our attachment to these.

 

Experiment: With the strength and clarity of deep Samadhi, investigate each of these skhandas until you come to know their true nature.

 

 

Without progressing further we continue to live our lives in either fear or without awareness.

Edited August 7, 2014 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

 

As regards lying, I see a connection between the Buddhist position on this, and the success of science.

Whilst Buddhism and other religions consider lying to be unwise or unethical, it is science which has shown the benefits of 'telling the truth'. Science is founded upon the capacity of certain individuals to accurately and truthfully record what they observe, and develop theories that explain what they observe. In science, all proof is provisional. All accepted theories can be subject to modification in the light of new observations. In the absence of proof we have hypotheses. In many aspects of Buddhism it seems that hypotheses are all we have to go on.

 

 

In terms of scientific research, accurate truthful test data & results is critical.

 

I'm not totally sure where we stand on misleading information for preservation of life though.

 

Hiding someone from the Gestapo for example.

 

I suppose as long as it doesn't become habitual and that intent is ethical.

[spidermike007]

 

Hi Rocky,

I've been experiencing and experimenting for myself my whole life. I don't think that I need to be convinced of the benefits of 'self-control', in all its aspects. I'm mainly interested in Buddhism to the extent that it offers the possibility of my achieving even greater self-control and peace of mind than I already possess.

 

By self-control, I mean control over one's fears, anxieties, desires and appetites, and so on.

 

For example, I'm no longer overweight because I've achieved control over my appetite. I used to smoke, years ago, but succeeded in stopping completely, through exercise of self-control. After stopping smoking, I gradually took up drinking fine Australian wine, increasing the amount over the years until I was drinking like a Frenchman, with a glass or two, or three, with every meal. The drinking contributed to my being overweight. I now no longer drink (except very occasionally    ).

 

I could go on but that would be boasting, which would be most un-Buddhist.

 

 

Power of "self control" is a significant achievement.

 

The vast majority remain powerless in overcoming their attachments.

 

 

Significant as it is why limit yourself to "self control"?

 

Encouraged by success from the part of the Buddhas hypotheses, why don't you put his major hypothesis to the test?

 

Hypothesis:  Citta is completely independent of Form, Sensation, Perception, Mental Formations, & Consciousness, and consequently we live illusory lives due to our attachment to these.

 

Experiment: With the strength and clarity of deep Samadhi, investigate each of these skhandas until you come to know their true nature.

 

 

Without progressing further we continue to live our lives in either fear or without awareness.

 

 

 

 

Noble concepts indeed. But, I would ask how many people on this planet, at any given time, have the honor of experiencing deep samadhi? How many gain that level of enlightenment, or spiritual advancement, where they experience ever new, ever conscious bliss? My guess is less than a few thousand, on the entire planet. So, while a great and noble precept, not a practical idea. A more practical idea is to work with what you have. Vincent RJ has given us some good examples. Self discipline is a great place to start, and it is something we are all capable of, if we dig deep enough, and are sufficiently motivated to do so. 

 

 

Here is a good definition of samadhi by Paramahansa Yogananda:

 

Nirvikalpa Samadhi — ''without difference", as devotee progresses to higher spiritual states he communes with God without bodily fixation; and in his ordinary waking consciousness, even in the midst of exacting worldly duties.

It requires the higher state of nirvikalpa ecstasy to perceive the partner-dance of the cosmic light and shadows of creation; even as a man who withdraws his consciousness from the plot of a motion picture can observe, by peering closely, the causative commingling of light and shadows. In nirvikalpa the devotee perceives the cosmic light, his own body, and all the scenes of creation to be moving within himself as a series of motion pictures. In this state the present, past, and future are revealed as one; all variety is merged in the unity of the Eternal Presence.

In the state of savikalpa samadhi, the attention and the life force are switched off from the senses and are consciously kept identified with the ever joyous Spirit. In this state the soul is released from the ego consciousness and becomes aware of Spirit beyond creation. The soul is then able to absorb the fire of Spirit-Wisdom that "roasts" or destroys the seeds of body-bound inclinations. The soul as the meditator, its state of meditation, and the Spirit as the object of meditation—all become one. The separate wave of the soul meditating in the ocean of Spirit becomes merged with the Spirit. The soul does not lose its iden-tity, but only expands into Spirit. In savikalpa samadhi the mind is conscious only of the Spirit within; it is not conscious of creation without (the exterior world). The body is in a trancelike state, but the consciousness is fully perceptive of its blissful experience within.

In the most advanced state, nirvikalpa samadhi, the soul realizes itself and Spirit as one. The ego consciousness, the soul consciousness, and the ocean of Spirit are seen all existing together. It is the state of simultaneously watching the ocean of Spirit and the waves of creation. The individual no longer sees himself as a "John Smith" related to a particular environment; he realizes that the ocean of Spirit has become not only the wave of John Smith but also the waves of all other lives. In nirvikalpa the soul is simultaneously conscious of Spirit within and of creation without. The divine man in the nirvikalpa state may even engage in performance of his material duties with no loss of inner God-union. (gt)

The yogi in samadhi meditation consciously suspends the activity of change in the muscles, blood, nerve force, and all tissues, and supports the body by the changeless power of Cosmic Energy from Cosmic Consciousness. (sc)

Deep samadhi meditation is possible only when all bodily functions are stilled. Proper diet and fasting are helpful in conditioning the body for this state of quiet and interiorization. (sc)

 

 

 

 

And here is a description of Samadhi by Sri Chinmoy:

 

Samadhi is a spiritual state of consciousness. There are various kinds of samadhi. Among the minor samadhis, savikalpa samadhi happens to be the highest. Beyond savikalpa comes nirvikalpa samadhi, but there is a great gulf between these two: they are two radically different samadhis. Again, there is something even beyond nirvikalpa samadhi called sahaja samadhi.

In savikalpa samadhi, for a short period of time you lose all human consciousness. In this state the conception of time and space is altogether different. For an hour or two hours you are completely in another world. You see there that almost everything is done. Here in this world there are many desires still unfulfilled in yourself and in others. Millions of desires are not fulfilled, and millions of things remain to be done. But when you are in savikalpa samadhi, you see that practically everything is done; you have nothing to do. You are only an instrument. If you are used, well and good; otherwise, things are all done. But from savikalpa samadhi everybody has to return to ordinary consciousness.

Even in savikalpa samadhi there are grades. Just as there are brilliant students and poor students in the same class in school, so also in savikalpa samadhi some aspirants reach the highest grade, while less aspiring seekers reach a lower rung of the ladder, where everything is not so clear and vivid as on the highest level.

In savikalpa samadhi there are thoughts and ideas coming from various places, but they do not affect you. While you are meditating, you remain undisturbed, and your inner being functions in a dynamic and confident manner. But when you are a little higher, when you have become one with the soul in nirvikalpa samadhi, there will be no ideas or thoughts at all. I am trying to explain it in words, but the consciousness of nirvikalpa samadhi can never be adequately explained or expressed. I am trying my best to tell you about this from a very high consciousness, but still my mind is expressing it. But in nirvikalpa samadhi there is no mind; there is only infinite peace and bliss. There nature's dance stops, and the knower and the known become one. There you enjoy a supremely divine, all-pervading, self-amorous ecstasy. You become the object of enjoyment, you become the enjoyer and you become the enjoyment itself.

When you enter into nirvikalpa samadhi, the first thing you feel is that your heart is larger than the universe itself. Ordinarily you see the world around you, and the universe seems infinitely larger than you are. But this is because the world and the universe are perceived by the limited mind. When you are in nirvikalpa samadhi, you see the universe as a tiny dot inside your vast heart.

In nirvikalpa samadhi there is infinite bliss. Bliss is a vague word to most people. They hear that there is something called bliss, and some people say that they have experienced it, but most individuals have no firsthand knowledge of it. When you enter into nirvikalpa samadhi, however, you not only feel bliss, but actually grow into that bliss.

The third thing you feel in nirvikalpa samadhi is power. All the power of all the occultists put together is nothing compared with the power you have in nirvikalpa samadhi. But the power that you can take from samadhi to utilise on earth is infinitesimal compared with the entirety.

Nirvikalpa samadhi is the highest samadhi that most realised spiritual Masters attain. It lasts for a few hours or a few days, and then one has to come down. When one comes down, what happens? Very often one forgets his own name and age; one cannot speak or think properly. But through continued practice, gradually one becomes able to come down from nirvikalpa samadhi and immediately function in a normal way. Generally, when one enters into nirvikalpa samadhi, one does not want to come back into the world again. If one stays there for eighteen or twenty-one days, there is every possibility that the soul will leave the body for good. There were spiritual Masters in the hoary past who attained nirvikalpa samadhi and did not come down. They attained their highest samadhi, but found it impossible to enter into the world atmosphere again and work like human beings. One cannot operate in the world while in that state of consciousness; it is simply impossible. But there is a divine dispensation. If the Supreme wants a particular soul to work here on earth, even after twenty-one or twenty-two days, the Supreme can take that individual into was another channel of dynamic, divine consciousness and have him return to the earth-plane to act. Sahaja samadhi is by far the highest type of samadhi. In this samadhi one is in the highest consciousness but, at the same time, one is able to work in the gross physical world. One maintains the experience of nirvikalpa samadhi while simultaneously entering into earthly activities. One has become the soul and, at the same time, is utilising the body as a perfect instrument. In sahaja samadhi one does the usual things that an ordinary human being does. But in the inmost recesses of the heart one is surcharged with divine illumination. When one has this sahaja samadhi, one becomes the Lord and Master of Reality. One can go at his sweet will to the Highest and then come down to the earth-consciousness to manifest.

Even after achieving the highest type of realisation, on very rare occasions is anyone blessed with sahaja samadhi. Very few spiritual Masters have achieved this state. For sahaja samadhi, the Supreme's infinite Grace is required. Sahaja samadhi comes only when one has established inseparable oneness with the Supreme, or when one wants to show, on rare occasions, that he is the Supreme. He who has achieved sahaja samadhi and remains in this samadhi, consciously and perfectly manifests God at every second, and is thus the greatest pride of the Transcendental Supreme.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2014 by spidermike007