Understanding the fourth precept

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva » Sun Mar 27, 2016 3:21 pm

Cormac Brown wrote:Please, feel free not to say anything more. However, I will address this to you. You make the common mistake that the only options in such a case are a) lying and b) telling the truth. You could refuse to talk, or change the subject, or tell them you don't want to answer them. You wouldn't have to lie.
Although it is true that there is almost never only one option, doing all those things you mentioned would probably and easily be interpreted, in the case of a German hiding Jews from Nazis, as you hiding away Jews and result in them, as well as yourself being killed.

Cormac Brown
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:10 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by Cormac Brown » Sun Mar 27, 2016 3:49 pm

samseva wrote:
Cormac Brown wrote:Please, feel free not to say anything more. However, I will address this to you. You make the common mistake that the only options in such a case are a) lying and b) telling the truth. You could refuse to talk, or change the subject, or tell them you don't want to answer them. You wouldn't have to lie.
Although it is true that there is almost never only one option, doing all those things you mentioned would probably and easily be interpreted, in the case of a German hiding Jews from Nazis, as you hiding away Jews and result in them, as well as yourself being killed.
As the Buddha says, loss of life isn't something to be feared. We've lost lives countless times before. He says the loss of others' lives isn't to be feared, either. What he says is to be feared is losing your virtue (AN 5.130), which you and other misguided people seem to be advocating. In advocating this, ironically, very bad kamma is being made - if others are stupid enough to read and believe yours, aloka's and clw_uk's posts, you're playing a part in their going to hell, as well as setting yourself on a bad course. You should stop.

It's quite simple. A stream-enterer wouldn't lie, no matter what.
“I in the present who am a worthy one, rightly self-awakened, am a
teacher of action, a teacher of activity, a teacher of persistence. But the
worthless man Makkhali contradicts even me, (saying,) ‘There is no
action. There is no activity. There is no persistence.’ "
AN 3.138, trans. Ven. Thanissaro

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva » Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:17 pm

Cormac Brown wrote:As the Buddha says, loss of life isn't something to be feared. We've lost lives countless times before. He says the loss of others' lives isn't to be feared, either. What he says is to be feared is losing your virtue (AN 5.130), which you and other misguided people seem to be advocating. In advocating this, ironically, very bad kamma is being made - if others are stupid enough to read and believe yours, aloka's and clw_uk's posts, you're playing a part in their going to hell, as well as setting yourself on a bad course. You should stop.

It's quite simple. A stream-enterer wouldn't lie, no matter what.
Did you read the When is it ok to lie? thread?

I think you are taking it a little too far, Cormac, especially saying we are playing a part in people going to hell (for one, you know nothing of such kammic results, blatantly pulling this out of nowhere, and for two, this is far from the case). Furthermore, the fear of committing but a small lie to prevent one or even a thousand people from dying, for the sake of having pure morality is probably rooted in large part in selfishness rather than wisdom.

The fact that a Stream-Enterer wouldn't lie is true, but it is due to the fact that for a Stream-Enterer to lie is impossible. To invert the premises to claim that because a Stream-Enterer couldn't/wouldn't lie, that no one should lie, no matter the cost (and only to say such a thing would even result in playing a part in people going to hell) is an error in basic logic.

Cormac, I am sure it is fact that you broke the precept of lying many times. Maybe even today. Yet you claim you would tell the truth (or try to change the subject, say you don't want to answer and so on) to a Nazi soldier, even if that would directly cause the death of a number of people.

User avatar
bodom
Posts: 5878
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by bodom » Sun Mar 27, 2016 5:10 pm

Though dealing with the second precept the following from the vinaya may be of interest:
At one time a certain monk out of compassion released a pig trapped in a snare. He became anxious …

“What was your intention, monk?”

“I was motivated by compassion, Master.”

“There is no offence for one who is motivated by compassion.”
At one time a certain monk out of compassion released a deer trapped in a snare. … “There is no offence for one who is motivated by compassion.” … out of compassion released fish trapped in a fish-net … “There is no offence for one who is motivated by compassion.” …
As we can see from these examples it is the intention that is of upmost importance.

https://suttacentral.net/en/pi-tv-bu-vb-pj2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:namaste:
To study is to know the texts,
To practice is to know your defilements,
To attain the goal is to know and let go.

- Ajahn Lee Dhammadharo


With mindfulness immersed in the body
well established, restrained
with regard to the six media of contact,
always centered, the monk
can know Unbinding for himself.

- Ud 3.5


"Dont send the mind outside. Watch the mind right at the mind."

- Ajahn Dune Atulo

Cormac Brown
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:10 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by Cormac Brown » Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:12 pm

samseva wrote:
I think you are taking it a little too far, Cormac, especially saying we are playing a part in people going to hell (for one, you know nothing of such kammic results, blatantly pulling this out of nowhere, and for two, this is far from the case).
[Edit: Comment withdrawn.]

I implied that if people were to read and believe your comments that lying is ok in certain situations, that would lead them to a bad destination. I go by conviction in the Buddha on this matter - do you call this "blatantly pulling this out of nowhere?" If people acted on your advice, and we are to believe the Buddha, they would be highly likely to go to hell. It is you who are going too far.
Furthermore, the fear of committing but a small lie to prevent one or even a thousand people from dying, for the sake of having pure morality is probably rooted in large part in selfishness rather than wisdom.
Who says that self concern and wisdom are incompatible? You are here quite clearly calling stream-enterers, and those on the path to stream-entry, in fact all noble disciples "selfish," for none of them would lie for any reason. Maybe they are selfish, but they're wisely selfish. As the Buddha says, no matter how hard you look in the world, you'll never find anyone you care for more than you care for yourself. (SN 3.8) Sila, for them, clearly has a much higher value than it does for you.
The fact that a Stream-Enterer wouldn't lie is true, but it is due to the fact that for a Stream-Enterer to lie is impossible. To invert the premises to claim that because a Stream-Enterer couldn't/wouldn't lie, that no one should lie, no matter the cost (and only to say such a thing would even result in playing a part in people going to hell) is an error in basic logic.
Please, Sam, show me my "error in basic logic." I fail to see it. Noble disciples are people who have trained themselves not to lie, until it has become impossible for them to do so, until they've seen so clearly the harm that comes from it that they won't do it, for their own life, for your life, for their mother's life - not for anything. Even people on the path to stream-entry are incapable of breaking the precepts. (SN 25.1) People are free to lie as they please, but if they do they can't be considered disciples of the Buddha, and they will reap painful consequences.

I can understand why it might make you uncomfortable, but by publicly declaring it to be ok to lie, you could of course be playing a part in other ignorant readers' journey downwards. You should rescind.
Cormac, I am sure it is fact that you broke the precept of lying many times. Maybe even today. Yet you claim you would tell the truth (or try to change the subject, say you don't want to answer and so on) to a Nazi soldier, even if that would directly cause the death of a number of people.
How ill-mannered and presumptive. Nevertheless, I'll respond. Yes I have broken this precept in the past. I have not broken it today. Also, I didn't "claim I would" anything. I stated that these would be possible alternatives, and actually "telling the truth" wasn't one I mentioned. Watch it. Seriously.
“I in the present who am a worthy one, rightly self-awakened, am a
teacher of action, a teacher of activity, a teacher of persistence. But the
worthless man Makkhali contradicts even me, (saying,) ‘There is no
action. There is no activity. There is no persistence.’ "
AN 3.138, trans. Ven. Thanissaro

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva » Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:13 pm

For a matter of fact, I never said "lying is okay in some situations"; this is something you inferred.
samseva wrote:It is against the precept, but [in the case of a Nazi soldier searching your home for Jews in hiding] saying the truth [or refusing to speak, trying to change the subject and so on] and letting someone or many people be killed is a thousand times worse.
Cormac Brown wrote:
Cormac, I am sure it is fact that you broke the precept of lying many times. Maybe even today. Yet you claim you would tell the truth (or try to change the subject, say you don't want to answer and so on) to a Nazi soldier, even if that would directly cause the death of a number of people.
How ill-mannered and presumptive. Nevertheless, I'll respond. Yes I have broken this precept in the past. I have not broken it today. Also, I didn't "claim I would" anything. I stated that these would be possible alternatives, and actually "telling the truth" wasn't one I mentioned. Watch it. Seriously.
I think this part of your response speaks for itself. The times you did break the precept, were they to save someone's life or for something very unimportant?

If we take the same reasoning with the fifth precept, I am guessing you wouldn't even drink a few gulps of beer (if drinking and not drinking would be the only two possible options), even if it would prevent people from being killed—maybe someone with the same ideologies as Hitler but with Buddhists instead of Jews would be in power and not drinking a bit of beer would reveal your religion and get you and your friends killed (it's not improbable; similar situations probably happened many times 70 or so years ago)? It is clear that a Stream-Enterer wouldn't break the fifth precept as well, so you would let your friends be killed right in front of you to avoid having to drink a few gulps of beer?

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by clw_uk » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:16 am

This whole thread reminds me of a quote from Steven Weinberg:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

I have also noticed that Cormac Brown hasn't provided us with any moral reasoning as to why we shouldn't lie, which is strange as he/she (sorry I don't know your sex) seems to be trying to make moral statements/prescriptions.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:35 am

clw_uk wrote:This whole thread reminds me of a quote from Steven Weinberg:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
You are on a Buddhist forum, which is a religion. Also, the problem is not religion itself, but the people who have no understanding of the teachings and/or have blind faith. More specifically, it is ignorance, delusion, hatred and greed. I don't think there is a more well laid-out teaching than Buddhism about the problems and the exact source of those problems.

It's a bit like blaming politics for Donald Trump getting lots of votes. It's not politics that is the problem of Donald Trump possibly being elected, but the people voting for him who are the cause; more specifically, it is lack of education and intelligence in most cases (or fear, craving for security and so on).

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by clw_uk » Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:22 am

Samseva -
You are on a Buddhist forum, which is a religion.
That's debatable, but for another topic.
Also, the problem is not religion itself, but the people who have no understanding of the teachings and/or have blind faith.
If of course depends on the religion as some religions are more damaging than others. My point was that to put the emphasis on a possible future life over and above this one can lead to good people doing evil things, which I think was the main thrust of the quote.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

D1W1
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 » Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:57 am

samseva wrote:
D1W1 wrote:
samseva wrote: What I described is from the Buddhist Monastic Code I. If it applies for a monk, it is applicable for a layman as well—in the sense that if attempting to kill someone but not succeeding does not entail a pārājika, then it would be safe to say it doesn't break the precept as well. Although not quite in line with it and the very serious intentions and actions do have their own kamma regardless of the absence of the breach of the precept.
Regarding BMC I. On Pg. 245:
The K/Commentary, summarizing the long “wheels” in the Vibhaºga, states that a violation of this rule requires two factors:
1) Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and
2) Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to
communicate based on that aim.
But on Pg.246 on third paragraph it says:
Result is not a factor under this rule. Thus whether anyone understands the
lie or is deceived by it is irrelevant to the offense.
Do Effort (No.2) and Pg.246 statement not contradict each other?
Effort and Result are two different factors. Effort is putting forth action that would be considered lying; Result would be the person believing the lie (or any other possibility).

So, from this, no matter what happens after the effort is made (unless something grave happens due to the lie, or you said something specific, which could both fall under other rules), be it that the person believes you or not—or even hears you speak at all—is not a factor in determining the offense.

However, this has to do with the Vinaya. Morally speaking, telling a lie without the person hearing you at all would still be unwholesome; the person believing you and doing something because of this information would, I think, have bigger kammic implications.
So you say something false to a cat, for example. The cat doesn't understand, is that considered lying? Or maybe talking something false with the intention to lie to non-living things.

I asked a monastic member, he says other people have to understand what was said. If someone does not understand false statement because other person speaks in foreign language, that is not lying. I asked but the intention to lie is there, he clarified that is unwholesome but that is not lying. I asked whether the fourth conditions are only for the laity, he said when it comes to lying there is no difference between laity and monastic.

I think this is similar to the first precept, when someone is not dead (last requirement), how can we say someone has killed him/her, right?

Four conditions also described in http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... satha.html

The fourth precept has four factors:

atatham-vatthu — a falsehood.
visam-vadana-cittam — the intention to speak a falsehood.
tajjo vayamo — the effort is made.
parassa ta-dattha-vijananam — others understand what was said.

But obviously they contradict each other. Maybe someone knows why they are different? I think factors need to be fulfilled in Vinaya somehow is the correct one but the same thing with the latter one.

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva » Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:38 pm

D1W1 wrote:[...]
This is straight from the Buddhist Monastic Code I (page 237):
1. A deliberate lie is to be confessed.

[...]

A deliberate lie is a statement or gesture made with the aim of misrepresenting the truth to someone else. The K/Commentary, summarizing the long “wheels” in the Vibhaṇga, states that a violation of this rule requires two factors:
1) Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and
2) Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to
communicate based on that aim.

[...]

Result is not a factor under this rule. Thus whether anyone understands the lie or is deceived by it is irrelevant to the offense.
For the layman and according to the text written and compiled by Ñanavara Thera, it seems the four conditions mentioned need to be there. However, I'll have to look it up to make sure. This is not the case for the Vinaya rule, although, all monks still have precepts. I checked the other rules regarding lying (Pr 4, Sg 8 or 9, Pc 13, 24, and 76) and none of them require the factor of result.

Regarding the cat or the person not speaking the same language as you, by Vinaya standards, that would be a breach of the rule, although the Pāli would need to be looked over to see if an animal counts as an individual and if such a passage is present (it is a good guess talking to inanimate objects wouldn't be). For the precept, it would be unwholesome kamma, but like mentioned above, to know if it breaks the precept would need a confirmation regarding the different factors needing to be present.

D1W1
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 » Tue Mar 29, 2016 5:40 am

samseva wrote:
D1W1 wrote:[...]
This is straight from the Buddhist Monastic Code I (page 237):
1. A deliberate lie is to be confessed.

[...]

A deliberate lie is a statement or gesture made with the aim of misrepresenting the truth to someone else. The K/Commentary, summarizing the long “wheels” in the Vibhaṇga, states that a violation of this rule requires two factors:
1) Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and
2) Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to
communicate based on that aim.

[...]

Result is not a factor under this rule. Thus whether anyone understands the lie or is deceived by it is irrelevant to the offense.
For the layman and according to the text written and compiled by Ñanavara Thera, it seems the four conditions mentioned need to be there. However, I'll have to look it up to make sure. This is not the case for the Vinaya rule, although, all monks still have precepts. I checked the other rules regarding lying (Pr 4, Sg 8 or 9, Pc 13, 24, and 76) and none of them require the factor of result.

Regarding the cat or the person not speaking the same language as you, by Vinaya standards, that would be a breach of the rule, although the Pāli would need to be looked over to see if an animal counts as an individual and if such a passage is present (it is a good guess talking to inanimate objects wouldn't be). For the precept, it would be unwholesome kamma, but like mentioned above, to know if it breaks the precept would need a confirmation regarding the different factors needing to be present.

Thanks for your reply, samseva.
Take for example Pc. 76, I would say that is not lying but groundlessly accusing other. Accusing others without fact but that is not the same as lying in musavada.

Check this out:
https://ctrlv.cz/GtcH" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Analysis Vinaya by Bhikkhu Nyanatusita. Also similar with Sanghadisesa 9, without fact maliciously accuse other bhikkhu but I think that is not lying as we normally know.

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva » Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:25 pm

D1W1 wrote:Take for example Pc. 76, I would say that is not lying but groundlessly accusing other. Accusing others without fact but that is not the same as lying in musavada.
According to Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's Buddhist Monastic Code, the unfounded accusation is not considered true by the accuser, which seems it would make it lying.
2) Perception: One has not seen, heard, or suspected him of committing the offense one is charging him with.

[...]

Non-offenses. As under Sg 8, there is no offense if one makes the accusation—or gets someone else to make it—when one thinks it to be true, even if the other bhikkhu is actually not guilty of the offense.
D1W1 wrote:Also similar with Saṇghadisesa 9, without fact maliciously accuse other bhikkhu but I think that is not lying as we normally know.
It is similar with Sanghādisesa 8 and 9. This issue is with the meaning of the term 'unfounded charge'. Here is the Vibaṇga's definition:
The Vibhaṇga defines an unfounded charge as one having no basis in what has been seen, heard, or suspected. In other words, the accuser has not seen the accused committing the offense in question, nor has he heard anything reliable to that effect, nor is there anything in the accused’s behavior to give rise to any honest suspicion.
Making up false facts or even distorting facts would be considered as lying. Regarding distorted facts, If you say you caught a 3-foot fish, when you know in reality it is only 2 feet, that is a lie.

D1W1
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 » Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:07 am

samseva wrote:
D1W1 wrote:Take for example Pc. 76, I would say that is not lying but groundlessly accusing other. Accusing others without fact but that is not the same as lying in musavada.
According to Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's Buddhist Monastic Code, the unfounded accusation is not considered true by the accuser, which seems it would make it lying.
2) Perception: One has not seen, heard, or suspected him of committing the offense one is charging him with.

[...]

Non-offenses. As under Sg 8, there is no offense if one makes the accusation—or gets someone else to make it—when one thinks it to be true, even if the other bhikkhu is actually not guilty of the offense.
D1W1 wrote:Also similar with Saṇghadisesa 9, without fact maliciously accuse other bhikkhu but I think that is not lying as we normally know.
It is similar with Sanghādisesa 8 and 9. This issue is with the meaning of the term 'unfounded charge'. Here is the Vibaṇga's definition:
The Vibhaṇga defines an unfounded charge as one having no basis in what has been seen, heard, or suspected. In other words, the accuser has not seen the accused committing the offense in question, nor has he heard anything reliable to that effect, nor is there anything in the accused’s behavior to give rise to any honest suspicion.
Making up false facts or even distorting facts would be considered as lying. Regarding distorted facts, If you say you caught a 3-foot fish, when you know in reality it is only 2 feet, that is a lie.
Sorry for the late reply.
So does it mean when a Bhikkhu breaches Sanghadisesa 9 or 8, he is automatically breaches Pacittiya (lying)? I am yet to receive an answer from a monastic whether a mere effort is considered lie or not, will post it here. Other monastic members in this forum is more than welcome to give a response. I just couldn't make it make sense how an effort considered a lie except it's an unwholesome mind activity.

D1W1
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 » Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:46 am

D1W1 wrote:In the commentary, it's said in order to lie four conditions must be met:

1. An untrue statement
2. Intention to lie
3. Effort is made
4. Others deceived

Edit: 4. Others understand what was said not Others deceived.

But I read somewhere Thanissaro Bhikkhu says whether someone is deceived or not is irrelevant, it's not in the original Vinaya.
I think it's understandable even if someone is not deceived, the intention to lie is there. It depends on the doer not the perceiver, so I think one doesn't need to fulfil all the requirements. But at the same time it's not quite relevant either, if a being is not dead (no 4. requirement), how can we say someone killed him/her?

To make it more complex, Buddha advice to Rahula is:

tasmātiha te, rāhula, ‘hassāpi na musā bhaṇissāmī’ti: evañhi te, rāhula, sikkhitabbaṃ.

Ñāṇamoli:
“Therefore, Rāhula, you should train thus: ‘I will not utter a falsehood even as a joke.’”

I.B. Horner:
“Wherefore, for you, Rāhula, ‘I will not speak a lie, even for fun’ – this is how you must train yourself, Rāhula.”

The scope of hassā musā is somewhat narrower than its usual English translations might seem to suggest. It would include such acts as falsely telling someone that she has a bug crawling in her hair or knowingly sending someone on a fruitless errand. It wouldn’t include telling jokes in the sense of funny fictional anecdotes with a punchline, whose fictional character is implicitly understood by speaker and audience.
(http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ka#p326713" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Rahula was a monastic member, I believe, then he should naturally followed the original Vinaya i.e. understanding of lie is irrelevant as opposed to followed commentary. Do you think all requirements have to be fulfilled in order to break a precept or not?
As written above, if a mere effort is considered a breach for monastic member then why telling a lie as a joke (It wouldn’t include telling jokes in the sense of funny fictional anecdotes with a punchline, whose fictional character is implicitly understood by speaker and audience) is not a considered breaching the precept? We know Rahula was a monk and Buddha gave this advice to him as a monk.

On Pg.245:
Also, outrageous lies meant as jokes—to amuse rather than to deceive—would fall under this rule as well (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... o/bmc1.pdf)

Can you please respond, Bhante Dhammanando? Thanks.

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva » Sun Apr 03, 2016 1:15 pm

D1W1 wrote:Sorry for the late reply.
So does it mean when a Bhikkhu breaches Sanghadisesa 9 or 8, he is automatically breaches Pacittiya (lying)? I am yet to receive an answer from a monastic whether a mere effort is considered lie or not, will post it here. Other monastic members in this forum is more than welcome to give a response. I just couldn't make it make sense how an effort considered a lie except it's an unwholesome mind activity.
Yes, I think so. However, being that a Saṅghādisesa is a relatively grave offense, the Pācittiya doesn't add much to the situation.

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva » Sun Apr 03, 2016 1:27 pm

D1W1 wrote:...
The Vinaya rules and the Suttas are two different things. Even the precepts and the Vinaya are two different things as well. The former are moral values while the latter is a set of rules in part to ensure communal harmony (which could in part explain the short section of the rule regarding outrageous jokes).

D1W1
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 » Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:23 am

samseva wrote:
D1W1 wrote:...
The Vinaya rules and the Suttas are two different things. Even the precepts and the Vinaya are two different things as well. The former are moral values while the latter is a set of rules in part to ensure communal harmony (which could in part explain the short section of the rule regarding outrageous jokes).
Maybe, but they are not supposed to contradict each other, aren't they?
In the Bhante Dhammanando's previous reply, he said telling fictional character as a joke is not considered a lie because it is understood by audience. I'm wondering if we can find "understood by audience" in the Sutta or Precept or even Vinaya?

Is Bhante still around :shrug: ?

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:06 pm

D1W1 wrote:Maybe, but they are not supposed to contradict each other, aren't they?
In the Bhante Dhammanando's previous reply, he said telling fictional character as a joke is not considered a lie because it is understood by audience. I'm wondering if we can find "understood by audience" in the Sutta or Precept or even Vinaya?

Is Bhante still around :shrug: ?
No, the Vinaya doesn't necessarily contradict itself. It is simply that to cover all possible actions of an individual (even actions of the mind) is near impossible, therefore there are many nuances, exceptions, variations and so on to take into account. Also, what is considered a lie (or regarding any other topic), taking into consideration at what point something becomes a lie (or another action), for a bhikkhu, is very different.

Morally, portraying a fictional character maybe isn't a lie (although, according to the Tālapuṭa Sutta, things aren't very promising). Even if it wouldn't be a lie, it could be considered a lie and/or an offense in the Vinaya (I don't know for sure, I would have to check).

D1W1
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 » Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:30 am

samseva wrote:
D1W1 wrote:Maybe, but they are not supposed to contradict each other, aren't they?
In the Bhante Dhammanando's previous reply, he said telling fictional character as a joke is not considered a lie because it is understood by audience. I'm wondering if we can find "understood by audience" in the Sutta or Precept or even Vinaya?

Is Bhante still around :shrug: ?
No, the Vinaya doesn't necessarily contradict itself. It is simply that to cover all possible actions of an individual (even actions of the mind) is near impossible, therefore there are many nuances, exceptions, variations and so on to take into account. Also, what is considered a lie (or regarding any other topic), taking into consideration at what point something becomes a lie (or another action), for a bhikkhu, is very different.

But a monastic member I asked before was not agree with what is considered lie as mentioned in the Vinaya translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. I think that would be unwholesome mind activity but lie is another thing, IMO. Lying is not exclusively owned by monastic members or lay people, a lay person can lie, which is musavada, the same thing as a monastic member.
samseva wrote: Morally, portraying a fictional character maybe isn't a lie (although, according to the Tālapuṭa Sutta, things aren't very promising). Even if it wouldn't be a lie, it could be considered a lie and/or an offense in the Vinaya (I don't know for sure, I would have to check).
That's why I'm not sure how did Bhante Dhammanando come to that conclusion.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DCM and 8 guests