DNS wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:58 pm
Notably absent in the passage above are the words: unfactual, untrue, BUT beneficial, endearing & agreeable to others
. The Buddha does NOT say this is bad and not to be said, it is simply not addressed
in this passage. The Dhamma is complete; good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end. Why is that absent? Perhaps we are to use our best judgment from the Great Standards and what is best for us and others, for what is beneficial, even if it means using a little skillful means.
The Buddha used skillful means with Nanda (I know some believe it was not skillful means) and with Kisa Gotami.
in that Sutta the Tathagata is the maker of those actions. And by its own nature, the Thatagata cannot say unfactual or untrue things because the Tathagata is the same Truth. At the end what is not truth become antithetic with what is good. When we say a lie, a kamma of ignorance is established, and it should be repaired in some future. The Tathagata is the nature opposite to that. I understand this is the reason because there is no the case of the Thatagata saying unfactual, untrue things even benefical.
Although I think the same on what you explain, about using our best judgment and skillfuil means.
When we say something "unfactual, untrue, BUT beneficial, endearing & agreeable to others", this is what we do in example with the children, to protect them in front dangerous things or impossible to understand for them. This is a mixed kamma. When the children grows they will start to ask and then we will explain to them. And it will be solved. On the contrary, that past good intention could become a damage for them. (This is also interesting for our present world of lies, long time under similar reasonings, when now quite people start to ask).
First sense to avoid lying is to avoid the intention to deceive others for the own selfish benefit. When an evil intention is not present, the lie will inhabit a gray zone for the own discernment. It will depend of situations. The resultant kamma will be mixed because a lie existed anyway.
Real problem is accepting our situation. In the lay life we are very exposed. We are forced to generate a lot of kamma, a good part is mixed and also bad. It is not possible to change that. Solitude or the monastic life are the only suitable options to change that. There is not need to invent a new puritanism for the lay life because it is useless trying to ignore what the worldly life implies.
Nevertheless, nibbana is not a reward because sila. Nibbana is not further while the Path is kept, even with killing and lies. Suttas shows that (with Angulimala and others). It is the kamma to burn and the future dukkha what makes the difference. Evil actions means future obstacles in mind and life to be disentangled, more effort and more dhukkha.
Lay life means we should use soft lies and skilful means, even if we don't like it.
sentinel wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:12 am
Is it a compulsory for a buddhist to reveal everything to others truthfully therefore synonymous to non lying ?
Or not lying does not necessitate to tell the truth ?
keeping silence is not lying. Silence is the best option for some complicated situations. Although many times this is very difficult or impossible in the lay life. One should deal with the generation of that kamma, these situations are unavoidable