Understanding the fourth precept

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
Tex
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:46 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by Tex »

I'll take a shot...
1. A person pretends to ask direction in order to get to know someone.
I guess s/he isn't technically saying something false, but it is a bit deceptive. Why not just use a more genuine ice-breaker? Compliment someone's tie or shoes or ask if they saw the game last night or...
2. One pretends he or she has an appointment or has something to do in order to end an uncomfortable conversation with someone.
Why make up something specific instead of saying something general instead? "I'm sorry to cut you off, but I really have a lot of work I need to get back to, excuse me." That statement is always true for me, it doesn't hurt people's feelings, and I get on with my day.
3. Someone gives impression as if he is looking at something else when he is actually looking at somebody watch.
I can't imagine why I would do this. It doesn't have to do with Right Speech in any case. But it sounds devious and probably a bad idea.
4. Someone asks personal questions, as a reply we answer "I don't know".
I wouldn't do this, either. If I felt like answering, I would. If I didn't, I would decline and be frank about why. I think it's worth noting that we can be firm without violating the fourth precept.

The key to the precepts, and to kamma in general, is intention. Looking at the intentions in the examples above, I see "pretends" in #1, "pretends" in #2, "gives impression" in #3, and so on. Is the intention to speak truthfully or beneficially in any of these cases? If not, why not?

As a side note: when I was new to Buddhism several years ago, I came up with all kinds of hypotheticals like this (some here probably recall, lol). I think it's natural to want to figure it all out and be armed with the right response for every situation that might arise. But I realized eventually that it's unnecessary. If our understanding, intention, and resolve are good, our speech and action will tend to follow suit and we'll instinctively know how to respond to the vast majority of situations that come up.

I hope this helps a little.
"To reach beyond fear and danger we must sharpen and widen our vision. We have to pierce through the deceptions that lull us into a comfortable complacency, to take a straight look down into the depths of our existence, without turning away uneasily or running after distractions." -- Bhikkhu Bodhi

"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." -- Heraclitus
santa100
Posts: 6799
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by santa100 »

D1W1 wrote:I think this can become a problem, for example, when the mindfulness tells you the action is (slightly) wrong therefore it will produce suffering in the present life or in next life but when you try to apply it is almost impossible not to do it because of "human nature", I think mentally can be quite unhealthy to some extent. You don't feel that you are keeping the precept. And if the mindfulness tells you the action is grey, that is even harder whether we need to refrain or not.
Notice the training is a gradual process which takes time and effort to progress from low to more refine levels. Lay people observe the five precepts; 8 on Uposatha occasions, 10 for novice, and 227 for fully ordained. It takes a lot of time and effort to overcome our "basic instincts" or "human nature". To someone who never takes piano lessons, it's impossible to play complex Mozart pieces in a day or two. It'd take years of training with all one's mind and energy. What seems impossible to a novice is just a walk in the park for the pro. What seems "harmless" to a common man would not be so to an experienced monastic with years and years of the triple-training in Discipline, Meditation, and Wisdom.
D1W1 wrote:Edit: Even the strictest monastic vinaya does not really mention whether above actions are breaking the precept or not. It falls under 92 pācittiyas, but again, it's all about speech. The first one is "not to lie" (http://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227.htm" 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;" 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;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Please correct me if I'm wrong or missed something.
It's the meaning and spirit of the letters, not the letters themselves. The strictest monastic vinaya also has never really mentioned anything about "heroin" or "porn". That doesn't give the green light for monastics to use those things.
SarathW
Posts: 21184
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by SarathW »

Hi Santa
I believe that ten precepts are already a part of 227 rules.
Are they (ten precepts) same in application to a full ordained or more refined?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
santa100
Posts: 6799
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by santa100 »

True, the 10 rules are already part of the 227 rules. So basically the 227 are concrete ways to implement those 10 rules with more refined precision. Example, 3rd rule: abstain from sexual intercourse is further divided into more detailed rules: no sex with human, with animal, intentional "emission" other than wet dream, etc..
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva »

D1W1 wrote:
samseva wrote: Incorrect speech also has to do with idle chatter and a few other things, but regarding lying, it is better to see it as 'avoiding deceit' (of any kind). Deceit is any time you are trying to deceive someone else. Even if you are telling the truth and your intention is to deceive, then that is very similar to lying and in line with what the precept goes against. Watch your intentions carefully and try to spot very subtle forms of deceit you create.
One out of four of the requirements to break this precept, is falsehood. How can someone is deceiving when he or she is telling the truth?
Someone can say true facts but which will intentionally create a false understanding for the receiver. It's not lying, but it's deceit.
D1W1
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 »

1. A person pretends to ask direction in order to get to know someone.
I guess s/he isn't technically saying something false, but it is a bit deceptive. Why not just use a more genuine ice-breaker? Compliment someone's tie or shoes or ask if they saw the game last night or...

2. One pretends he or she has an appointment or has something to do in order to end an uncomfortable conversation with someone.
Why make up something specific instead of saying something general instead? "I'm sorry to cut you off, but I really have a lot of work I need to get back to, excuse me." That statement is always true for me, it doesn't hurt people's feelings, and I get on with my day.


3. Someone gives impression as if he is looking at something else when he is actually looking at somebody watch.
I can't imagine why I would do this. It doesn't have to do with Right Speech in any case. But it sounds devious and probably a bad idea.
4. Someone asks personal questions, as a reply we answer "I don't know".
I wouldn't do this, either. If I felt like answering, I would. If I didn't, I would decline and be frank about why. I think it's worth noting that we can be firm without violating the fourth precept.
I think it depends on the person we are talking to, if we know someone is going to be offended with our respond, we are trying not to offend them. Annoying questions or cultural differences can cause this and the answer such as "I don't know" can come up.

I think there are many reasons, some people have different character such as very straightforward character but other people are not very direct.
As for the first and second reply, complimenting someone when one doesn't want to complimenting or saying " I really have a lot of work " when one doesn't have a lot of work, IMO, is the same thing as lying.
D1W1
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 »

Tex wrote:The key to the precepts, and to kamma in general, is intention. Looking at the intentions in the examples above, I see "pretends" in #1, "pretends" in #2, "gives impression" in #3, and so on.
santa100 wrote: It's the meaning and spirit of the letters, not the letters themselves. The strictest monastic vinaya also has never really mentioned anything about "heroin" or "porn". That doesn't give the green light for monastics to use those things.
So "I don't know" can mean someone avoids to answer a question, uninterested about a particular topic, etc.. It's not the letter but the intention i.e. avoid to give an answer, etc.
Another person depressed because he doesn't have a job, he writes an experience which he doesn't have on his resume with the intention he will be hired. Does he have intention to lie?
Last edited by D1W1 on Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
D1W1
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 »

samseva wrote: Someone can say true facts but which will intentionally create a false understanding for the receiver. It's not lying, but it's deceit.
Can you give an example?

But in order to deceive or lie all four conditions must be met:

1. A falsehood
2. Intention to lie
3. The effort is made
4. Others deceived

In your example, all four conditions are not met.
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva »

D1W1 wrote:
samseva wrote: Someone can say true facts but which will intentionally create a false understanding for the receiver. It's not lying, but it's deceit.
Can you give an example?

But in order to deceive or lie all four conditions must be met:

1. A falsehood
2. Intention to lie
3. The effort is made
4. Others deceived

In your example, all four conditions are not met.
Yes, but it's not lying, it is deceit.

For an example, someone could ask if you saw someone. You saw that person, but instead you say "I was gone for the past hour". This might be true, but it gives the impression that you didn't see the person, while in truth you did.
DC2R
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by DC2R »

The fourth precept also covers idle chatter, which DN 2 describes in detail. Although these are specifically for monks as stated in the sutta, is there any reason a lay person could not follow these guidelines?
Samaññaphala Sutta wrote:Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these — talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
Another point to ponder...
Samaññaphala Sutta wrote:Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these — 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' — he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
Is that why monks do not engage in these online forums often?
D1W1
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 »

D1W1 wrote:
Tex wrote:The key to the precepts, and to kamma in general, is intention. Looking at the intentions in the examples above, I see "pretends" in #1, "pretends" in #2, "gives impression" in #3, and so on.
santa100 wrote: It's the meaning and spirit of the letters, not the letters themselves. The strictest monastic vinaya also has never really mentioned anything about "heroin" or "porn". That doesn't give the green light for monastics to use those things.
So "I don't know" can mean someone avoids to answer a question, uninterested about a particular topic, etc.. It's not the letter but the intention i.e. avoid to give an answer, etc.
Another person depressed because he doesn't have a job, he writes an experience which he doesn't have on his resume with the intention he will be hired. Does he have intention to lie?
Anyone? I know this question sounds silly but I honestly don't see why s/he is lying. It's true he writes something false but his/her intention is to get hired.
D1W1
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 »

Is that why monks do not engage in these online forums often?[/quote]

I'm afraid there are many answers to this but discussion I believe is not forbidden. And there are terms such as teacher and kalyanamitta too.
santa100
Posts: 6799
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by santa100 »

D1W1 wrote:Anyone? I know this question sounds silly but I honestly don't see why s/he is lying. It's true he writes something false but his/her intention is to get hired.
According to the meaning and spirit of letters, although the vinaya has never mentioned "heroin" or "porn", it's not acceptable for monastics to use them. Similarly, the 3rd precept has never mentioned about putting skillset one doesn't possess on his resume to get hired, but that doesn't mean it's ok for such practice. One might be able to get away in non-technical field, but if one's applying for jobs in STEM (science, tech, engineering, and math) fields, it's pretty easy to find out if s/he's lying by giving a few tech questions and problems to solve. And even if one isn't lying about a particular technical skill but just simply making up some experiences s/he never did, then it's also pretty easy nowadays for a company to conduct a background check to get the needed info. through his/her old companies, contacts, social media, etc. One should stick with what's legit. and try to acquire the necessary skillset first and then put it on one's resume to apply for jobs.
Cormac Brown
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:10 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by Cormac Brown »

D1W1 wrote:Hi Venerable/ guys,

I'm kind of having a hard time understanding the meaning of the fourth precept. Is the fourth precept only about speech or more than that?

For example:

1. A person pretends to ask direction in order to get to know someone.
2. One pretends he or she has an appointment or has something to do in order to end an uncomfortable conversation with someone.
3. Someone gives impression as if he is looking at something else when he is actually looking at somebody watch.
4. Someone asks personal questions, as a reply we answer "I don't know".

I think these kind of actions are not unfamiliar to us. I think part of it is because, we, human have intelligence and creativity therefore we do this kind of thing. We need to have wisdom, precept is not a rigid moral rule. But do you consider above actions as normal/human nature or they are all lying, is it possible to not break this particular precept or keep this precept pure? Thanks all.
Just don't deceive anyone. At all.

4. Is the worst example - if you do know something, and you say you don't, that's outright lying.

If you don't want to answer something, ask a counter-question in return - e.g. "Why do you ask?"
“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
D1W1
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 »

santa100 wrote:
D1W1 wrote:Anyone? I know this question sounds silly but I honestly don't see why s/he is lying. It's true he writes something false but his/her intention is to get hired.
According to the meaning and spirit of letters, although the vinaya has never mentioned "heroin" or "porn", it's not acceptable for monastics to use them. Similarly, the 3rd precept has never mentioned about putting skillset one doesn't possess on his resume to get hired, but that doesn't mean it's ok for such practice. One might be able to get away in non-technical field, but if one's applying for jobs in STEM (science, tech, engineering, and math) fields, it's pretty easy to find out if s/he's lying by giving a few tech questions and problems to solve. And even if one isn't lying about a particular technical skill but just simply making up some experiences s/he never did, then it's also pretty easy nowadays for a company to conduct a background check to get the needed info. through his/her old companies, contacts, social media, etc. One should stick with what's legit. and try to acquire the necessary skillset first and then put it on one's resume to apply for jobs.
I'm not saying putting up false experience is right thing to do. I just say we can't "see" the intention behind that action, can we? When someone does that, his purpose is only to get a job. It's not like one says "I have one billion dollars in the bank when one doesn't have."
Post Reply