Understanding the fourth precept
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
How about a woman wearing make up or do plastic surgery. Is that considered lying?
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
The fourth precept is about speech, not about our appearance, othewise older men who dye their hair, use botox etc would be included too:steve19800 wrote:How about a woman wearing make up or do plastic surgery. Is that considered lying?
4. Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... asila.html
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
I believe it covers bodily action too because you don't need to speak in order to deceive someone. Women wearing make up if not to make others into believing something they are not then what? No offence intended.Aloka wrote:The fourth precept is about speech, not about our appearance, othewise older men who dye their hair, use botox etc would be included too:steve19800 wrote:How about a woman wearing make up or do plastic surgery. Is that considered lying?
4. Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... asila.html
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
Then why use women as an example ?... why not use men, since presumably you are a man yourself. Some men actually do use subtle make up - and city men both young and old, whatever their sexual orientation, often get their hair dyed or highlighted, get their chests waxed and so on.Women wearing make up if not to make others into believing something they are not then what? No offence intended.
Please lets not target women in a forum which has a predominantly male membership, it's not very encouraging.
-
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:10 am
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
Quite simply, no it does not cover wearing makeup. That might come under the cosmetics part of the Eight Precepts, which I'd see as trying to counter the tendency to arouse sexual interest in others, but certainly not the precept against lying. The Buddha gives quite a precise explanation of it as saying you don't know something when you do know it, or saying you do know when you don't. False testimony, basically. Here's the description of how to adhere to the precept:steve19800 wrote:I believe it covers bodily action too because you don't need to speak in order to deceive someone. Women wearing make up if not to make others into believing something they are not then what? No offence intended.Aloka wrote:The fourth precept is about speech, not about our appearance, othewise older men who dye their hair, use botox etc would be included too:steve19800 wrote:How about a woman wearing make up or do plastic surgery. Is that considered lying?
4. Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... asila.html
You could wear eyeshadow and foundation while giving perfectly true testimony. You'd still be adhering to the fourth precept and you'd look good in the process. However, maybe if you wanted to take your sila to the next level, you'd apply some makeup remover and show your skin in all its unloveliness."And how is one made pure in four ways by verbal action? There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he does know, he says, 'I know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I have seen.' Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world. Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord. Abandoning abusive speech, he abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large. Abandoning idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter. He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya. He speaks words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the goal. This is how one is made pure in four ways by verbal action.
“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
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
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
In a way, it is deceit, but everyone knows almost all women wear make-up, so it is kind of "fair game" you could say.steve19800 wrote:How about a woman wearing make up or do plastic surgery. Is that considered lying?
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
But the person who does the make up wants to show something that she doesn't have, that is, misrepresenting something untrue, right?Cormac Brown wrote: Quite simply, no it does not cover wearing makeup. That might come under the cosmetics part of the Eight Precepts, which I'd see as trying to counter the tendency to arouse sexual interest in others, but certainly not the precept against lying. The Buddha gives quite a precise explanation of it as saying you don't know something when you do know it, or saying you do know when you don't. False testimony, basically. Here's the description of how to adhere to the precept:
I think someone has said previously that we are supposed to follow the spirit of the precept not the word. If for example, you don't have a dollar in your pocket but when asked do you have a dollar in your pocket and you nod, although we don't say anything but why is that not considered lying?"And how is one made pure in four ways by verbal action? There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he does know, he says, 'I know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I have seen.' Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world. Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord. Abandoning abusive speech, he abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large. Abandoning idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter. He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya. He speaks words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the goal. This is how one is made pure in four ways by verbal action.
You could wear eyeshadow and foundation while giving perfectly true testimony. You'd still be adhering to the fourth precept and you'd look good in the process. However, maybe if you wanted to take your sila to the next level, you'd apply some makeup remover and show your skin in all its unloveliness.
When someone does a plastic surgery, she or he wants the result to be as natural as possible and one doesn't always make announcement that she has done the surgery, why is this not considered lying?
And it goes on and on ... writing fictional book, acting job e.g. actor, etc.
Last edited by steve19800 on Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
I think whether other people know women wear make up or not is not relevant because the doer is not "other people" but the women themselves, right?samseva wrote:In a way, it is deceit, but everyone knows almost all women wear make-up, so it is kind of "fair game" you could say.steve19800 wrote:How about a woman wearing make up or do plastic surgery. Is that considered lying?
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
Well, the intention to deceive of a women who wears make-up could be as intense as if no one knew that most women wear make-up (except women themselves in this case), but since it is widely known that most women do wear make-up—both to the general population and the woman herself—this does have an affect on her intention.steve19800 wrote:I think whether other people know women wear make up or not is not relevant because the doer is not "other people" but the women themselves, right?samseva wrote:In a way, it is deceit, but everyone knows almost all women wear make-up, so it is kind of "fair game" you could say.
Nowadays, it is socially accepted and even assumed that women wear make-up, so it isn't deceit as it is usually thought of. Maybe 10% though.
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
There is no doubt it is socially accepted.samseva wrote:Well, the intention to deceive of a women who wears make-up could be as intense as if no one knew that most women wear make-up (except women themselves in this case), but since it is widely known that most women do wear make-up—both to the general population and the woman herself—this does have an affect on her intention.steve19800 wrote:I think whether other people know women wear make up or not is not relevant because the doer is not "other people" but the women themselves, right?samseva wrote:In a way, it is deceit, but everyone knows almost all women wear make-up, so it is kind of "fair game" you could say.
Nowadays, it is socially accepted and even assumed that women wear make-up, so it isn't deceit as it is usually thought of. Maybe 10% though.
I'm wondering what do you think the intention(s) of a woman has when she is doing make up?
How about acting job, plastic surgery as posted before?
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
Well, what I meant with the first part is that with the fact that the woman knows that everyone expects that she probably wears make-up, her intention is much less deceitful...steve19800 wrote:There is no doubt it is socially accepted.samseva wrote:Well, the intention to deceive of a women who wears make-up could be as intense as if no one knew that most women wear make-up (except women themselves in this case), but since it is widely known that most women do wear make-up—both to the general population and the woman herself—this does have an affect on her intention.
Nowadays, it is socially accepted and even assumed that women wear make-up, so it isn't deceit as it is usually thought of. Maybe 10% though.
I'm wondering what do you think the intention(s) of a woman has when she is doing make up?
How about acting job, plastic surgery as posted before?
...than if no one were to expect women to wear make up.
To illustrate, the latter would be 100% deceitful, while the former might be still/just 10% deceitful.
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
So intention to deceive other people through bodily action is not considered lying?Cormac Brown wrote: Quite simply, no it does not cover wearing makeup. That might come under the cosmetics part of the Eight Precepts, which I'd see as trying to counter the tendency to arouse sexual interest in others, but certainly not the precept against lying. The Buddha gives quite a precise explanation of it as saying you don't know something when you do know it, or saying you do know when you don't. False testimony, basically.
Thanks for your link. I do see what the Buddha says mostly, if not, all is lying through speech. I'm not sure whether lying through bodily action is considered lying or not, since no Sutta mentions about this.
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
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;)
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?
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;)
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?
Last edited by D1W1 on Sat Mar 26, 2016 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
It mostly has to do with terminology. One can lie through speaking, writing or nodding the head to indicate "yes" or "no". Doing something through bodily action might not be considered lying per se, but it is deceit.D1W1 wrote:So intention to deceive other people through bodily action is not considered lying?
Thanks for your link. I do see what the Buddha says mostly, if not, all is lying through speech. I'm not sure whether lying through bodily action is considered lying or not, since no Sutta mentions about this.
Either way, all are unwholesome. Deceit, which would cause many people to die for example, would be much worse and kammically detrimental than saying a direct but small lie. It isn't so much as following the precepts as the degree of kamma made, be it deceit or lying.
Re: Understanding the fourth precept
There is a large difference between what is a breach in the Vinaya and the results from the kamma (actions) one has done. In many rules in the Vinaya, for there to be the offence, a number of factors need to have been done, but, that does not mean the actions done don't have detrimental kamma.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
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?
Taking pārājika 3 regarding the killing of another human being, all five factors must be present: Object, Intention, Perception, Effort and Result. If one tries to kill another human being, but the other person does not die from the action, there is missing the fifth factor of the life-faculty of the person needing to be cut off, therefore the pārājika wasn't incurred (but there are other penalties).
However, even if the quite evil person hasn't incurred a pārājika, his deliberate actions of mind to intend and then put forth physical action to murder another human being have very grave kammic repercussions.