Can lying be the correct action in certain situations? Bhikkhu Bodhi gave an example of a situation where lying might be appropriate: In World War II some nice people would hide those oppressed by the Nazis. If Nazis come and ask these nice people if they are hiding Jewish people, would it be the appropriate action to tell the truth?
Of course lying is sometimes called for. Morality is not about mindlessly following rules, but in seeing beyond our egoic concerns and doing what the situation calls for (Skillful Means). Mindlessly following rules is how cults and death camps get started.
Moral guidelines have a place, and more often than not, they should be followed. However, there is no replacement for using our brains to study the situation and decide if these rules are applicable there.
Buddhism is about overcoming suffering, with a special focus on the self as the axis upon which suffering revolves. So look at all Buddhist teachings through that lens. Don't ask what the Buddhist teachings tell you to do; rather, ask what lies behind that teaching. What is it about the self that lying perpetuates? Is it really lies per se, or is it that...
- Lies often inflate our egos?
- Lies often hide our shame?
- Lies are ways we try to bail ourselves out of trouble and as such are enablers of immoral behavior?
There are no Enlightened lies. Fourth precept is the one precept that the Bodhisatta has never said to have broken since he started cultivating Paramita, many Kalpas ago.
Four conditions must be met to break this precept
- The statement must be untrue.
- There must be an intention to deceive.
- An effort must be made to deceive.
- The other person must know the meaning of what is expressed.
Causes of False Speech
The root causes of false speech are greed, hatred and delusion.
- Greed is the root cause when false speech is used to obtain material gain or status for oneself or someone dear to oneself.
- Hatred is the root cause when false speech is used to cause loss and bring harm and suffering to others.
- Delusion is the root cause when it is used neither for one's gain nor to cause loss and harm to others, but for the sake of enjoyment such as lying for the sake of a joke, exaggeration to spice up a story, or flattery to please others, etc.
But what people forget is that not giving information is not the same as lying. In the case of the Nazis example, they wouldn't have taken your word even if you did lie. They would have searched your house in any case. It's not like they needed a warrant back then. So, instead of saying "yes we do have jews hiding in our house", you could improvise and say something to throw them off.
ex: "What?? You think we are that crazy? Heil hitler!!" :)
I believe morality is more important. If we lie to cheat someone or to gain an advantage, then it would be wrong, but...to lie to save a persons life or lessen suffering, i think that is commendable, and it should be the foucs of all humans, regardless of race, ethnicty, religion or even viewed as an enemy or friend. We all know what pain feels like, we all know what suffering feels like, and if we have the opportunity to help reduce or end that suffering, then the opportunity should be taken regardless of who the other person is!!
Is it all a matter of perspective and/or perception? Each of us sees a circumstance from a set of values embedded in our experience & personality. Our culture, spiritual aspirations and social interactions also impose on us group expectations of how we should behave and in some respects what we do or do not say. There is most definitely the capacity to lie by commission which is not always considered [that bad, if at all] in the moment a lie is conceived.
Yes lying can be a predictor of mental illness (Why Some Narcissists and Borderlines Lie), if not a manipulative and deceiving personality (The Truth About Lying — Deception is rampant, and sometimes we tell the biggest lies to those we love most) but I urge consideration of the maxim 'walk a mile in their shoes'.
If we are being lied to, does it not auger well to consider what it is about our behaviours that creates in that person the need to lie to us [whether that be to not hurt us, to leave a relationship or whatever]. Unless dealing with a psychopath, a dynamic that involves the intent and then the energy of concocting the details of the lie and then more than likely having to hold the lie for a period of time, must hold some resonance from the lie-ee. We are not always so innocent in these situations.
I work with offenders who can be deceitful and manipulative. When I get out of my professional 'presence' and consider what the future [and in fact the past] is for them, their families and others who have been impacted by their poor choices and associated behaviours [not least of whom is the victim of any crime] I still have to consider that my luck has held out.
There but for the Grace of God go I, most of the people I have worked with in the forensic setting were not bad people. They were people who did what they could with the information and choices [mostly limited at the time] available to them when offending. Who am I to judge? I doubt that I would make similar choices, but quite frankly I don't know. What would I do if I suddenly found myself unemployed, on the streets or in what ever set of circumstances that might cause me to lie, deceive or manipulate so that I could increase my chances of surviving the next 24 hours, or may the next hour.
Yes I know there are some pretty mean and nasty people out there, but before judging perhaps we should consider such things. We might also like to consider that the concept that lies can be elicited because of a fear of being judged and many who lie regularly are judged not because of what they have done but because of the expectations by others that they continue to misbehave or act in the judge's eyes inappropriately. The fallout of deceit can sustain negative attitudes and behaviours even when the person who betrayed the trust has in fact changed their ways.
The point I am making here is that if I become aware that someone is lying to me or has done, then it is, in my view, my responsibility to consider my response to the situation. That is the only thing I have any chance of adjusting. I can't make someone not lie to me. I can't change them or the situation unless they have gained some insight into their behaviours and the repercussions of same and are ready to commit to a course of change.
All I can do to change the dynamic is to behave in a manner which is protective of me and those around me and maintain my own moral and philosophical values. It is important also that whatever I do or say does not reinforce positively or negatively that person's behaviour. If bad enough and the trust is completely gone it is my duty to walk away, if the situation and/or person has not become so intractable that meaningful communication can be had then the long path to forgiveness and acceptance can begin.
It may even be that things evolve to a point whereby there is an acknowledgement that this lie may well have been the best thing that could happen to the connection [would be a pity to lose the lesson in all that pain and reactive moments] - for instance, had the situation not come to a head, attitudes, affections, friendships, etc would never had had the opportunity to become one in which an authentic existence had any potential of being achieved.
Sometimes people do bad things to us. Sometimes life evolves into and out of bad situations. It is a testament to our individual resilience that is born out in our response to each and every one of those events.
Finally... gotta say in my experience and seeking of information from many philosophical, religious, spiritual and psychological books/tomes I am minded that without exception the role of forgiveness is a significant one for all involved.
If lying is the most appropriate thing to do, then developing the heart of compassion for the tormentors, so that they may not add to their evils by killing the victims, and developing the heart of compassion for the victims so that they may be saved, the aspiring Bodhisattva (please read Shantideva's Bodhisattvaharyavitara) may come forward to lie. By taking on the negative effects of the act, if there be any, upon the self,the Bodhisattva steps forward to save others, and that is the very definition of the Bodhisattva.
The Bodhisattva is not afraid to live countless lives until all are saved, and can face the consequences bravely for their heart is pure and stainless.
When an aspiring Bodhisattva isn't afraid to even lay down their life in the service of others, will the consequence of a lie in this life or in next lives matter?
It is never about the action, but the quality of the heart. Such a pure heart has a way of altering reality. When in the presence of such a resolute and pure heart, the tormentors may themselves turn back. Or, the victims may themselves take the opportunity to practice as Bodhisattvas and appear before their tormentors rather than allow a genuine heart to be hurt. The energy of goodness thus generated will bring out the best in others around it.
Dhammapada Verse 1
manasa ce padutthena
bhasati va karoti va
tato nam dukkhamanveti
cakkamva vahato padam.
Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.
Having seen the emptiness of conditioned phenomena such as this life, the aspiring Bodhisattva is unfazed at every turn, guided only by the Dhamma.
Lying is never the correct answer. The answer to this question is explicitly stated in the fourth precept; to refrain from incorrect speech. You lying to "save someone" from some harm or danger will not break them free from the bonds of their karma, all it will do is weaken your own morality, cultivating delusion, aversion, and craving. If someone is to be murdered, they will be murdered. You have no say in this. I don't remember exactly which sutta it was, but the Buddha illustrated this very point. He was walking somewhere with a man, when the Buddha stopped, told the man to go ahead by himself, and the Buddha turned and went the other way. The man was mistaken as a deer by a hunter and shot and killed. When asked why he let the man continue ahead, knowing full well the danger that lie ahead for him, the Buddha said : even if he had gone north, south, east, or west, this man could not escape this fate.
We do not have a choice when we are faced with this condition, as we are conditioned being! How ever we act (i.e lie, or not lie) if we have not attained the state of an ariya (one of the 4 noble ones) our views are based on (avijja)ignorance or not knowing, because it is base on self ( us and others). Whatever views or actions that results from avijja are simply actions that are based on intentions.
Whereas the views and actions from the noble ones mainly come from wisdom and not intentions (ref somewhere in the Abhidhamma) as they are free from the delusion of self and others.
As kamma is based on our intention then our true intention to lie or not to lie is paramount!
And how does wisdom come about?
From mindfulness (sati), clear-comprehension (sampajanna) arise, from clear-comprehension wisdom (panna) arise.
I hope you don't mind a personal story. Perhaps my earliest introduction to any Buddhism would have been my dad reading to me Kim (a novel set in late 19th century India, in which a boy becomes friends and travels with a Tibetan Lama). The other characters are colourful, many of them working for the British secret service and acting against the Russians in Afghanistan. One is a Muslim horse trader.
The Lama (an abbot who has come to India on a pilgrimage) is oblivious to such goings-on, but stops to explain the wheel of life and so on to people if they ask.
Anyway, towards the end and after the action is over, there's a conversation while other sleep between the Lama and the horse trader (who also works as a spy and who leads a complicated life). The contrast and conversation between the two characters is comedy.
Anyway, a fragment of that conversation I've always remembered:
'Thou hast never lied?'
'O Allah, hear him! "What need" in this Thy world! Nor ever harmed a man?'
'Once—with a pencase—before I was wise.'
So, when the Lama is asked whether he has ever lied, his question is reply is "what need?"
The chief lesson I got from that was to live a life in which you don't need to lie.
I suppose a secondary lesson is that he (remembering that this is an idealized character in a novel) is willing to ask whether there might be a need, just that now as an old man he hasn't ever found a need yet.
Lying is just as valued as telling the truth in society, the catch is that both are only valued if used in the correct context. You don't want to tell the truth in a context where it isn't going to be valued, and you don't want to lie in a context where it isn't going to be valued. E.g We don't value telling someone we think they are ugly if they ask what we think of them. When we interact with people there is a hierarchy of values involved in every interaction. I think our society's obsession with categorical imperatives stems from Christianity.