In WW2 people hides Jews in their homes from the German who wanted to exterminate all Jews.
You feel there is really something problematic in lying about this when a German knocks on your door and asks if you hide Jews?
Kamma depends on view. Here is the view….it is evil what these German do, so it reasonable to lie and deceive them, i protect the lifes of the Jews because that prevails for me…nothing wrong with this. There is no bad intention. The intention is very good. The same with the child. There is no reason at all to think about this as bad kamma. One protects life and that is a great good.
“Mendicants, when I’ve comprehended the mind of a certain person, I understand: ‘This venerable would not tell a deliberate lie even for the sake of a gold coin.’ …”
“‘… for the sake of a hundred gold coins.’ …”
“‘… for the sake of a gold doubloon.’ …”
“‘… for the sake of a hundred gold doubloons.’ …”
“‘… for the sake of the whole earth full of gold.’ …”
“‘… for any kind of material reward.’ …”
“‘… for the sake of life.’ …”
“‘… for the sake of the finest lady in the land.’
Mn61
In the same way, when someone is not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie, there is no bad deed they would not do, I say. So you should train like this: ‘I will not tell a lie, even for a joke.’
MN57
But if they have such a view: ‘By this precept or observance or fervent austerity or spiritual life, may I become one of the gods!’ This is their wrong view. An individual with wrong view is reborn in one of two places, I say: hell or the animal realm. So if the cow observance succeeds it leads to rebirth in the company of cows, but if it fails it leads to hell.”
If kamma depends on view, just viewing that cow practise can get one to heaven and practise to behave like a cow with full of good intentions for that would actually lead to heaven. But no. Having wrong view of those practises leads to heaven leads to woeful realms.
One has to take it in the right view kinda way. Not to reify it as something. Taking up wrong view is blameworthy. Anyway, I appreciate not having to debate with you, it’s clear that your mind is fixed and I am not sure you would be convinced even if you time travel and meet the Buddha in person to ask. Peace out.
I am so surprised we must even discuss this and have to search for sutta’s who support the idea that it would be good idea to tell the truth and the Jews would be killed, and the child in the burning house would be burned. I think this shows why the Buddha ordered that we must not be attached to rules. That does not lead to wisdom and Nibbana but can be an obstacle.
MN57 deals with the spiritual practice of imitating the life of a dog or ox. Those who have such spiritual practices do such things because they sincere believe this is a good, noble practice that leads to heaven. People often do things with good intentions. But Buddha says this view is wrong that this practice leads to heaven. And when the view is wrong, whatever intentions one has, also good ones, result in misery (AN1.314).
So it is also naive to think that good intentions an sich have good result. That is not Dhamma
But one can also see this in practice ofcourse. Often the Path to Hell is paved with good intentions.
This is also why moral in dhamma is not primairy but vision, view. And if one would honour Buddha for his pure morals, that is not really oke. One must honour him as being a visionair (DN1)
Those dog, and ox-practioners have ofcourse not bad intentions with their practices but 1. or they are reborn among dogs or oxes, 2. in hell says the sutta.
But, it is also easy to understand that any selfish goal (aiming at heaven for oneself) is not connected to dispassion, purity and is not the supra mundane Path out of the world, towards the Truth of Nibbana.
I fully agree. One must not conceive asankhata…because if one starts to conceive what has not the characteristic to arise, cease and change one also reifies it. One turns it into a thing or state. That is wrong. Making it object of mental proliferation is wrong.
One must develop feeling for it , i believe and one must resist the tendency to proliferate upon what cannot be objectified and described in terms of time, existence and non-existence, space etc.
Again, there is no sutta that even comes close to the idea that Dhamma leads to a mere cessation.
But there are many that make clear that one must not think about the goal as becoming non-existent after a final death and see that non-existence as happiness, the goal, the cure, the escape.
This refers to the ox, dog ascetics where they have the wrong way to reach happiness. Not to morality.
I am using the ox-ascetic view to highlight your view. To think that it’s ok to lie and it’s still good, because of the greater good, is clearly a form of wrong view.
The most the Buddha did was for example to use his psychic powers to make some people invisible to others and then teach the dhamma to make them enlightened, and then reveal those people to reunite them. So there’s ways to avoid lying.
I see no problems. My mother has Alzheimer disease. What you do not want is that you constant give them back that there ideas are wrong, that their perceptions are wrong, do you understand? You just go with it. If my mother does not recognise herself in the mirror and says that there are others persons in the room too, it is normal just to go with that. It is absurd and immoral to correct her all the time. You can call me rigid but if you do not understand such things that is worrying for me.
Ofcourse there is always the greater good of wellbeing.
Ofcourse there can be ways to avoid lying and i would explore them all and use them all if i am able to but if not, i lie for the greater good.
When we learn morality, it’s basically commonly boils down to the precepts. Even the Vinaya is basically the whole rules of conduct for morality. Of course, there’s the letter and the spirit of the rules as well. But we should ideally fulfill both.
One way to do this without lying is to acknowledge that they have this perception and it’s true for them that this perception is there for them. One can just be honest that one doesn’t see other people in the room, since this is what is true for oneself, if asked. If not, can just ask her who’s there, and have a conversation based on her world.
I also feel lying is really a serious thing. Especially also about what one really knows.
If one pretents to know that Buddha-Dhamma leads to mere cessation, is that not lying?
I feel such things are much more worse then using skillful means to rescue a child from a burning house or protect the life of Jews.
Oke, i understand that people can arrive for themself at the conclusion that it is most likely for them that Dhamma leads to mere cessation, fine…but the moment one starts to claim this as Truth, or as something Buddha really taught, or as something one knows…is this not lying ?
At least i am honest that i admit that for me it is most likely that Buddha did not teach mere cessation but i am not 100% sure of this, but for me it is most likely. But i always meet people who are so 100% sure about mere cessation…is that honesty? Is that not lying?
There is never a mere cessationalist who even does show doubts about this.
Is that not lying? Is that honesty?
Yes i understand, but Buddha invented all those rules because of peoples failure in morals.
You have to deal with serieous sick people Bhante. You do not want that they all the time realise how sick, confused, they are. Go with the flow is also what all nurses do too. It is not useful to start discusssions.
People with Alzheimer often also see people they know, while they do not know these people.
Every person they see, is born here or there, they say, while this is not true.
One just accept this. No use in telling them the Truth or starting discussions.
Realise…if i meet my mother for 3 hours, and i depart…within 5 seconds later she does not remember any more we have met and what we have done. This is the world of deep Alzheimer.
If we have met, and i go to another room, for example to get a wheelchair, and i was gone for 1 minuut, if we meet eachother again, she sees me for the first time that day…just go along with this…no need to tell we have already met or even show that we have already met.
Y’all may find this old article by Bhikkhu Bodhi relevant (to the original discussion… not whatever it has devolved into…):
that the five clinging aggregates are to be construed as the potential objects of clinging rather than as the abode of clinging—paves the way to a correct understanding of the statement of the first Noble Truth: “in brief, the five aggregates of clinging are dukkha.”
Oke, but many times sutta’s are presented that say that the khandha’s are inherently suffering, and in this life there is no escape from khandhás. So, even if one would not cling to them, there is no end to suffering. That is the idea of mere cessationalist.
