Right speech and truth

Q & A
1

One of the conditions for right speech is not lying. In the Samaññaphala Sutta a virtuous monk is said to “abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world.”
However, how is truth defined? What is it that counts: the way things really are, or the way the person speaking believes things are?
For example, if a scientist publishes a paper where they believe they are presenting accurate results, but there are errors in the measurements (or mistakes in the calculations); there wouldn’t be an ethical breach, but their work would likely be viewed with contempt and this would be very bad for their career. So in this case it is not enough to report what you believe is true. Instead, one really has to make sure that they have a proper grasp of the way things are, otherwise they would still pay the consequences for reporting something that is not correct.

Is it the same in right speech, or is it enough that the person speaking is convinced that what they say is true, for it to be right speech? One practical situation where this question is relevant are conspiracy theories. Suppose someone is really convinced about some conspiracy theory and so spreads the ‘information’. If they think they are telling the truth, even though the science or the known facts point to the opposite direction, are they practising wrong speech or not? (Another practical application would be a preacher of a different religion. They really believe what they preach, but if we assume that Buddhism is true, then some of the teachings of other religions aren’t. So would they be practising wrong speech?)

1 Like
2

I think honesty and accuracy are separated into right view and right speech in the eightfold path. That is, right speech is largely about bearing honest witness, especially in terms of accusations of precept violations, etc. Thus, it’s often defined in terms like perjury.

Right view is where false beliefs are covered, and yes, it’s more serious a matter than right speech usually is. One can be honestly deluded, and it won’t turn out well for a person karmically depending on the delusion.

5 Likes
3

Right, so if you are deluded and you teach something false, even if you are in good faith as it were (because you believe in what you say) you make bad kamma, right? For example some teachings by Nietzsche, in which I am sure he honestly believed, are definitely wrong view (e.g. some of his views on ethics) so that would be bad kamma.
And likewise if someone spreads conspiracy theories, even though they believe in them, I understand they are making bad kamma particularly when these theories influence people in a harmful way.

4

Bad karma does require harmful or self-serving intent, I think. Simply being wrong about something and it turns out bad for someone else can be an innocent mistake. If a person tries to cover up an innocent mistake by lying or avoiding the issue, then they are guilty of wrong speech. If they made the “mistake” on purpose because someone paid them a bribe and they know the mistake will harm others, then they are in hotter water, so to speak. Intent, good or bad, drives Buddhist ethics.

5

Amongst the 10 types of unwholesome kamma, it includes wrong views.

Many times in the sutta, the Buddha and his disciples advices people to abandon wrong view, for the long term welfare and benefit of themselves and others. Like the caravan example in DN 23.

“Well then, chieftain, I shall give you a simile. For by means of a simile some sensible people understand the meaning of what is said.

Once upon a time, a large caravan of a thousand wagons traveled from a country in the east to the west. Wherever they went they quickly used up the grass, wood, water, and the green foliage. Now, that caravan had two leaders, each in charge of five hundred wagons. They thought, ‘This is a large caravan of a thousand wagons. Wherever we go we quickly use up the grass, wood, water, and the green foliage. Why don’t we split the caravan in two halves?’ So that’s what they did.

One caravan leader, having prepared much grass, wood, and water, started the caravan. After two or three days’ journey he saw a dark man with red eyes coming the other way in a donkey cart with muddy wheels. He was armored with a quiver and wreathed with yellow lotus, his clothes and hair all wet. Seeing him, he said, ‘Sir, where do you come from?’

‘From such and such a country.’

‘And where are you going?’

‘To the country named so and so.’

‘But has there been much rain in the desert up ahead?’

‘Indeed there has, sir. The paths are sprinkled with water, and there is much grass, wood, and water. Toss out your grass, wood, and water. Your wagons will move swiftly when lightly-laden, so don’t tire your draught teams.’

So the caravan leader addressed his drivers, ‘This man says that there has been much rain in the desert up ahead. He advises us to toss out the grass, wood, and water. The wagons will move swiftly when lightly-laden, and won’t tire our draught teams. So let’s toss out the grass, wood, and water and restart the caravan with lightly-laden wagons.’

‘Yes, sir,’ the drivers replied, and that’s what they did.

But in the caravan’s first campsite they saw no grass, wood, or water. And in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh campsites they saw no grass, wood, or water. And all fell to ruin and disaster. And the men and beasts in that caravan were all devoured by that non-human spirit. Only their bones remained.

Now, when the second caravan leader knew that the first caravan was well underway, he prepared much grass, wood, and water and started the caravan. After two or three days’ journey he saw a dark man with red eyes coming the other way in a donkey cart with muddy wheels. He was armored with a quiver and wreathed with yellow lotus, his clothes and hair all wet. Seeing him, he said, ‘Sir, where do you come from?’

‘From such and such a country.’

‘And where are you going?’

‘To the country named so and so.’

‘But has there been much rain in the desert up ahead?’

‘Indeed there has, sir. The paths are sprinkled with water, and there is much grass, wood, and water. Toss out your grass, wood, and water. Your wagons will move swiftly when lightly-laden, so don’t tire your draught teams.’

So the caravan leader addressed his drivers, ‘This man says that there has been much rain in the desert up ahead. He advises us to toss out the grass, wood, and water. The wagons will move swiftly when lightly-laden, and won’t tire our draught teams. But this person is neither our friend nor relative. How can we proceed out of trust in him? We shouldn’t toss out any grass, wood, or water, but continue with our goods laden as before. We shall not toss out any old stock.’

‘Yes, sir,’ the drivers replied, and they restarted the caravan with the goods laden as before.

And in the caravan’s first campsite they saw no grass, wood, or water. And in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh campsites they saw no grass, wood, or water. And they saw the other caravan that had come to ruin. And they saw the bones of the men and beasts who had been devoured by that non-human spirit.

So the caravan leader addressed his drivers, ‘This caravan came to ruin, as happens when guided by a foolish caravan leader. Well then, sirs, toss out any of our merchandise that’s of little value, and take what’s valuable from this caravan.’

‘Yes, sir’ replied the drivers, and that’s what they did. They crossed over the desert safely, as happens when guided by an astute caravan leader.

In the same way, chieftain, being foolish and incompetent, you will come to ruin seeking the other world irrationally, like the first caravan leader. And those who think you’re worth listening to and trusting will also come to ruin, like the drivers. Let go of this harmful misconception, chieftain, let go of it! Don’t create lasting harm and suffering for yourself!”

2 Likes