I’d like to deepen my understanding of Right Speech.
Coming from a background influenced by speech act theory, I wonder whether the Buddhist precept includes not only factual truthfulness, but also the intention and pragmatic effect of what is said.
For example: suppose I witness person A stealing something. Later, I’m asked by the police whether I saw person B in that area. I answer truthfully that I did see person B there, but I know this will likely mislead the investigation and shift suspicion away from the actual offender. The statement is factually true, yet its communicative function is deceptive.
From the perspective of Right Speech, would such a statement be considered wrong speech because of its intention and foreseeable consequences, even though it is literally true? Or is Right Speech primarily concerned with propositional truth, so that I am not responsible for any possible consequences of what I have said, provided it is true and expressed properly? (In the example I would of course be withholding information on A, but I haven’t found anything in the precepts about the duty to communicate information if not asked).
I’d be grateful for any sutta references or traditional explanations that clarify how context and pragmatic effect factor into Right Speech.
I don’t know what “speech act theory” is. But the Buddha does of course include one’s intention into this consideration. Usually, intention is actually the main point.
AN4.198:8.4: They give up lying. They speak the truth and stick to the truth. They’re honest and dependable, and don’t trick the world with their words.
So in your example, if I hold back the information about A because I want to hide the truth, that falls under “trick the world with my words”. If I do it because I don’t think the information is relevant, there is no bad intention.
In MN56, the Buddha has a discussion with a Jain ascetic about the relevance of intention versus action or speech:
MN56:4.10: “Of the three deeds thus analyzed and differentiated, which deed do you describe as being the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds: physical deeds, verbal deeds, or mental deeds?” MN56:4.11: “I describe mental deeds as being the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much physical deeds or verbal deeds.”
if you know person A stole the item in question but you fail to disclose that and knowingly push the investigation in the direction of person B, you have intentionally concealed the guilt of person A and intentionally falsely cast aspersion on person B.
that’s unskillful kamma as you’re knowingly deceiving others for your own gain or that of someone else.
essentially, if your intention is to harm another being, the kamma will be unskillful and will return to you in suffering.
