"When someone is not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie, there is no bad deed they would not do"

[jonas]

@Mumfie

It’s clear from the Vinaya judgments issued by the Buddha in connection with the fourth pārājika rule that the determination that an utterance is or isn’t musāvāda has nothing to do with whether it communicates something factual or non-factual. It has solely to do with whether the speaker’s intention is to communicate something factual or non-factual. In other words, it hinges not upon what’s actually the case, but upon what the speaker believes to be the case.

In that case, would it mean that the lie for a joke part of MN61 would only apply to practical jokes or pranks? For example, making up a counterfactual scenario like „why did the chicken cross the road“ would be permissible because the intent isn‘t to deceive (or to convey factual information about a chicken‘s intentions, for that matter), but to amuse the listener, whereas shouting „there‘s a spider in your hair“ just to see someone freak out (besides being mean as hell) would be a lie in that sense?

Assuming that is the case: The thread I was responding to had OP posting a transcript of a chat with a new AI, which was clearly ridiculous, saying ironically that it „confirms rebirth“. Bhante @NgXinZhao, after some back and forth, then responded with MN61. I‘d maintain that it‘s not applicable since we can infer that OP‘s intention was not to deceive anyone.

Also, since text doesn‘t quite convey emotional tone, here’s another wink: I‘m not doing scripture lawyering here to „gotcha“ anyone, just trying to work stuff out more for myself than anything else.

@Mike_0123

When we can resort to lies, it’s very difficult to fully follow the precepts because it’s easier to get rid of the bad consequences of bad actions. That is, feeling ashamed for doing what is bad is quite powerful to make us do the right thing even in hard moments, even when there’s a lot of money and power involved. If we always say the truth, there’s no way to seem a good person without being in fact a good person. Sticking to the truth even in jokes means that we are sticking to the truth literally all the time, even in casual moments. That’s really difficult, but one who does that is prepared when tough circumstances happen.

That would be the „slippery slope“ interpretation I find believable. It sorta revolves around the definition of lie, though. Judging by intention rather than factuality, as the Vinaya rulings @Mumfie has referenced do, would allow for all the varieties of good-natured humor. It also seems to validate my misgivings about a restrictive interpretation of the 7th precept.