[Mahasi] [Ledi] [Other] [Pesala] [Suttas]

Venerable Mahāsi Sayādaw

A Discourse on the Hemavata Sutta

Does the Buddha Tell Lies?

Select a linkPrefaceDate for This DiscourseIs the Buddha Impartial?Does the Buddha Steal?Does the Buddha Tell Lies?Is the Buddha Free From Desire?Is the Buddha Wise and Moral?Hemavata's Praise of the BuddhaWhat is the Way to Liberation?Who Can Gain Liberation?

The two questions put by Hemavata relate to physical commission of unwholesome deeds, and to whether the Buddha neglected jhāna. Then Hemavata put questions relating to unwholesome speech:

“Friend Sātāgiri, does your teacher, the Buddha, refrain from telling lies? Does he refrain from using rude, abusive, and contemptuous words? Does he refrain from uttering words that destroy friendliness and unity? Does he utter frivolous speech?”

Hemavata wanted to know whether the Buddha committed unwholesome speech, such as using abusive words, telling lies, and telling tales that could set one person against another. Unity between friends and allies could be disrupted by someone dropping a few words, quite politely, hinting at something that could create misunderstanding.

Vassakāra’s Slander

At the time of the Buddha, King Ajātasattu wanted to invade the Vajji kingdom where the Licchavi princes were reigning. These princes were ruling the country in harmony and unity, and their unity was their strength. Ajātasattu tried to disrupt the unity and undermine the strength of the Licchavi princes by employing a subterfuge. He sent Vassakāra, one of his ministers, into exile, and Vassakāra went to the Licchavi princes to seek refuge. Some princes said to others, “This brahmin, Vassakāra, is a cunning man, don’t let him take refuge.” Others replied, “This brahmin was exiled because he spoke for us against his own king. So we should take him on.” Vassakāra was consequently received by the Licchavi princes, and was appointed as the teacher of the children of the princes.

Vassakāra taught the princes’ children well, and thus earned the trust of the princes. Once he had obtained the trust and confidence of the princes, Vassakāra started his campaign of setting one prince against another. The ruse he employed was subtle: he called one prince aside and asked in a whisper, “Have you taken your meal? What curry did you eat?”

The other princes saw this, and asked the prince what the teacher had told him. The prince said truthfully that the old man asked him whether he had taken his meal and what curry he ate, but the other princes did not believe him. They thought to themselves, “One would not ask such questions in a whisper. There must be some important secret.”

Next, the brahmin asked another prince, “Does your father plough the field? How many bullocks draw his plough?” When the other princes asked him what had passed between the brahmin and him, the prince told them truthfully, but none of them believed him.

Then the brahmin called another prince and asked in a whisper, “Are you a coward?” The prince asked him in surprise, “Why? Who told you that?” Then the brahmin said, “Oh your friend, that prince,” and pointed to another prince. The prince was angry at being so accused, and began to mistrust the other prince.

Using such simple deceits, Vassakāra continued setting one prince against another. Within three years he had created disharmony among the Licchavi princes. The disruption of their unity was so great that no prince would look at the face of another. Then Vassakāra sent a secret message to King Ajātasattu who led an army against the Vajji kingdom of the Licchavi princes. Since each prince thought that the others had accused him of cowardice, none of them went out to fight the invading army. They said to themselves, “If they say I am a coward, let them go out and fight.” So King Ajātasattu captured the country easily. This furnishes a good lesson about backbiting. Hemavata, therefore, asked, “Is your teacher, the Buddha, free of speech calculated to create misunderstanding?”

He further questioned, “Is your teacher, the Buddha, free from frivolous speech?” Such talk includes present-day novels and fables, which lack morals and valuable messages for the good of the secular or spiritual life of the people; they are written merely for pleasurable reading. Hemavata asked his friend, Sātāgiri, whether his teacher, the Buddha, was free of such frivolous speech.

The Buddha Refrains From Falsehood

Sātāgiri said in reply, “Friend Hemavata, Gotama Buddha does not tell lies; he always refrains from falsehood.” Since the time when the Bodhisatta received the assurance from Buddha Dīpankara, he had refrained from telling lies. Since then, he had always been free of that unwholesome deed; he always spoke the truth. A person who tells lies does not hesitate to commit any unwholesome deed because he or she will lie when asked about it. So a liar dares to do any kind of unwholesome deed. The Dhammapada says:

 “For one who transgresses the truth and resorts to lies, who is unconcerned with the next existence, there is no unwholesome deed he cannot commit.” (Dhp v 176)

Transgressing the truth means abandoning truth, which means telling lies. One who does not hesitate to tell lies can commit any kind of unwholesome deed for he or she is ready with a false explanation. Such a person will do anything for personal gain. One who dares to do unwholesome deeds has no good prospects for the next existence, which means he or she is unconcerned about the next existence. He or she cares only for welfare in the present existence and not for what will happen in the next existence. Such a person will do any kind of unwholesome deed if it brings some benefit in the present life. So untruthfulness leads to all kinds of other unwholesome deeds.

The Bodhisatta had avoided this unwholesome deed of false speech in all his existences. His avoidance of this unwholesome deed was, of course, restraint by attainment and formally undertaking the precepts, but not by restraint by cutting off defilements. Only when he became the Buddha did he avoid this unwholesome deed through the third form of restraint; that is, avoidance through the path of arahantship.

To explain further, the Bodhisatta avoided lying though he had not formally taken the precepts. He did not lie, and always told the truth. This is avoidance through attainment. If a person has taken the precepts formally, saying, “I undertake the precept of avoidance of telling lies,” then he avoids telling lies through undertaking.

Such instances of avoidance of falsehood are usually in consideration of some factors such as advanced age, reputation, fear of censure or fear of committing an unwholesome deed.

However, if one has attained the path of a Stream-winner through meditation practice, one abandons false speech completely. At that stage falsehood is foreign to his nature. The Buddha had abandoned this unwholesome deed since his attainment of this early stage of the path of a Stream-winner. When he reached the ultimate stage of arahatta magga, this matter was entirely out of the question. The Buddha had declared that he had already attained that ultimate stage. So Sātāgiri gave a definite reply to the query, saying, “Our teacher, the Buddha, has completely abandoned the unwholesome deed of false speech.”

Then to the question concerning rude speech, Sātāgiri replied, “The Buddha is also free of using rude, abusive, and contemptuous speech calculated to destroy friendliness and unity.”

Some Arahants used rude speech out of habit, but they had no evil motives. For instance, Venerable Pilindavaccha had the habit of calling people “outcaste” since he was a brahmin. Even after he had become an Arahant, he did not abandon this habit. However, the Buddha had retained no trace of any habits, whether good or bad, after his enlightenment. He was completely free from the habits that are usually carried along through one’s lives.

To the question concerning frivolous speech Sātāgiri replied: “Our teacher, the Buddha, speaks only what is appropriate and beneficial either to worldly or spiritual affairs.”

By that, Sātāgiri meant that the Buddha saw the truth of any matter by his knowledge, and spoke what was conducive to well-being, and never indulged in any frivolous speech.

Right Speech has four aspects:

1. Not lying, but speaking the truth,
2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener,
3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity,
4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.

These four aspects apply to communication in worldly affairs as well as religious affairs. If one observes these four rules of speech, one can be said to be of pure speech.

Perfect Speech

Six kinds of speech are used in human communication:

1. False speech that is not beneficial, and displeasing to others.

For instance, if one makes an accusation of immorality against a person who is virtuous, then the accuser’s speech is false. His accusation might be believed by another person who would then distrust the accused person, and thus unwittingly earn demerit. The accused person will also feel unhappy because he has been unjustly accused. The false accusation will not be liked by the wise, so such speech is malicious and inappropriate.

2. False speech that is not beneficial, but pleasing to many.

Included in this category are fictional tales, backbiting, which causes misunderstanding and disunity, and erroneous religious discourses. Tales, novels, and stories are mere fabrications. They are not accounts of real events, and do not benefit the reader, who may become sexually aroused, sad, angry, or dejected. Yet these tales and stories are liked by many people. The backbiter makes false accusations and one-sided statements, designed to cause destruction of friendliness and unity. Propaganda of the present-day contains many such lies and unwarranted accusations. Though slander causes distress, the listener may feel that it is intended for his own good.

I shall now refer to some statements in the Tipitaka. In ancient times before the Buddha attained enlightenment, some teachings advocated the sacrificial offering of animals. This was said to neutralise the effects of unwholesome deeds and bring prosperity and happiness. Even King Pasenadi of Kosala once arranged for such a sacrifice to propitiate the gods. He arranged to have young cows, bulls, goats, and sheep (five hundred of each) sacrificed.

On the advice of Queen Mallikā, the king approached the Buddha and asked his advice. The Buddha said that the sacrificing of animals for propitiation of the gods, was detrimental to the king’s interests. The Buddha advised him that if the animals were released and allowed to live, it would be a meritorious act, which would bring him peace and happiness. Realising his error, the king ordered the sacrificial animals to be released.

Killing animals to obtain prosperity and happiness is illogical. To believe that inflicting misery on animals will lead to happiness is irrational, yet many people still have faith in such sacrifices.

During the Buddha’s time, Ajita Kesakambalī, a leader of a sect, maintained, “There are neither wholesome (kusala) nor unwholesome deeds (akusala), and these deeds have no effect because there is no next existence.” This is annihilationism (uccheda ditthi). A subscriber to such a belief will not shun unwholesome deeds, so will have no moral qualities worth praising. After death, the annihilationist will go to one of the realms of misery, which he or she has denied, and suffer greatly. This is the plight of those who deny life after death, according to the Buddha’s teachings.

Such beliefs are of no benefit, yet many people subscribe to them. So the statement, “There is no kamma, or its result, because there is no afterlife” is not true and has no benefit, though many people like it. This is an example of the second category of speech. Many people like such beliefs, though they are neither true nor beneficial. The Buddha censured such speech, so it must be avoided.

3. Speech that is true, not beneficial, and displeasing to others.

This category includes, for instance, calling a thief a thief, a cheat a cheat, a fool a fool, or a blind person blind. Though it is true, it has no benefit, nor is it liked by the person concerned. The Buddha never used this kind of speech.

4. Speech that is true, not beneficial, but pleasing to many.

This category includes, for instance, quoting somebody and setting him against another. Such speech causes disharmony and distress, but the listener might be pleased because the speaker is sharing a confidence. This kind of speech includes political rumour and gossip, which may be true and relished by many, but is of no benefit. Moreover, it disturbs those who are cultivating a spiritual path. Such speech was never used by the Buddha.

5. Speech that is true and beneficial, though not pleasing to some.

Such speech includes admonitions like, “You are suffering now because you have done many unwholesome deeds in your previous existences. If you do not reform, but continue doing unwholesome deeds, saving yourself from hell will be difficult.” This admonition is motivated by good intentions for the welfare of others. Such forthrightness may be displeasing to others, nevertheless, it should sometimes be used. The Buddha used such speech when necessary.

The Buddha stated that Devadatta would fall into hell and suffer misery there for the entire aeon because he persuaded some monks to form a new group, thus causing a schism (sanghabheda). This prediction was not liked by Devadatta’s group, but the Buddha made it for the benefit of others who might otherwise dare to commit a similar heinous deed. The Buddha used such speech because it was true and beneficial to many, though it was not liked by some.

6. Speech that is true, beneficial, and pleasing to many.

This category includes discourses on charity, morality, and mental culture. Religious discourses are beneficial and liked by wise and moral persons, so the Buddha used such speech whenever it was appropriate. The Buddha mostly used this kind of speech.

Of the six categories, false speech, which is never beneficial, should not be used, whether it is pleasing to others or not. The Buddha never used such speech. True, but unbeneficial speech, whether pleasing to others or not, was never used by the Buddha. So the Buddha never used these four kinds of speech. True speech that was beneficial, though it was sometimes displeasing to others, was used by the Buddha. Of course, the Buddha chose the appropriate occasion for such speech. He never said anything irrelevant to the situation.

Choosing the right words for the occasion is important. Saying something true and beneficial may be inappropriate when festivities are being held. For instance, at a wedding ceremony or a novice initiation, when people are light-hearted, talking about serious subjects like meditation on death or the stages of insight leading to nibbāna is inappropriate. Conversely, giving a discourse on blessings (mangala) is inappropriate at a memorial ceremony.

To summarise, the Buddha used only words that expounded the Dhamma and were of benefit to many. So Sātāgiri said, in reply to Hemavata’s question, that the Buddha spoke after considering the benefit in mundane and spiritual affairs.

The Attribute of Sugata

Since the Buddha used the appropriate speech for every occasion, he possessed the Sugata attribute, which means “saying appropriate words.” The Buddha said what was true and beneficial to many, though it may be displeasing to some. So we can summarise, “The Buddha had the attribute of saying the right thing whether it was pleasing or not.”

After Sātāgiri had replied about the Buddha’s abstention from the four unwholesome deeds of speech, Hemavata put questions relating to unwholesome states of mind.