<p>The Buddha uses parables to illustrate points of the Dhamma. These are not intend to deceive, not untrue statement but example. The conditions for lying are:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>i) The statement must be untrue.</p>
<p>ii) There must be an intention to deceive.</p>
<p>iii) An effort must be made to deceive.</p>
<p>iv) The other person must know the meaning of what is expressed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Source: <a href="https://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/PDF_BuddhismCourse/11_%20Five%20Precepts.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA)</a></p>
<p>The Buddha used many techniques to teach the Dhamma but lying and deception was not one of them. See:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Teaching-Methods-of-the-Buddha.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Teaching Methods of the Buddha: A dynamic vision of Buddhist hermeneutics</a> by Piya Tan</li>
<li><a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/26.11-Language-and-discourse.-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Language and Discourse</a> by Piya Tan</li>
<li><a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/10.6-Dh-97-Religious-language-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhammapada 97: The two levels of religious language</a> Translated &amp; annotated by Piya Tan</li>
<li><a href="http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/skillInQuestions_v140109.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Skill in Questions: How the Buddha Taught</a> by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu.</li>
</ul>
<p>With regard to teaching of Karma, the Buddha spoke of the dangers and pitfalls of Karma. One intention of doing this is to encourage the cultivation of morality. But this does not make it untrue, but making the truth to be know so people will know the dangers which might befall them.</p>
<p>Also your of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81ramit%C4%81" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pāramitā</a> one Pāramitā is Sacca Pāramī which is truthfulness, honesty. Also one of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sila</a> that the Bodhisattva never broke after definite prophecy is false speech.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-28T11:29:10.187Z
Thank you so much for the useful links. I will take a closer look there.
tomodachi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-28T08:59:00.023Z
2017-06-28T11:54:59.540Z
2020-06-17T09:56:10.877Z
Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena
<p>If the action is beneficial for either party or not unbeneficial for both parties it may be ok to pursue irrespective of the term you use to describe that act. (tactic etc.)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-28T21:54:13.467Z
2017-06-28T21:54:13.467Z
SarathW
<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Please point out if my line of thought is flawed.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is an established principle since the time of the Buddha there are two types of teachings: </p>

<ol>
<li><p>mundane, worldly or moral teachings (<em>lokiya dhamma</em>) </p></li>
<li><p>supramundane, transcendent or noble teachings connected to emptiness (l<em>okuttara dhamma</em>) </p></li>
</ol>

<p>The moral teachings bring moral (non-harming) benefits but do not remove attachment. </p>

<p>These teaching exist because the majority of people are unable to remove attachment. </p>

<p>Therefore, your line of thought is certainly flawed because how can it be expected of  most people to give up attachment towards sexuality, reproductive drives, partners, children &amp; family? </p>

<p>If you expect all people to give up attachment &amp; realise not-self, when they are actually incapable of doing so, it is you rather than the Buddha that is deceiving people. </p>

<p>Please refer to <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 117</a> (linked).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming];
  there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a
  factor of the path. MN 117</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Please also refer to MN 12 &amp; MN 26 (below): </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power...</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too is a
  Tathagata's power...</em></p>
  
  <p><em>MN 12</em></p>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Then, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did
  so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much,
  those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good
  attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard,
  some of them seeing disgrace &amp; danger in the other world. MN 26</em></p>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<p>As for 'rebirth', the Buddha did not deceive or lie. Again, this is a long established principle.</p>

<p>The Buddha used certain well-defined words &amp; it is not the Buddha deceiving people but people <strong>interpreting</strong> the Buddha's words in different ways that generate various ideas about 'rebirth'. </p>

<p>The commentaries state: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>The Awakened One, best of speakers,  Spoke two kinds of truths:  The conventional and the ultimate.  A third truth does not obtain.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Therein:  The speech wherewith the world converses is true.  On account of its being agreed upon by the world.  The speech which
  describes what is ultimate is also true,  Through characterizing
  dhammas as they really are.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Therefore, being skilled in common usage,  <strong>False speech does not arise in the Teacher</strong>,  Who is Lord of the World,  When he speaks
  according to conventions.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>(Mn. i. 95)</em></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-29T22:47:28.133Z
I feel this line of thought is correct and I tend to also think of it using the analogy of teaching young children vs. adults in issues of morality. The 'arguments' one would use to stop a 2yr old from hitting others would certainly be different from those to a 15yr old. Both sets of 'arguments' would have the same goal but would be quite different in their content and presentation. Though each would be very different, neither would be wrong - given their intended audience.
GVCOJims
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-28T11:42:32.043Z
2017-06-28T12:15:56.137Z
2017-06-28T12:15:56.137Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>When I look at <a href="http://www.bdk.or.jp/document/dgtl-dl/dBET_T0262_LotusSutra_2007.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this translation</a>,</p>

<ul>
<li><p>The text says "skillful means", not "lie"</p></li>
<li><p>Sariputa is asked twice whether that's deception:</p>

<ul>
<li>The first time he replies "no" because the children get carts instead</li>
<li>Even if they weren't given carts, it wouldn't be deception because the man's thought was to help the children escape</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p><strong>I am convinced that there is a justification in this method, which makes it ethically acceptable (does the end ever justify the means?). Also, please point out if my line of thought is flawed.</strong></p>

<p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/12094/254">This answer</a> for example suggests that the end can be justification for the means.</p>

<p>And Andrei's comment was that's a "Mahayana-style" answer, which of course the Lotus Sutra is too.</p>

<p>I'm inclined to think of it as a 'simplification' rather than a lie (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lie-to-children</a> for example). Most of the Physics that I was taught at school, for example, wasn't a 'lie' but rather a 'simplification' of the 'truth'.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-28T14:04:35.280Z
2017-06-28T14:23:25.727Z
2017-06-28T14:23:25.727Z
ChrisW
<p>I understand that the Buddha used different teachings styles, depending on the audience/people that were listening. Also, I understand that there seems to be a ,superficial', easier accessible Buddhism and a more advanced, transcendental one.</p>

<p>In the light of this, I am wondering if it is seen as ethically correct, that the Buddha taught some people differently than others, especially by using, I would say, manipulative techniques.</p>

<p>There are two examples I'd like to bring up. </p>

<p>One is the parable of the burning house, in which the Buddha promises playthings to get the children out of the burning house.
..."Then straightaway, <strong>intentionally devising a lie</strong>, he announced to the children, "I have various precious playthings, one for each of you, here outside the door.  For one, a goat-drawn cart.  For one, a deer-drawn cart.  For one, an ox-drawn cart.  Come out, all of you!  For your sakes I have made these carts, following the desire of your own thoughts."</p>

<p>Thereafter, he is offering them even more valuable carts than promised (the Dhamma I assume). But he used the first promise to lure them out of the house. Of course, as it is a parable, it can be interpreted in varying ways. However, in this case he intentionally lied to the children in order to get them to the right path. Isn't that manipulative?</p>

<p>The second example is about Karma and re-birth. After reading about the topic from different sources and books, it seems to me that the mechanism of Karma and re-birth primarily serves as to bring the common people to act ethically (good karma, bad karma, different realm of re-birth). However, in my understanding there is actually no self that can be re-born, as the 5 aggregates dissolve at the moment of death (where there is actually no death also). When there is no self, nothing can die nor be reborn, nor can there be a ,bookkeeping' of good and bad karma. Therefore, it seems that the teachings here bring the karma and re-birth theory up only to attract the common people and have them behave in line with Buddhist ethics. However, in fact after realising that there is no self, this whole construct becomes redundant (Simpler vs. more advanced Buddhism?).</p>

<p>I would be very happy to read your view on this, as this issue has kept bugging me for a while. I am convinced that there is a justification in this method, which makes it ethically acceptable (does the end ever justify the means?). Also, please point out if my line of thought is flawed.</p>

<p>Thank you so much.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-28T09:44:47.770Z
it would be helpful if you could let us know from which Sutta / Sutra that you took this the parable of the burning house. I have not come across this before. So it could be a Mahayana Sutra (words such as Karma, Sutra, Dharma... are found in Mahayana text). If it is of the Theravada, the same is spelt (spelled) as Kamma, Sutta, Dhamma.
Saptha Visuddhi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-28T11:13:12.283Z
it is from the Lotus Sutra, ch. 3. Thanks.
tomodachi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-28T11:26:35.267Z
so yes, the parable is from a Mahayana text.
What I have written about Karma is just a general understanding I have of it. So far, I was not able to understand it satisfactory.
tomodachi
<karma><teaching><stages-of-the-path><lotus-sutra>
Was Buddha deceiving others to get them on the path?
# Was Buddha deceiving others to get them on the path?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-06-28)

I understand that the Buddha used different teachings styles, depending on the audience/people that were listening. Also, I understand that there seems to be a ,superficial', easier accessible Buddhism and a more advanced, transcendental one.

In the light of this, I am wondering if it is seen as ethically correct, that the Buddha taught some people differently than others, especially by using, I would say, manipulative techniques.

There are two examples I'd like to bring up.

One is the parable of the burning house, in which the Buddha promises playthings to get the children out of the burning house.
..."Then straightaway, **intentionally devising a lie**, he announced to the children, "I have various precious playthings, one for each of you, here outside the door. For one, a goat-drawn cart. For one, a deer-drawn cart. For one, an ox-drawn cart. Come out, all of you! For your sakes I have made these carts, following the desire of your own thoughts."

Thereafter, he is offering them even more valuable carts than promised (the Dhamma I assume). But he used the first promise to lure them out of the house. Of course, as it is a parable, it can be interpreted in varying ways. However, in this case he intentionally lied to the children in order to get them to the right path. Isn't that manipulative?

The second example is about Karma and re-birth. After reading about the topic from different sources and books, it seems to me that the mechanism of Karma and re-birth primarily serves as to bring the common people to act ethically (good karma, bad karma, different realm of re-birth). However, in my understanding there is actually no self that can be re-born, as the 5 aggregates dissolve at the moment of death (where there is actually no death also). When there is no self, nothing can die nor be reborn, nor can there be a ,bookkeeping' of good and bad karma. Therefore, it seems that the teachings here bring the karma and re-birth theory up only to attract the common people and have them behave in line with Buddhist ethics. However, in fact after realising that there is no self, this whole construct becomes redundant (Simpler vs. more advanced Buddhism?).

I would be very happy to read your view on this, as this issue has kept bugging me for a while. I am convinced that there is a justification in this method, which makes it ethically acceptable (does the end ever justify the means?). Also, please point out if my line of thought is flawed.

Thank you so much.

**Tags:** karma, teaching, stages-of-the-path, lotus-sutra

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: it would be helpful if you could let us know from which Sutta / Sutra that you took this the parable of the burning house. I have not come across this before. So it could be a Mahayana Sutra (words such as Karma, Sutra, Dharma... are found in Mahayana text). If it is of the Theravada, the same is spelt (spelled) as Kamma, Sutta, Dhamma.  
> **username_0**: it is from the Lotus Sutra, ch. 3. Thanks.  
> **username_0**: so yes, the parable is from a Mahayana text. What I have written about Karma is just a general understanding I have of it. So far, I was not able to understand it satisfactory.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-06-28. Score: 4

> **Please point out if my line of thought is flawed.**

It is an established principle since the time of the Buddha there are two types of teachings:

1. mundane, worldly or moral teachings (*lokiya dhamma*)
2. supramundane, transcendent or noble teachings connected to emptiness (l*okuttara dhamma*)

The moral teachings bring moral (non-harming) benefits but do not remove attachment.

These teaching exist because the majority of people are unable to remove attachment.

Therefore, your line of thought is certainly flawed because how can it be expected of most people to give up attachment towards sexuality, reproductive drives, partners, children & family?

If you expect all people to give up attachment & realise not-self, when they are actually incapable of doing so, it is you rather than the Buddha that is deceiving people.

Please refer to [MN 117](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html) (linked).

> *Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming];
> there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a
> factor of the path. MN 117*

Please also refer to MN 12 & MN 26 (below):

> *Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power...*
>
> *Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...*
>
> *Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too is a
> Tathagata's power...*
>
> *MN 12*

---

> *Then, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did
> so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much,
> those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good
> attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard,
> some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world. MN 26*

---

As for 'rebirth', the Buddha did not deceive or lie. Again, this is a long established principle.

The Buddha used certain well-defined words & it is not the Buddha deceiving people but people **interpreting** the Buddha's words in different ways that generate various ideas about 'rebirth'.

The commentaries state:

> *The Awakened One, best of speakers, Spoke two kinds of truths: The conventional and the ultimate. A third truth does not obtain.*
>
> *Therein: The speech wherewith the world converses is true. On account of its being agreed upon by the world. The speech which
> describes what is ultimate is also true, Through characterizing
> dhammas as they really are.*
>
> *Therefore, being skilled in common usage, **False speech does not arise in the Teacher**, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks
> according to conventions.*
>
> *(Mn. i. 95)*

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: I feel this line of thought is correct and I tend to also think of it using the analogy of teaching young children vs. adults in issues of morality. The 'arguments' one would use to stop a 2yr old from hitting others would certainly be different from those to a 15yr old. Both sets of 'arguments' would have the same goal but would be quite different in their content and presentation. Though each would be very different, neither would be wrong - given their intended audience.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2017-06-28. Score: 3

When I look at [this translation](http://www.bdk.or.jp/document/dgtl-dl/dBET_T0262_LotusSutra_2007.pdf),

* The text says "skillful means", not "lie"
* Sariputa is asked twice whether that's deception:

  + The first time he replies "no" because the children get carts instead
  + Even if they weren't given carts, it wouldn't be deception because the man's thought was to help the children escape

---

**I am convinced that there is a justification in this method, which makes it ethically acceptable (does the end ever justify the means?). Also, please point out if my line of thought is flawed.**

[This answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/12094/254) for example suggests that the end can be justification for the means.

And Andrei's comment was that's a "Mahayana-style" answer, which of course the Lotus Sutra is too.

I'm inclined to think of it as a 'simplification' rather than a lie (see [Lie-to-children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children) for example). Most of the Physics that I was taught at school, for example, wasn't a 'lie' but rather a 'simplification' of the 'truth'.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-06-28. Score: 0

The Buddha uses parables to illustrate points of the Dhamma. These are not intend to deceive, not untrue statement but example. The conditions for lying are:

> i) The statement must be untrue.
>
> ii) There must be an intention to deceive.
>
> iii) An effort must be made to deceive.
>
> iv) The other person must know the meaning of what is expressed.

Source: [FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA)](https://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/PDF_BuddhismCourse/11_%20Five%20Precepts.pdf)

The Buddha used many techniques to teach the Dhamma but lying and deception was not one of them. See:

* [The Teaching Methods of the Buddha: A dynamic vision of Buddhist hermeneutics](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Teaching-Methods-of-the-Buddha.pdf) by Piya Tan
* [Language and Discourse](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/26.11-Language-and-discourse.-piya.pdf) by Piya Tan
* [Dhammapada 97: The two levels of religious language](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/10.6-Dh-97-Religious-language-piya.pdf) Translated & annotated by Piya Tan
* [Skill in Questions: How the Buddha Taught](http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/skillInQuestions_v140109.pdf) by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu.

With regard to teaching of Karma, the Buddha spoke of the dangers and pitfalls of Karma. One intention of doing this is to encourage the cultivation of morality. But this does not make it untrue, but making the truth to be know so people will know the dangers which might befall them.

Also your of the [Pāramitā](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81ramit%C4%81) one Pāramitā is Sacca Pāramī which is truthfulness, honesty. Also one of the [Sila](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics) that the Bodhisattva never broke after definite prophecy is false speech.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you so much for the useful links. I will take a closer look there.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-06-28. Score: 0

If the action is beneficial for either party or not unbeneficial for both parties it may be ok to pursue irrespective of the term you use to describe that act. (tactic etc.)


---

