If the literal truth causes confusion, but a lie portrays the truth via a careful misunderstanding, is it really a lie? Sometimes during everyday conversation, you can notice based on someone's subtle feedback, that they may be misinterpreting something you are telling them. For the sake of the question, please suspend doubt in the premise itself:

This literal truth causes confusion and ignorance for them, but our hypothetical lie communicates the truth effectively and even helps gently erode away the delusions they suffer from. (Because our words were exactly what they needed to hear, so that when their delusions distort their understanding, it lands on the truth.)

Is this really a lie, or is it perfect language? (Is it a corrupted compromise between them?)



EDIT: More specifically, is it breaking the precept of false speech? 


  I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.


Is a lie still false if it communicates the truth?
As a counter to the other answer, Wikipedia's article on upāya ('skillful means') describes the Parable of the burning house:


  The Lotus Sutra contains a famous upaya story about using the expedient means of white lies to rescue children from a burning building.


There's a similar, modern. non-Buddhist term for this called Lie-to-children:


  Because some topics can be extremely difficult to understand without experience, introducing a full level of complexity to a student or child all at once can be overwhelming. Hence elementary explanations are simplified in a way that makes the lesson more understandable, though technically wrong. A lie-to-children is meant to be eventually replaced with a more sophisticated explanation which is closer to the truth.


Some lineages also apparently have secrets which may be similar to this.



I wonder whether to deduce that it's OK as long there is no intent to deceive. But saying "there are toys" (in the 'Parable of the burning house') seems like an actual deception. It's beneficial/compassionate, at least. And skillful/necessary. Maybe it's not even deceptive (it's hard to tell when it's a parable or metaphor).

So, yes: "portraying the truth via a careful miunderstanding" seems to have a basis in literature (Mahayana and Vajrayāna, even if not Theravada). Upāya is apparently a Mahayana concept.

Havig said this I hope you won't use it as an excuse to deceive people. I think there's some justification for saying that ignorance is a cause of suffering, and that deception goes with ignorance, so I hope you won't be deceiving people.