A person of integrity (Sappurisa Sutta) In the Anguttara Nikaya 4.73, the Buddha said that a "person of integrity" possesses these four qualities:


when asked, does not reveal the other person's bad points and when pressed, speaks of the other person's bad points not in full, with omissions.
when not asked, reveals the other person's good points and when pressed, speaks of the other person's good points in full, with no omissions.
when not asked, reveals his own bad points and when pressed, speaks of his own bad points in full, with no omissions.
when asked, does not reveal his own good points and when pressed, speaks of his good points not in full, with omissions.


I have paraphrased here, but the above is basically my understanding of the sutta.  My question is how this can be considered an honest answer, or how someone answering this way could be considered a "person of integrity".  I am thinking about a job candidate that has given a reference.  If the reference answers in the way a "person of integrity" should answer, they would omit vital negative information and would furthermore only reveal that negative information when pressed.

I am having trouble understand how these "shifty" and "slippery" answers are those given by a person of integrity and would appreciate someone clarifying these points to me.
This is an interesting point. My (Asian) teacher explained to me that integrity as a concept has a different meaning in Eastern culture.

We in the west often assume that integrity = honesty. But really if you think about it, integrity is the opposite of corruption. Integrity is being true to the right values. In the Eastern society permeated by Mahayana Buddhism social harmony is such primary value. So integrity in this sense means, being committed to maximizing the social harmony and well-being. Even at the expense of technical scientific honesty.

In the examples from the sutta, Buddha praises a man who deemphasizes other's faults, emphasizes other's virtues, emphasizes own faults, and deemphasizes own virtues. This is part of integrity in the above sense.

In Mahayana, upaya or expedient means is something that can be technically not true but practically of value, and so is preferred to naked truth that is often not palatable or even harmful.

My personal opinion is that The Wheel has rolled too far down this path, and I would like to correct that by being a little more upfront about things, but I still have to recognize that things are not always as black and white as our passion for brutal honesty would like us to believe sometimes.

Your example with job references is obviously not a scenario the historical Buddha had in mind. I'm not in a position to give universal guidance on a topic like this, but when I have to serve as someone's reference, I try to give a balanced response. Meaning, instead of unloading my subjective opinion of the person ("the truth") as if it was final, I try to be cautious with my conclusions, especially the negative ones, and give the person benefit of doubt. Which is sort of what the Buddha said.