Chapter 4c: The two kinds of falsehood

9. 'Venerable Nāgasena, it has been said by the Blessed One that a deliberate lie is an offence of the greatest kind (involving exclusion from the Order ^[1]). And again he said: "By a deliberate lie a Bhikkhu commits a minor offence, one that ought to be the subject of confession made before another (member of the Order) ^[2]." Now, venerable Nāgasena, what is herein the distinction, what the reason, that by one lie a Bhikkhu is cast out of the Order, and by another he is guilty only of an offence that can be atoned for. If the first decision be right, then the second must be wrong; but if the second be right, then the first must be wrong. This too is a double-edged problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.'

10. [193] ^[3]'Both your quotations, O king, are correct ^[4]. But a falsehood is a light or heavy offence according to the subject matter. For what do you think, great king? Suppose a man were to give another a slap with his hand, what punishment would you inflict upon him?'

'If the other refused to overlook the matter, then neither should we be able to pardon his assailant ^[5], but should mulct him in a penny or so ^[6].'

'But on the other hand, suppose it had been you yourself that he had given the blow to, what would then be the punishment?'

'We should condemn him to have his hands cut off, and his feet cut off, and to be skinned alive ^[7], and we should confiscate all the goods in his house, and put to death all his family to the seventh generation on both sides.'

'But, great king, what is the distinction? Why is it that for one slap of the hand there should be a gentle fine of a penny, while for a slap given to you there should be so fearful a retribution?'

'Because of the difference in the person (assaulted).'

'Well! just so, great king, is a falsehood a light or a heavy offence according to the attendant circumstances.'

'Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.'

[Here ends the problem as to the degree of offence in falsehood.]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Sampajāna-musāvāda pārājikā. This is curious as according to the Pātimokkha it is Pācittiya, not Pārājikā. Compare Pārājikā 4 with Pācittiya 1. ('Vinaya Texts,' S. B. E., vol. iii, pp. 5 and 32.)

[2]:

I cannot trace these identical words in the Piṭaka texts. But the general sense of them is exactly in agreement with the first Pācittiya rule.

[3]:

Hīnaṭi-kumburē here inserts a summary of the Introductory Story (in the Sutta Vibhaṅga) to the 4th Pārājikā. All this (pp. 254-256) stands in his version for lines 1-3 on p. 193 of the Pāli text.

[4]:

The Pāli repeats them word for word. As I have pointed out above, they are not really correct.

[5]:

So Hīnaṭi-kumburē, who must have had a different reading, and I think a better one, before him.

[6]:

A kahāpaṇa. See the discussion of the value of this coin in my 'Ancient Coins and Measures,' pp. 3, 4.

[7]:

Yāva sīsaṃ kaḷīracchejjaṃchedipeyyāma, which the Siṃhalese merely repeats. It is literally 'We should have him "bambū-sprout-cut" up to his head.' What this technical term may mean is not exactly known—possibly having slits the shape of a bambū sprout cut all over his body.