| What other treasures are housed in the Louvre? |
![]() |
| At least they have leads. Come see me! |
| What other treasures are housed in the Louvre? |
![]() |
| At least they have leads. Come see me! |
![]() |
| Ancient ET temple in Tikal, Mexico |
Regarding lies and karma, Buddhism is clear. It is harmful. The consequences are certain. But fruition (phala) is delayed. Results (vipaka) may be immediate: one is pained here and hereafter. It is noteworthy that what is called a "lie" is less about absolute honesty and more about perjury. The lies that really matter -- whether of commission or omission -- are those regarding testimony.
There is no necessity of hurting feelings with the "brutal truth" at every opportunity. Compassion is more important. But that compassion is trumped by the need to be honest when called on to account. For example, when brought before an assembly (an audience) or a tribunal or one's peers, not omitting what you know or have seen and not inventing what you do not know or have not seen, that is the important thing.
The Buddha was remarkable but not unique in that he never lied. Many lives, many aeons in the past, the Bodhisat or "Buddha-to-be" (Judeo-Christian "Josaphat," Rhys Davids' Buddhist Birth-Stories) gave up lying. It was this karma, he explains, that gave him many benefits in the round of rebirth. He enjoyed heavenly lives, he was trusted, he avoided painful destinations, he had a mellifluous voice, he was respected, he was loved, he was listened to, he had influence, he died clear and unconfused... It is remarkable and astounding the degree to which honesty is beneficial.
Buddhism was well received and spread far beyond India (when the plethora of competing philosophies did not) because it was truthy, as Stephen Colbert would say, but moreover because the Buddha as a figure was trustworthy. His words were treasured. He was compelling. People wanted to listen to him and received his message well. This he explained was due to the karma (merit) he had long willed, performed, and accumulated. (One can argue whether or not he ever uttered a deliberate untruth; it does not seem difficult to imagine that he abstained from the literal definition of "false speech").
The Five Precepts are a minimal effort, simply being human:
What is "false speech"? Each of the precepts has an exact, technical definition. At a minimum, it means not to tell deliberate untruths. Technically, however, it is fourfold and may be practiced in its full form for maximum benefits: abstaining from perjury as well as abstaining from speech that is divisive, harsh, or frivolously-distracting.
One will be honest. But the world will still be false: lies, perjury, distorts...fibs. Is it possible to tell when? Yes, here's how.
(Forbes.com) Does everyone fib? Many of us do -- many of us as often as we brush our teeth. While there is no surefire way to sniff out a dissembler, there are some helpful clues and tactics for uncovering untruths. Here are 11:
Skilled liars don't break a sweat; the rest of us get a little fidgety. Four possible giveaways: shifty eyes, higher vocal pitch, perspiration and heavier breathing. Be careful, though: Not everyone who doesn't meet your gaze is a liar. "Certain behavioral traits like averting eye contact could be cultural and not indicative of a liar," says Buckley.
