Introduction
Today, I present my rewrite of a famous Buddhist parable to give you an idea of my feelings about lying. It strikes me that (too) many right wing Christians are (too) willing to lie. I guess they feel the ends justify the means, or maybe it's just plain, unabashed greed.
It seems that Buddhists, too, accept lying if it's for a higher purpose – for example, to lead others to enlightenment. Personally, I reject that view, though I very much consider myself to be a Buddhist.
Source
Chapter 3 of the Lotus Sutra (the Buddhist Bible), containing the Parable of the Burning House.
The Parable of the Burning House: My Rewrite
In this famous parable, a wealthy man entices his sons to leave a burning house by promising to allow each of them to choose and keep as a present either a goat cart, a deer cart, or an ox cart ... but only if they would leave this burning house immediately. His sons were so engrossed in their play that they had simply ignored their father's earlier attempts at warning them to flee to safety.
The Buddha had been telling this parable to Shariputra and the other disciples in the Great Assembly, when he paused to ask a question: Was the father "guilty of falsehood" when he had promised each of his sons a choice of either a "goat cart, a deer cart, or an ox cart" but instead gave each of them a far-superior vehicle (an extremely ornate and huge carriage) drawn by a great, white ox?
Shariputra answered as follows. However, please note his last sentence:
QUOTE*: No, World-Honored One. This rich man simply made it possible for his sons to escape the peril of fire and preserve their lives. He did not commit falsehood. Why do I say this? Because if they were able to preserve their lives, then they had already obtained a plaything of sorts. And how much more so when, through an expedient means, they are rescued from that burning house! World-Honored One, even if the rich man had not given them the tiniest carriage, he would still not be guilty of falsehood.: UNQUOTE*.
After Shariputra spoke these words, the Buddha answered:
“Very good. Very good. It is just as you have said.”
Here’s where I diverge from the original parable:
However, after Shariputra had given his answer (but before the Buddha had said, "Very good. Very good. It is just as you have said"), suppose another disciple had spoken up, saying the following:
“But World-Honored One, I have to disagree with Shariputra, the foremost in wisdom among those of our assembly, by insisting that the father did in fact commit a falsehood. His intentions were good, but I must in good conscience insist that the father told a lie, an untruth, a falsehood.”
To which the Buddha might have said (at least, in my opinion), "You are correct, the father did commit a falsehood. You are to be praised for being courageous by answering in this manner. For the Buddha, in the telling of this parable, was tempting all of you to declare that the father did not lie, as evidenced by Shariputra who just now told me what he thought I wanted to hear. I know it was difficult for you to answer as you did just now, in opposition to what most would suppose to be my position.
“You have just now demonstrated a willingness to resist, instead of meekly follow, an authority figure as irresistible as the Buddha. You did this out of love of both the truth and the Great Law of the Universe. Therefore, I declare you to be the next to become a Buddha, out of all in this Great Assembly, since none of them had spoken as you did just now.”
Conclusion
How many politicians do you know who would do what I just did: Challenge the holy scriptures of their own faith? How many do you suppose even think about such matters? [NOTE: Actually, that’s what we’re supposed to do.] Or is it easier for them to let others do their spiritual thinking for them (and, come to think of it, their political thinking as well)? To challenge one's faith (and faith establishment) is important. Without such challenges, neither the individual nor his "church" will grow.
On a more practical level, though, I have to ask: Why do our elected public officials lie so easily?
One: To look good so they can get re-elected. [This will not be a problem for me as I seek the U.S.presidency in 2012, since my contract forbids me to run for re-election.]
Two: To serve a hidden agenda which serves special interests, lobbyists, holders of IOU's, and the party. [I don't have a hidden agenda since I am a man of modest means, who owes nothing to any party or kingmaker and who has no desire for wealth.]
Three: Lying, for many, is a lifelong habit which had long ago become second nature. [Attempting to live ethically has been my lifelong habit...which explains my lack of wealth, though I don't have a problem with that.]
Four: Some claim: Since none of the Ten Commandments speaks against lying, this cannot be considered a major sin. In my view, lying is covered under the “Thou Shalt Not Steal” rule. For when a person lies to another, doesn’t he “steal” from him an accurate view of reality upon which he might make decisions contrary to the liar’s interests?
Who do you want as your next President? One of several prominent, lying, mealy-mouthed, professional politicians who owe a lot to a lot? Or an honest man of humble station?
Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“You could do a lot worse than electing Steve as your next President. A lot worse.”
* The quoted material is from the Burton Watson translation of The Lotus Sutra.
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment