Tag Archives: lying

Theravāda Moral Dilemmas and the Micro-Dynamics of Mental Factors

Volume 33, 2026

Beyond “Mixed Motives”: Cetasika Micro-Dynamics and Theravāda Moral Dilemmas

Indrajith P. Karunanayaka
Independent Researcher

The act of compassionate lying, or causing harm to save a life, poses a deep ethical question. Although many Buddhists accept breaking a precept out of care, the Theravāda Abhidhamma is widely seen as a rigid system that denies this possibility. Previous scholarly debates on this issue have overlooked the crucial role of momentariness. This article examines the psychological mechanics of moral habituation to show how such acts are structurally possible. Drawing on the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, the Atthasālinī, and the Abhidhammattha Saṅgaha, the study demonstrates that compassion and the intention to deceive cannot blend into a single mixed state. Instead, they arise in a rapid, alternating karmically active phase of cognitive impulsion (javana) sequence. I argue that this process is driven by the strict rules governing mental factors (cetasikas) and the repetition condition (āsevana paccaya) that reinforce the ethical character of each moment. By highlighting the threshold of determining consciousness (voṭṭhapana), this momentary analysis resolves long-standing debates about mixed motives. The analysis clarifies how compassionate deception functions moment by moment and explains why training in moral conduct (sīla) must doctrinally precede concentration (samādhi) and wisdom (paññā).

Read article

Privileged Lies

ISSN 1076-9005
Volume 13, 2006

Musāvāda-virati and “Privileged Lies”

J. Duncan M. Derrett
University of London

A privileged lie cannot exist where (1) lies are totally forbidden, or (2) lying is so common that no excuse for it is expected. A lie is “privileged” where it is commonly excused, granted that lying in general is reprehended. A good illustration is to tell a terminally ill patient that there exist hopes of his recovery. In a system knowing privileged lies these are usually harmless to the hearer. The answer “Not at home” is conventional, a piece of politeness. “I do not know” may well be a lie, but may avoid much trouble. In Buddhism, where there are no privileged lies, one may conclude that lies are so injurious that no convenience can excuse lying.

Read article