I have been looking into Buddhism and this is the question I found hard to answer. I do understand that lying in Buddhism is breaking the 4th precept. I also know that in case lying is required in order to save someone's life for example is something that should be done(unless there is a way to bend the truth) but it still would break the 4th precept. But now I found one example I have no idea if it breaks the 4th percept. Let's say I am playing a game where you are supposed to spot the odd one out(someone that is playing against everyone else). That person has to lie in order to hide the fact that they are the odd one out. The reason why I do not know if this breaks the 4th precept is because all players are aware that one of them is lying. So does playing this game as the odd one out break the 4th precept?

What if one thought it wiser to tell a lie, because the truth could potentially endanger one's own life? For instance, someone might lie that they believe in a supreme being, in reply to a question being asked by their parents who have strong faith. This is a very sensitive topic in some cultures or countries, to the point that parents might kick their son or daughter out of the house. This is an example where the intention is to maintain personal security. Does this violate the precept of not-lying? Or, instead of being a lie, might this be considered like the "noble silence" that Buddha once exhibited when the listener was incapable of understanding the Dhamma?

Venerables, Upasaka, Upasika Valued readers and engaged Buddhabodhisattas here, - In how far might it count as a break of the precept, abstaining from telling what is not true, if one changes the circumstances? For example here: - There might be a question, receiving answers. Afterwards are changes of the questions, sometime seemingly slight, does a change counts as a break? - If not having the intention to missinterpret the answerer, does such anyhow possible give ground that they accure missinterpreted? To include Abhidhamma aspects: - What are ones reasons willing to change answers, questions, delete parts, modify... afterwards if it is unskillful? Why and how could one modify, delete, change in a skilfulway that would harm in this or that way? - How to go beyound such problems, what whould be a secure solution? - What are the consequences of missinterpreting and changing the true or circumstances to display a differnt picture for ones benefit, harm of others or out of not-knowing and fear (e.g. the four roots of akusala, greed, aversion, delution, fear)? - How do you practice that, or exerianced the matter in you practice in forums and blogs? Note that it is a general question, but also a very urged matter of all editors and edits here, yet so importand and on topic of practicing Dhamma, that it should not be taken as meta. *(This question is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains.)* >*Side note in regard of Bu-meta*: it might be good if the moderators engage on this maater in regard of: 1. Make use of "on hold" and possible protection of question and or notification of answerers in cases of question changes. My person can not engage there, just with hints in comments, not sure if the old question there still exists.

In how far might it count as a break of the precept, abstaining from telling what is not true, if one changes the circumstances? For example here: There might be a question, receiving answers. Afterwards are changes of the questions by telling about the circumstances differently, sometime seemingly slight, does a change counts as a break? If not having the intention to missinterpret the answerer, does such anyhow possible give ground that they accure missinterpreted? To include Abhidhamma in the question: What are ones reasons willing to change answers, questions, delete parts, modify... in retelling afterwards if it is unskillful? Why and how could one render change in a skilfulway that would harm in this or that way or make aware of it? How to go beyound such problems, what whould be a secure solution? What are the consequences of missinterpreting and changing the true or circumstances to display a differnt picture for ones benefit, harm of others or out of not-knowing and fear (e.g. the four roots of akusala, greed, aversion, delution, fear)

Why is a lie for the purposes of self defence necessarily unwholesome? Why is using a lie as defence for another from attack considered parajeeka for a monk when a monk can use physical self defence and it's not parajeeka? Why can't a monk misrepresent reality(lie) for self defense instead of resorting to physical violence? As long as you know what the truth is why give it to someone who would exploit it? I was thinking that our intentions aren't unwholesome because we lie but a lie is unwholesome because of our unwholesome intentions. -Metta