To Provide Compassionate Care for the sick & terminally ill and create a supportive, nurturing environment for people to consciously face their illness and/or end-of-life journeys.
Right Lying
Can a lie be right speech?

The call came from Enloe Hospital at 3:30 on a fall afternoon. A Japanese Buddhist woman, Chinatsu, was dying. I would find her, I was told, in Room 302 of Enloe’s oncology ward. Her family had gathered and had asked for me to come. I had been the hospital’s designated Buddhist spiritual caregiver for several years but had never before been told to hurry if I wanted to see the patient alive.
At the hospital, I took the elevator to the third floor, only to discover that Chinatsu had died a few moments earlier. A ward nurse informed me that the family was waiting for me. Down the hall, I found 20 or more family members and friends packed into a small waiting area. A young man in a suit and tie greeted me with a bow and held open the door to a room where another dozen or so family members were gathered. When everyone from the waiting area had squeezed in behind me, there were close to 40 of us pressed tightly around the dead woman’s bed.
The young man serving as my guide whispered to me that most of those present were Shin Buddhists. I took it that he was suggesting how I should proceed, but I’m a Zen Buddhist and have only slight familiarity with Pure Land practices. My first instance of wrong speech that afternoon, I suppose, was a lie of omission: I didn’t admit to my shortcomings but instead tried to figure out what was best to do under the circumstances. When it comes to lying I’m not at all sure that I know when it’s best to lie, or even whether or not it’s ever best to lie. Nonetheless, I put on my rakusu (the traditional bib-like garment that represents a Zen monk’s robes), clasped the palms of my hands together, and set out to make the best I could of what little I knew of Shin Buddhist ceremonies.
Seeing this, everyone grew still, and an air of expectancy settled over the room. Less than an arm’s length from me lay Chinatsu. Although her body had been ravaged by the cancer that had killed her, I could see that she was still a beautiful woman in her late forties or early fifties. In my years as the senior Buddhist chaplain at High Desert State Prison in California, where most of my students were Shin Buddhists, I had learned a few Shin practices. And so I prayed that Amida Butsu—Amida Buddha, ruler of the Western Paradise of Ultimate Bliss—would take Chinatsu into his care so that she might reside in the Pure Land, the cherished destination of all devout Shin Buddhists.
Understand, I don’t have any belief in a Pure Land. In truth, I have no belief (or for that matter, disbelief) in an afterlife of any sort. Zen is not a repository of belief, either positive or negative, relying instead on the circumstances of the moment to dictate what needs to be done without imposing any preconceived intent on the situation at hand. The only pure land I know of is the dirt under my feet. So my prayer for Chinatsu’s deliverance was, I suppose, a great falsehood, although my intention in offering it was not false. Or was it? Was I simply trying to save face and not appear unqualified? If so, then my patched-together prayer was a falsehood of the most self-serving sort. But if I was saying this prayer because 30 or 40 grieving family and friends were depending on me to perform an essential cultural ritual— and because, like it or not, I was the only spiritual caregiver the hospital had to offer at the time—then I’m not certain what sort of falsehood I was engaged in. I said some other prayers more or less of my own invention, and everyone seemed satisfied.
Japanese Shin Buddhism teaches that deliverance to the Pure Land is a grace bestowed on anyone who sincerely chants Amida Butsu’s name. At the prison, I had run into considerable resistance among the Shin Buddhists when I tried to teach them meditation, which they thought useless, because for them salvific power lies solely in the recitation of “Namo Amida Butsu,” Amida’s vow. Since Chinatsu could no longer chant on her own behalf, I thought maybe we would all feel better if we chanted for her, to help her on her way to the Pure Land. And so I began chanting “Namo Amida Butsu.” My guide seemed especially pleased with this, and he took over leading the chant as the whole room joined in. I chanted along with them until, as if by a signal, they all stopped at once. In the absence of sharing any belief in what we were chanting, I voiced a genuine wish that their hopes for Chinatsu’s deliverance to the Pure Land would be realized.
Afterward, I asked if anyone wanted to say something to Chinatsu. A few did, speaking in Japanese and sometimes, as a courtesy to me, in English as well. Then a woman wearing a soft blue cap worked her way toward me from the rear of the group until she stood opposite me on the other side of the bed. “I think Chinatsu would like you to say something about God,” she said firmly. A few others murmured assent. It was only then that I saw, partly hidden in the folds of Chinatsu’s gown, a tiny cross strung around her neck. The woman lying dead before me was not a Pure Land Buddhist but a Christian! It was an absurd moment. I could only surmise that the Shin Buddhist practitioners in the room had let me carry on because they preferred that Chinatsu be sent to the Pure Land rather than to a Christian heaven. I might just as well have conducted a Zen ceremony, I thought. Still, if they wanted me to say something about God, that I could manage: fourteen years of childhood attendance at Trinity Episcopal Church in Orange, California, had given me enough Christian liturgy to get by.
And so I began with a few prayers of the sort Reverend Hailwood might have offered in the Trinity sanctuary all those years ago. I recited the Lord’s Prayer, the Twenty-third Psalm, and the Apostle’s Creed, which affirms God as the maker of heaven and earth, the virgin birth of His son, and the resurrection of the body and life everlasting—not a word of which I still subscribed to. This was the last and, perhaps, most blatant lie of that afternoon in Room 302. But despite my disbelief, the familiar words rolled out of me, over Chinatsu, and gathered around us like a rising mist from ancient seas of past beliefs. I couldn’t keep my eyes dry.

















The only time a lie can be told is when a person knows the absolute truth and does not report it. Many truths I have learned in medicine have only become falsehoods over time. I most likely will not know the truth in this lifetime and, therefore, agree with the author putting compassion first.
In your experience have any falsehoods been proven to be true over time?
Buddhism clarifies the severe reality of the four sufferings: birth, aging, illness and death. As well as the eternity of universal life-force (buddha nature) as it moves through past, present and future, alternating between the two states of life and death. Lacking comprehension of the Law (ultimate reality) people naturally fret and suffer while undergoing samsara and wonder why.
Not very long after I began studying Zen, I went to a retreat that was being held by a Tibetan lama in a nearby town. I went because it was close by, and because it fit my schedule. I just wanted to sit and wasn't prepared at all for my first contact with Tibetan Buddhism and all the cultural elaborations it contains.
There were many prayers and rituals during this retreat. At once point I caught the lama and his assistant during a break, and asked the lama things like "Doesn't prayer involve wishing for things to be other than they are? "Isn't the failure to accept things as they are part of the problem?"
The lama somewhat sadly pointed out the poverty and oppression that the majority of people of the world live under, and how prayer and ritual provides a feeling of having some control for those who have so little real control over the actual circumstances of their lives. Not everyone gets a life that allows time to practice.
I was taken aback. My lack of compassion for all the suffering beings and my dogmatism of basically judging others for resorting to "silly" prayers and rituals was (very politely) thrown right back in my face. It was even worse to realize that my aloofness was a luxury not enjoyed by most. Many people don't even know where their next meal is coming from. Should they be ridiculed if they pray for rain with an empty belly and wilting crops? The meanness of my attitude struck me. I had forgotten about all the times I've been desperate in the past and reached out to some powerful invisible being, even when I wasn't sure it was real. Somehow at those times it wasn't so important to be "right", or to know the "truth".
It seems that the writer did what a compassionate person would do and provided the family with what they needed in their time of distress - regardless of any personal feelings about it. Was there really an acceptable alternative at that point? I mean, there you are, and there they are, and something has to be done for this poor dead woman, and you know just enough to do it. I think this is admirable.
Of course there's bound to be some second guessing after the fact. The mind loves to debate and judge and replay events. So what? No harm was done and good was done.
I greatly appreciate your presence at the bedside of the dying and in the prison. What you say is less important.
It sounds wonderful to agonize over these issues and to identify with all the 'humanity' within ourselves. But, these are the kind of machinations one goes through when one is immersed in the self; in little mind.
Buddha pointed out the solution for this long ago.
I would think that the Buddha would have no problem at all (personally or otherwise) in presiding over a Christian ceremony or some flavor of Buddhist ceremony. The author's torn state about truth/falsehood, and different religious beliefs reflects little mind, not an awakened person.
The best thing the author could do is for himself and others is to practice.
You hit the nail right on the head. The author followed Zen in relying on the circumstances of the moment in order to do what needed to be done: ease the grief of the relatives (compassion). This is exactly what the Buddha would have done. After all, everyone, regardless of their religion, is on the same path, just getting there in different ways.
Have you heard the famous story where a Tibetan teacher and Zen teacher met in front of an audience. The Zen teacher(koan style) brought out an orange and said in his big deep Zen voice(drum roll) "What is this?". The Tibetan teacher whispered into his attendant's ear, "What is wrong with that guy, doesn't he know what an orange is?"
The dharma is expressed through the relative and what transmits wisdom to one person is meaningless to another.
In the same way, the dilemma about what to say in the situation this Zen chaplain describes is very understandable to me and is an indication of his awakened state. His awakening made him sensitive to the differences between people. It sounds like he did well because of this sensitivity. The fact that he is able to openly discuss his uncertainty also reassures me of his capacity for wisdom. I would feel deep discomfort with a wisdom that could not tolerate uncertainty.
I would disagree.
Having this kind of wisdom and sensitivity is not an indication at all of any awakened state, simply what most people with a degree of wisdom and sensivity would think about given similar circumstances.
I was not criticizing his actions or thoughts, such things are normal for the mind. I was suggesting that these inner conflicts with regard to truth/falsity and belief/unbelieif can be resolved through practice for both his and others' benefit.
This was a wonderful piece and approaches a question I have thought about a bit. I am especially interested in the examples of the poem and the hat because I wonder where "truth" and "opinion" separate. For your mother and the poet, perhaps it was their opinion that these things were fine but others held different opinions. Some truth's are clear cut (did you eat that cookie?) but this realm of "subjective truth" is an interesting matter for me.
As an artist, other artists sometimes ask what I think and I sometimes ask for the opinion of others. As with the poem, these can be tricky places when our truth is not what the other person wants to hear. Knowing this I can say I have been helped when others offered me their truth that I didn't really want to hear. It has helped me to make a better painting (and other more important choices).
Perhaps it boils down to a holistic take on the situation, our intent and some heartful assessment of what the situation asks for (as you did at hospice). A big lesson for me has been that on the spur of the moment, I do the best I can and sometimes I get it wrong. I learn and move from that place.
Thanks for offering a chance to revisit and contemplate this important issue.
Thanks very much for that very difficult hospice moment and for your thoughtful analysis and response.
Did your dad change anything?
What was the point of being right if the consequence was the pain of a man cornered in a hallway in his pajamas, humiliated by his son?
There is knowing, and for a teenager this was the best he could do at that moment, just as you said in the article. As to your father, he was -Then suddenly he crumbled, and the energy seemed to drain out of him. I had spoken the truth, and he knew it.Truth is not pleasant nor unpleasant, it is the moment at hand. Your father was challenged because he had the capacity to see what was happening when spoken by one he loved.
As a parent, my children have told me many truths that I did not want to hear, but then when I had the capacity to hear them, these truths were a way to opening to what my actions were doing to others. Just learning to listen to them has been a tremendous gift and we now have a wonderfully loving relationship.
Were they right, hmmm? Sometimes what they tell me is their pain, opening to that, right gets confusing.
If you tell the Truth, you don't have to remember anythig...
Thank you Lin Jensen.