Verse 11

“Any evil action he may still do by deed, word or thought, he is incapable of concealing it; since it has been proclaimed that such concealing is impossible for one who has seen the Path (of Nibbana). This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of the) truth may there be happiness.

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.than.html

Commentary: The characteristic of a Sotapanna?

A Sotāpanna, or stream-enterer, is the first stage of awakening. In the previous verse, we learned that a Sotāpanna is incapable of committing six major wrongdoings. In this verse, the focus shifts to another characteristic of one who has seen the Path: the inability to conceal wrongdoing.

The verse states that “concealing is impossible for one who has seen the Path (of Nibbana).”

This seems to suggest that attaining the first stage of awakening brings about a fundamental change in one’s relationship with wrongdoing. A Sotāpanna can no longer conceal an evil action committed through deed, speech, or thought.

But does this also mean that an enlightened person is incapable of lying?

The Pali Canon offers some important clues.

In the Abhayarājakumāra Sutta (MN 58), the Buddha explains that he does not speak what he knows to be untrue, even when such speech might be pleasing to others. He distinguishes between speech that is true or false, beneficial or harmful, and agreeable or disagreeable to the listener. When speech is true and beneficial, he knows when it is appropriate to speak.

Furthermore, in the Saṅkhittūposatha Sutta (AN 8.41), Arahants are described as abstaining from false speech throughout their lives. This is consistent with the Buddha’s prescription of the precept to abstain from falsehood, a fundamental principle of Buddhist moral training.

Taken together, these passages suggest that truthfulness is more than a social virtue. It is an important characteristic of the Buddha’s teaching and the conduct expected of those who have attained liberation.

There is another interesting aspect of the Buddha’s conduct. On certain occasions, when questioned about matters he considered unhelpful or inappropriate to answer, the Buddha remained silent rather than providing an answer. For example, in the Cūḷamāluṅkya Sutta (MN 63), he declines to answer a series of speculative questions about the cosmos and the nature of the Tathāgata after death. Instead, he explains that such questions do not lead to liberation from suffering.

This illustrates an important distinction: the Buddha did not have to answer every question put to him. He could remain silent when an answer would not serve a useful purpose, rather than inventing an answer merely to satisfy the questioner.

What, then, about telling a white lie? Could an enlightened being deliberately say something untrue to comfort someone, encourage them, or guide them towards a beneficial outcome?

The Pali Canon does not appear to offer a general exception permitting falsehood simply because the intention is compassionate. Instead, the passages discussed above consistently emphasise truthfulness, abstention from false speech, and the importance of speaking at the appropriate time.

Personally, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the Pali Canon strongly suggests that genuine awakening is incompatible with deliberate lying. Although the texts do not always phrase this as an absolute incapacity to utter any false statement, they portray the Buddha as refusing to speak what he knows to be untrue and Arahants as abstaining from false speech throughout their lives.

May all be well and happy.