Lzh Sarv Bi Vb Pc 12Evasive Speech

Source Status

This entry is an AI interpretation based on the descriptive information provided: item code Lzh Sarv Bi Vb Pc 12, Vietnamese title “Evasive Speech,” English title “Evasive Speech,” Pali title “Aññavādaka,” belonging to the Chinese Comparative Vinaya. The truncated ending of the Vietnamese text is discussing the case in which, when directly questioned, a monastic does not answer plainly but speaks about something else, using irrelevant words to evade the matter. The complete source text has not been checked in this data, so the narrative context, classification of the offense, disciplinary formula, or exact scope of application cannot be affirmed beyond the data available.

Context

Speech in the life of one gone forth is not only a means of communication, but also an expression of virtue. Practitioners are trained to speak what is true, timely, beneficial, with a mind free from anger and deceit. In the Sangha, speech also preserves transparency: when something needs to be asked, verified, confessed, or resolved, a clear answer helps the community know what is true and where responsibility lies.

The title “Evasive Speech” suggests a conduct that seems light but has deep consequences. The speaker does not necessarily lie directly, but intentionally leads the listener away from the central point. When asked “is it so?” or “is it not so?”, “right” or “not right,” that person answers with something else, making the matter obscure. In the Vinaya, this obscurity is dangerous because it protects the ego through skillful language.

Content Identifiable from the Descriptive Information

From the descriptive information, this can be identified as an entry in the Pc group, commonly understood as a type of training rule requiring confession, but the data is not enough to determine the detailed procedure. The term Aññavādaka, according to the Pali title, is connected with the sense of “speaking something else,” that is, instead of answering the matter directly, one shifts to another content. The ending of the Vietnamese text clearly gives the example: instead of saying “yes, it is so” or “no, it is not so,” the bhikkhu replies with other words or irrelevant reasoning.

The ending also says that this prohibition may relate to matters of Dharma, discipline, Sangha life, or direct questions. However, one detail in the ending calls the penalty “Sekhiya,” which requires caution because the descriptive information of this entry is Pc. Without the complete source text, the classification of the penalty should not be asserted on the basis of the truncated sentence. What can be identified more securely is the ethical focus: evasive speech weakens trust and obstructs the straightforward functioning of the community.

Evasive speech differs from silence in accordance with the Dharma. There are times when silence is necessary because a question is unsuitable, the questioner is not ready, or an answer may cause harm. But evasion in this training rule is an intentional act of obscuring the truth. It does not arise from the wisdom of guarding speech, but from the wish to avoid responsibility.

Meaning for Practice

The meaning for practice is first of all to train in responsibility for speech. A practitioner avoids not only harsh speech, malicious speech, and divisive speech, but also speech that confuses the truth. A roundabout answer may help us escape immediate discomfort, but it nourishes the habit of self-defense. When that habit grows strong, the mind no longer has enough honesty to see faults and correct them.

In the life of a Dharma center or monastery, clear speech is the foundation of harmony. If a person often answers ambiguously, others will not know what can be trusted. When trust is worn down, mutual admonition becomes difficult, confession becomes formal, and common decisions lose their ethical force. Therefore, the Vinaya is concerned even with forms of speech that may not yet be blatant lying, but still harm the truth.

For laypeople, this entry is also very close to daily life. In family and work, we often avoid difficult questions by changing the subject, blaming the questioner, speaking half-truths, or giving long explanations in order not to admit fault. Practice is to recognize that moment. When we can speak a short sentence that is true, without humiliating ourselves and without attacking another person, we are practicing right speech.

This does not mean saying everything rigidly. Right speech must go together with compassion and wisdom. But compassion is not concealment, and wisdom is not cleverness used to escape fault. One with spiritual strength knows how to speak just enough, to the point, and to be ready to accept one’s share of responsibility.

Comparative Note

This is not a literal translation of Lzh Sarv Bi Vb Pc 12. When the complete source is available, the term Aññavādaka, the classification of the offense according to the descriptive information Pc, the scope of questions to which it applies, and the form of confession stated in the related Vinaya should be checked. The detail “Sekhiya” in the truncated ending should be marked as requiring comparison, and should not be repeated as a definite conclusion.