AN 3.28 — Speech like Dung | Ru-Yi Meditation Center

Reading guide

The teaching in one sentence

Lying under oath is like dung, telling the truth under oath is like flowers, and kind speech is like honey.

The scene, and why it is specified

The setting is a formal one and the list of venues is worth reading: a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or the royal court. Those are the places where disputes were actually settled — public, domestic, commercial, and judicial — and a person is called to say what they know.

The formula for the lie is precise and fourfold: not knowing, they say I know; knowing, they say I don’t know; not seeing, I see; seeing, I don’t see. Both directions of both faculties, so that withholding is counted alongside asserting. Someone who conceals what they saw has lied by this definition exactly as much as someone who invents.

And the motives are named: for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason. That last clause is the sharp one. The definition does not require the lie to be self-serving or even to matter; a trivial reason qualifies. Most lying is not dramatic, and the discourse knows it.

Where the middle term is set

Speech like flowers is the same scene with the four answers reversed: not knowing, they say I don’t know; and so on. That is the whole definition.

It is worth stopping on how low that bar is. Flowers, in this taxonomy, is not beautiful speech, or wise speech, or helpful speech. It is answering a question accurately when under obligation to answer. A person who has never lied in a formal setting has speech like flowers, and nothing further is required of them.

That is a useful correction to a common assumption about the canon’s standards. The middle term of a three-term list is often read as a decent intermediate achievement. Here it is the absence of a specific fault, and the discourse is content to praise it in those terms.

Honey, and what it adds

The third is defined differently: not by a scene but by a practice. Such a person gives up harsh speech and speaks in a way that is mellow, pleasing to the ear, endearing, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to people.

So the third term is not a further degree of truthfulness. It is a different axis entirely: the first two concern accuracy, the third concerns manner. Honey is not truer than flowers; it is kinder, and the discourse does not say whether it is also true.

That gap is worth noticing rather than filling in. The canon elsewhere treats these as separate factors of right speech — abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from harsh speech, from idle chatter — and a person can satisfy one and fail another. Reading the three terms of this discourse as a single ladder produces a confusion the fourfold analysis of right speech avoids.

The images

The three similes are not explained and do not need to be. What is worth noting is their ordering by what one does with them: dung is what you get away from, flowers are what you are pleased to receive, honey is what you actually want. The scale runs from repulsion through acceptability to desire.

It also runs from what speech is like to what speech does to the hearer, which is the same progression the definitions make: the first two are about the speaker’s relation to the facts, and the third is about the listener’s experience.

Key terms

gūthabhāṇī — “one whose speech is like dung” — the discourse’s name, defined by lying under formal obligation to answer.

pupphabhāṇī — “one whose speech is like flowers” — and the bar is not eloquence but accuracy: answering truthfully when called to bear witness.

madhubhāṇī — “one whose speech is like honey” — defined not by a scene but by giving up harsh speech; a different axis from the first two.

sampajānamusā bhāsati — “deliberately lies” — the fourfold formula covering both asserting what is not so and withholding what is.

appamattakassa lokāmisassa hetu — “for some trivial worldly reason” — the clause that removes any requirement for the lie to be significant.

The text

The discourse in full. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

Speech like dung

§1“These three individuals are found in the world. What three? One with speech like dung, one with speech like flowers, and one with speech like honey. And who has speech like dung? It’s an individual who is summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, my friend, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ So they deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason. This is called an individual with speech like dung.

Speech like flowers

§2And who has speech like flowers? It’s an individual who is summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, my friend, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don’t deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason. This is called an individual with speech like flowers.

Speech like honey

§3And who has speech like honey? It’s an individual who gives up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, endearing, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people. This is called an individual with speech like honey. These are the three individuals found in the world.”

· · ·

Self-check quiz

Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.

Question 1 of 10

What scene defines the first two individuals?

Correct: B. The places where disputes were actually settled — public, domestic, commercial, and judicial.

Question 2 of 10

What is fourfold about the formula for lying?

Correct: B. So withholding is counted alongside asserting.

Question 3 of 10

What follows from that?

Correct: B. Both directions of both faculties.

Question 4 of 10

Which motive clause does the guide call the sharp one?

Correct: C. Most lying is not dramatic, and the discourse knows it.

Question 5 of 10

What is speech like flowers?

Correct: B. Not beautiful speech, or wise speech, or helpful speech.

Question 6 of 10

What does the guide say about how low that bar is?

Correct: B. A useful correction to a common assumption about the canon's standards.

Question 7 of 10

How is speech like honey defined?

Correct: B. A different axis entirely from the first two.

Question 8 of 10

Is honey truer than flowers?

Correct: B. A gap worth noticing rather than filling in.

Question 9 of 10

How does the canon elsewhere handle this?

Correct: B. Reading these three terms as one ladder produces a confusion the fourfold analysis avoids.

Question 10 of 10

How does the guide describe the ordering of the three images?

Correct: B. And it runs from the speaker's relation to the facts to the listener's experience.

Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0

Speech like Dung

Why this discourse