Truth

[Guest guest]

Charles made a good point about speaking. It is important. The difficulty I

see is that truth cannot be told; it can only be seen or realized.

Nevertheless, if no one ever spoke in order to approximate the truth as

nearly as possible, we would not have the roadmap of scripture and words of

the teachers. The difficulty I have in agreeing with Charles statement that

truth is truth and just say it is that the words chosen are heard by any

person according to their mindset. The deeper truth of love is heard by all

in any language, but philospohical statements must accord with the

listener. One of my teachers is Southern Baptist and extremely

uncomfortable in even discussing other religions. When we speak, I bear

this in mind. Do you think I lie to her by taking care not to offend her

devotion? I don't. Today we discussed sin. I only see one. It is any action

which turns awareness from the source. For a child, we choose words which

make sense. We can't love and yet harm the devotion of others by shattering

the best approximation each has of what is sacred within all -- what is

all.

 

V. Krishmamurthy, the writings are so very beautiful! Thank-you.

 

Tamra

[Guest guest]

There seem to be more than one idea in your message.

 

Satyam, sometimes translated as truthfulness, is considered the cornerstone

of ethics but it does not just entail speaking. Living according to one's

natural disposition, and the duties of the life in which one finds oneself

is part of it as well. Lord Rama is often given as an example of satyam.

 

Swami Dayananda used to tell us never to challenge the faith of another

person unless you were ready, willing and able to take them from that faith

to something better.

 

Aikya Param

P.O. Box 4193

Berkeley, CA 94704-0193

Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics)

http://members.tripod.com/~aikya/

Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version)

http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya

 

T. Temple <joklumji

advaitin <advaitin >

Thursday, December 03, 1998 9:08 PM

Truth

 

>"T. Temple" <joklumji

>

>Charles made a good point about speaking. It is important. The difficulty I

>see is that truth cannot be told; it can only be seen or realized.

>Nevertheless, if no one ever spoke in order to approximate the truth as

>nearly as possible, we would not have the roadmap of scripture and words of

>the teachers. The difficulty I have in agreeing with Charles statement that

>truth is truth and just say it is that the words chosen are heard by any

>person according to their mindset. The deeper truth of love is heard by all

>in any language, but philospohical statements must accord with the

>listener. One of my teachers is Southern Baptist and extremely

>uncomfortable in even discussing other religions. When we speak, I bear

>this in mind. Do you think I lie to her by taking care not to offend her

>devotion? I don't. Today we discussed sin. I only see one. It is any action

>which turns awareness from the source. For a child, we choose words which

>make sense. We can't love and yet harm the devotion of others by shattering

>the best approximation each has of what is sacred within all -- what is

>all.

>

>V. Krishmamurthy, the writings are so very beautiful! Thank-you.

>

>Tamra

>

>------

>Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or

>service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit

>/advert.html for more information.

>------

>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning,

profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between

mind and matter

[Guest guest]

Swami Dayananda sounds extremely wise. Is Satyam being what Brahman is

within us without obstruction by self-judgement or fear? Just being as we

naturally are? That is what I saw at the ashram last week. It was beautiful

to see people being who they were naturally.

 

Thanks Aikya.

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 04 Dec 1998 "T. Temple" <joklumji wrote:

> Charles made a good point about speaking. It is important. The difficulty I

> see is that truth cannot be told; it can only be seen or realized.

 

That would be Truth with a capital-T, which can only be indicated or

pointed towards as it were, for it is beyond language. But truth

with a small-t is what you know and feel at this time. If you

_know_ that speaking the truth to another will only agitate him,

that he is not ready to transcend his current beliefs and move

to a broader understanding, then you follow that _knowledge_ and

remain silent.

> The difficulty I have in agreeing with Charles statement that

> truth is truth and just say it is that the words chosen are heard by any

> person according to their mindset. The deeper truth of love is heard by all

> in any language, but philospohical statements must accord with the

> listener. One of my teachers is Southern Baptist and extremely

> uncomfortable in even discussing other religions. When we speak, I bear

> this in mind. Do you think I lie to her by taking care not to offend her

> devotion? I don't. Today we discussed sin. I only see one. It is any action

> which turns awareness from the source. For a child, we choose words which

> make sense. We can't love and yet harm the devotion of others by shattering

> the best approximation each has of what is sacred within all -- what is all.

 

The Bhagavad Gita describes the austerity of speech as that which does

not cause agitation, is true, and pleasant to hear ... I don't recall

the reference (16.7?), perhaps someone can look it up, the verse begins:

anudvegakAraM vAkyaM satyaM priyahitaM ca yat

 

So your understanding is correct in the circumstances you describe above,

however, the original context was diffidence about raising questions on

this list: there the reticence was based upon an _imaginary_ fears.

On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, you wrote:

> I have many questions and have remained relatively silent because to pose

> the questions, I need to make statements that come with difficulty. Several

> months ago, I told a professor that I don't speak because the truth will

> sound heretical if I don't say it properly.

 

We are all in much the same boat: caught in ignorance, but seeking the

Truth -- stress the latter, and don't be too concerned about your own

ignorance rubbing another's ignorance the wrong way. In any case, the

written form is a rather limited form of communication: there is no

accompanying "body language" and, more importantly, there is no sound

to indicate where the words are coming from (for example, are they

shallow point scoring, or are they deep and really important).

 

Regards, Charles.

[Guest guest]

Greetings Advaitins:

 

Thanks for the truthful eloboration of TRUTH!

The Tamil proverb "Kannal Kandathum Poi, Kathal Kettathum Poi, Theera

Vijarippathu Mei" means:

 

Truth is not what you see, Truth is not what you hear, but Truth is the

end of an endless enquiry.

 

I find this statement is quite valid during fact finding investigations

(basic truth) and is equally valid to find the Ultimate TRUTH.

 

The example of Lord Ram as the embodiment of Truth (Satyam) is an

important aspect to understand 'What is Truth?' the great epic, Ramayana

illustrates it beautifully. The statement, 'Ram is the embodiment of

Truth' implies that there can be no further evaluation of Ram's actions.

Such actions go beyond sensual perceptions - 'good and bad,' 'right and

wrong,' and 'joy and sorrow.' The life of Ram is the symbolic expression

of ideal human life with love, courage, determination, dedication and

discipline.

 

--

Ram V. Chandran

Burke, VA

[Guest guest]

Charles,

Yes, sound matters very much. That has been a big issue for me to overcome

in begining to post to any list at all. It seems like another great

opportunity for the reader to hear much differently than the speaker. I

have found that, since I began to post, that there is a valuable tool in

reading each response and post. Why do I hear as I do? It magnifies my

ignorances.

Thanks to all of you.

Tamra

[Guest guest]

Stayam is truthfulness. In the West many of us have grown up thinking that

thruthfulness meant telling the truth and not stealing things. (As you have

already indicated telling the truth is not such an easy matter. Sometimes

the truth of our feelings or judgments might hurt someone, etc.) Added to

the matter in Hindu ethics is living according to the durites of the

situation in which you find yourself. Ancient Hindus had lots of help

figuring out what these duties were. There were duties defined by your

caste, sect, position in the family, cultural ideals of the age. So , for

instance, in Lord Rama's day, a son was supposed to pay his father's debts

and keep any promises his father made. so, when Dahsaratha's promise to his

youngest wife meant giving up the crown and going into exile for fourteen

years and letting her son assume the throne, Lord Rama went into exile.

 

A similar word, sat, meaning existence, is used in talking about Brahman or

Atman. Brahman and Atman have no bodies or minds so Brahmatma can't act

naturally or unnaturally.

 

As I observe the people who studies with Swami Dayananda with me as we all

grow older over the years, it does seem that knowledge of the truth about

the Self makes one a simple person, free of pretensions and neuroses. It is

very nice it's true.

 

Aikya Param

P.O. Box 4193

Berkeley, CA 94704-0193

Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics)

http://members.tripod.com/~aikya/

Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version)

http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya

 

T. Temple <joklumji

advaitin <advaitin >

Thursday, December 03, 1998 10:28 PM

Re: Truth

 

>"T. Temple" <joklumji

>

>Swami Dayananda sounds extremely wise. Is Satyam being what Brahman is

>within us without obstruction by self-judgement or fear? Just being as we

>naturally are? That is what I saw at the ashram last week. It was beautiful

>to see people being who they were naturally.

>

>Thanks Aikya.

>

>------

>Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or

>service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit

>/advert.html for more information.

>------

>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning,

profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between

mind and matter

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 04 Dec 1998 Charles Wikner <WIKNER wrote:

> The Bhagavad Gita describes the austerity of speech as that which does

> not cause agitation, is true, and pleasant to hear ... I don't recall

> the reference (16.7?), perhaps someone can look it up, the verse begins:

> anudvegakAraM vAkyaM satyaM priyahitaM ca yat

 

The three austerities of body, speech and mind, are given in

Gita 17:14-16 (tr. Alladi Mahadeva Sastry):

 

deva-dvija-guru-prAj~na-pUjanaM "saucam Arjavam |

brahmacaryam ahiMsA ca "sarIraM tapa ucyate || 14 ||

 

Worshipping the gods, the twice-born, teachers and

wise men -- purity, straightforwardness, continence

and abstinence from injury are termed the bodily

austerity.

 

anudevegakaraM vAkyaM satyaM priya-hitaM ca yat |

svAdhyAya-abhyAsanaM caiva vA"nmayaM tapa ucyate || 15 ||

 

The speech which causes no excitement and is true, as

also pleasant and beneficial, and also the practice

of sacred recitation, are said to form the austerity

of speech.

 

manaH-prasAdaH saumyatvaM maunam Atma-vinigrahaH |

bhAva-saM"suddhir ity etat tapo manasam ucyate || 16 ||

 

Serenity of mind, good heartedness, silence, self-control,

purity of nature -- this is called the mental austerity.

 

Note that silence is an austerity of mind and not speech. When the

mind is silent then it it possible to hear where the speech arises

from, and also to "hear" the knowledge that arises with perception.

 

As regards speaking the truth, Shankara, in his commentary to BG 10:4

defines truth as "giving utterance to one's own actual experience of

things, as heard or seen, with a view to impress it on the mind of

another."

 

And for speaking the Truth (with a capital-T), see Ch.Up.7:17 ff.

 

Regards, Charles.