Gita in Daily Life: Eternal Laws for Austerity in Speech and Communication

[Guest guest]

Harih Om;

 

During our last week's Gita Satsangh, we disccused the follwing verse

(Bhavad Gita, chapter 17, verse 15) which provides the conduct for

speech communication:

 

Anudwegakaram vaakyam satyam priyahitam cha yat;

Swaadhyaayaabhyasanam chaiva vaangmayam tapa uchyate.

 

Speech which does not cause agitation, which is true, pleasing and

beneficial, and daily repetition of one's own Veda is (collectively)

called discipline of speech.

 

Swami Dayananda's commentary based on Sankara Bhashya is provided

below. I believe that it is quite helpful to get the correct and full

understanding of this verse.

===============================

Sankara says a sentence is used for creating a cognition an

understanding in another person. If that speech is to be tapas

(austerity), it must have certain characteristics.

In speaking, using words that do not cause any kind of pain to

another person, anudvegakaram, is very important. When I speak, what

I say or how I say it should not invoke irritation in the person I am

addressing. Then again, what I say has to be satyam, true also. And

it should bring happiness to the person immediately, as it is being

said. That is called priyam. Not only that, it should bring happiness

in the long run also. That is, it should be beneficial, hitam.

Sankara spends a lot of time analyzing these words. The "and", ca,

here, Sankara says, means that all four things that are mentioned

here have equal status. Only if the speech includes all of them is it

vangmayam tapas (disciplined speech). If it is lacking in any one or

two or three of these, it is not vangmayam tapas. What I say may be

very pleasant, priyam, and not at all irritating, anudvegakaratn, but

it may not be true at all, satyam, and therefore, certainly not

beneficial, hitam. Or, it may be pleasing, priyam, and even true,

satyam, but not good for the person, hitam. It may be pleasing to

hear, for example, that the admission is free at the local race track

today. And it is true too. But it is not hitam if it is said to a

compulsive gambler. He will be very happy to hear it, but it is not

good for him at all. Then there is a statement which is absolutely

truthful, but is very painful to hear. My friend may not be very

intelligent, but if I tell him so, it will definitely cause him pain

and it will not do him any good either. Such a statement may be

satyam, but is not anudvegakaram, pciyam or hitam. It is not tapas.

 

A sentence constituting vangmayam tapas has all four. Sankara gives

an example. Santo bhava vatsa \ svadhyayam yogam ca anutista I tatha

te Sreyo bhavisyati, "My dear boy, may you be at peace. Follow the

daily study of your Veda and karmayoga, then you will have moksa,

freedom." See how beautiful this sentence is. Even as he is told to

calm himself in this way, Santo bhava vatsa, his mind quietens. It is

anudvegakaram . Generally we get angry and say, "Keep quiet.",

or "Enough." That doesn't work. The person may become quiet, but

definitely not calm. That statement is udvegakaram. Then he tells him

to study the tiastra and follow a life of karma yoga. This is

something that is good for him right now, priyam, and also later,

hitam. And he tells him that if he does all this, he will get moksa.

It is true, satyam, and also good for him, hitam. Even if he fails to

get moksa here, it will produce a better life for him next time where

he will pick up the thread and continue. There is no problem here; it

is good for him now, and in the future. In this life itself he will

get relative freedom from the hold of his likes and dislikes. A

sentence like this, which has ail four charteristics is vangmayam

tapas.

 

Discipline at the level of speech also includes the repetition of

one's own Veda, svadhyayabhyasanam. Daily one has to repeat one's own

Veda, or at least a portion of it. If he cannot repeat even a

portion, he repeats the gayatrlmantra because it is considered to be

the essence of all the Vedas. If he cannot repeat that, om tat sat is

good enough, which he is going to talk about later. Wherever there is

karma involved, there are options, but at the same time, it has to be

done in one form or the other. This can be converted into the daily

study of the scripture. The daily study or repetition of some verses

of praise, or a mantra is svadhyayabhyasanam and is very important.

=====================

 

Interestingly, Swami Sivananda in his commentary on the same verse

sites the following Sanskrit verse from Manu Smriti (4.138) eternal

law in explaining the Gita verse (chapter 17, verse 15) quoated above:

 

satya.m brUyAt priya.m brUyAn na brUyAt satyamapriyam.h |

priya.m ca nAnR^ita.m brUyAd esha dharmas sanAtanaH ||

 

Translation: One should speak what is the truth and what is pleasing,

but not the truth that is unpleasant, nor an untruth that is

pleasant - this is the eternal law.

 

A correct understanding of the above law is important otherwise it

will be subjected to inappropriate use. Here is my understanding:

While communicating with others, we should make sure what we speak is

the Truth and also make sure that it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.

In other words, we should be careful in the choice of words that we

use to deliver the message. Also we should avoid speaking the Untruth

even if it pleases everyone! If and when someone is unable to tell

the Truth without hurting someone, silence may be a better

alternative than uttering unpleasant words.

 

During my weekly browsing of advaita-L list, I noticed that the

Sanskrit sloka was a subject matter of discussion on speech. In this

connection, I want to restate the story posted by ProfVKji on the

advaita-L list with reference to this verse.

 

"The following story from the puranas illustrates how a Rishi applied

the above eternal law when he faced a difficult circumstance: There

was a Rishi doing meditation in his own ashram in the midst of a

thick forest. A deer passed by, running in great freight, and he

noted it. After the deer had left, some hunters came by and asked

him, Did you see a deer pass by; which way did the deer go?

(Actually there was a fork in the adjacent thick foliage of the

forest and that is why the question). The Rishi knew the right

answer, but he dared not say it, lest it might obviously harm the

deer. But if you showed them the wrong path on the fork, that would

be an untruth. He could give out neither the satyam nor the priyam

(of the above shloka). Nor could he be silent, because the hunters

repeatedly prodded him to reply and they were becoming aggressive.

 

So the Rishi finally said: "What sees, cannot speak and what speaks

cannot see". He repeated the same sentence every time they insisted

on a reply from him. Finally they got frustrated and went their way!"

Using this illustration, ProfVKji was able to convey the Truth in the

most pleasant manner!

 

Personally, I prefer the eternal law as outlined by Thiruvalluvar a

great Tamil Poet in Thirukkural (a collection of 1330 short poems on

human morality and ethics). Specifically the following verse provides

the guideline for our speech:

 

"Iniya ulavaka innatha kooral

kani iruppa kai kavarthandatru" (Tamil verse # 100)

 

Tranlation: To say disagreeable things when agreeable are at hand is

like eating unripe fruit when ripe fruit is readily available.

 

This verse provides a simple but a very practical solution for our

day to day communication.

Website for Thirukkural Main Page (English and Tamil versions are

available)

http://thirukural.tamilpower.com/thirukural.htm

 

Note: I want to thank Swami Dayananda Saraswati and Arsha Vidhya

Gurukulum for giving me permission to quote the Gita commentary from

his notes on Gita Homestudy Guide.

 

ProfVKji's post:

http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2005-

May/015328.html

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Ram Chandran,

> satya.m brUyAt priya.m brUyAn na brUyAt satyamapriyam.h |

> priya.m ca nAnR^ita.m brUyAd esha dharmas sanAtanaH ||

> ...

>

>"The following story from the puranas illustrates how a Rishi applied

> the above eternal law when he faced a difficult circumstance: There

> was a Rishi doing meditation in his own ashram in the midst of a ...

 

 

There is a subtle difference between "satya.m" and "R^ita.m". "anR^itam"

is not a direct opposite of "satya.m". "While satya.m is 'truth', R^itam

is 'in accordance with the universal order'. The difference is also

apparent in the statement -- "satyamEva jayate, na anR^ita.m", where it

is not just a repetition of words. It means that "truth that is not

against R^ita will win".

 

All these were lucidly explained by Sri. shatAvadhAni Ganesh recently.

As a mere messenger of this perspective, I am unable to do justice to

the theme.

 

I think the confusion of the Rishi can be cleared with this perspective.

Best regards,

Ramachandra

[Guest guest]

> Namaste Sri Ramachandraji:

 

Thanks for bringing this interesting (and correct) interpretation of

this verse. With this interpretation, I am able to appreciate why it

should be considered the Eternal Law.

 

I have written to Sri ShatAvadhAni Ganesh asking him to provide his

full explanation. If he replies my email, I plan to post it to the

list. Before that, I appreciate if you can provide a summary what you

heard from on this important subject matter. His knowledge of

Sanskrit, Hindu Culture and Heritage demonstrate that he is a

prodigy. It will be quite valuable to get his view points.

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "K.B.S. Ramachandra" <ram@m...>

wrote:

>

> There is a subtle difference between "satya.m"

and "R^ita.m". "anR^itam"

> is not a direct opposite of "satya.m". "While satya.m is 'truth',

R^itam

> is 'in accordance with the universal order'. The difference is also

> apparent in the statement -- "satyamEva jayate, na anR^ita.m",

where it

> is not just a repetition of words. It means that "truth that is not

> against R^ita will win".

> All these were lucidly explained by Sri. shatAvadhAni Ganesh

recently.

> is 'in accordance with the universal order'. The difference is also

> apparent in the statement -- "satyamEva jayate, na anR^ita.m",

where it

> is not just a repetition of words. It means that "truth that is not

> against R^ita will win".

>

> All these were lucidly explained by Sri. shatAvadhAni Ganesh

recently.

> As a mere messenger of this perspective, I am unable to do justice

to

> the theme.

>

> I think the confusion of the Rishi can be cleared with this

perspective.

> Best regards,

> Ramachandra

[Guest guest]

Namste Rama Chandran-Ji:

 

What is interesting that also needs to be factored in this connection

of trying to understand the word "R^ita" and the word "satya" as well -

 

The literal dictionary meaning of both these words is - true,

truth ....

 

While performing any rituals we often use both of these words together

and thus there must be a shade of difference between the meaning as

well.

 

R^ita in my view must be related to the observed truth. Where as

sasatya signifies trikaala abaadhita truth.

 

Example: It is Mass and weight.

 

Wieght is is a dependent truth where as mass is independent truth that

does not change with place, time,space ....

 

An object that weighs 100 lbs on the Earth, weighs only 20 lbs on the

Moon. (Because the gravity difference).

 

Thus the purpose of says both that mean truth must be that the

saadhaka is responsible for finding out the real truth through the

process of discrimination.

 

Just some babbling of R^ita that continues to evaluate and to

understand satya.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

reference advaitin/message/26707

 

namaste. Wise words from two other sources re austerity of

speech and communications.

 

1. from Vidura nIti of udyoga parva of mahAbhArata (4.12)

 

Vidura says to DhritarAShTra

 

Wise people say that keeping silent is better than talking.

If one must talk, then it is better to say the truth. If truth

is to be spoken, it is better to say what is agreeable. If what

is pleasant is to be said, then it is better to say what is in

accordance with dharma.

 

 

2. The following appeared in the newsgroup rec.humor recently.

While I do not know the authenticity of attribution to Socrates,

the content is relevant to our discussion. I took out the

punchline at the end which is not relevant to our List.

 

(excerpted from rec.humor newsgroup)

 

Socrates

 

One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance who ran

up to him excitedly and said, "Socrates, do you know what I just

heard about one of your students?"

 

"Wait a moment," Socrates replied. "Before you tell me I'd like

you to pass a little test. It's called the Test of Three."

 

"Three?"

 

"That's right," Socrates continued. "Before you talk to me about

my student let's take a moment to test what you're going to say.

The first test is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what

you are about to tell me is true?"

 

"Oh no," the man said, "actually I just heard about it."

 

"All right," said Socrates. "So you don't really know if it's

true or not. Now let's try the second test, the test of Goodness.

Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?"

 

"No, on the contrary..."

 

"So," Socrates interrupted, "you want to tell me something bad

about him even though you're not certain it's true?"

The man shrugged, a little embarrassed.

 

Socrates continued. "You may still pass though, because there is

a third test - the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell

me about my student going to be useful to me?"

 

"Well it....no, not really..."

 

"Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither

True nor Good nor even Useful, why tell it to me at all?"

 

The man was defeated and ashamed. This is the reason Socrates was

a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.

 

 

regards

gummuluru murthy

---

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Ram Chandran ji,

 

Namaste.

 

I heard the bit about the satya.m and R^ita.m in an avadhAna program

where the question was posed as a distraction (as is the norm in that

art form). The explanation from Sri. Ganesh was short and lucid.

 

I don't think I can add anything more to my earlier post. I will however

try get an explanation from him (I can meet him) and post it. I doubt if

he is a frequent computer / Internet user -- so, not sure when he might

read your eMail.

 

Best regards,

Ramachandra

 

 

On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 18:41, Ram Chandran wrote:

> > Namaste Sri Ramachandraji:

>

> Thanks for bringing this interesting (and correct) interpretation of

> this verse. With this interpretation, I am able to appreciate why it

> should be considered the Eternal Law.

>

> I have written to Sri ShatAvadhAni Ganesh asking him to provide his

> full explanation. If he replies my email, I plan to post it to the

> list. Before that, I appreciate if you can provide a summary what you

> heard from on this important subject matter. His knowledge of

> Sanskrit, Hindu Culture and Heritage demonstrate that he is a

> prodigy. It will be quite valuable to get his view points.

>

> warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin, "K.B.S. Ramachandra" <ram@m...>

> wrote:

> >

> > There is a subtle difference between "satya.m"

> and "R^ita.m". "anR^itam"

> > is not a direct opposite of "satya.m". "While satya.m is 'truth',

> R^itam

> > is 'in accordance with the universal order'. The difference is also

> > apparent in the statement -- "satyamEva jayate, na anR^ita.m",

> where it

> > is not just a repetition of words. It means that "truth that is not

> > against R^ita will win".

> > All these were lucidly explained by Sri. shatAvadhAni Ganesh

> recently.

> > is 'in accordance with the universal order'. The difference is also

> > apparent in the statement -- "satyamEva jayate, na anR^ita.m",

> where it

> > is not just a repetition of words. It means that "truth that is not

> > against R^ita will win".

> >

> > All these were lucidly explained by Sri. shatAvadhAni Ganesh

> recently.

> > As a mere messenger of this perspective, I am unable to do justice

> to

> > the theme.

> >

> > I think the confusion of the Rishi can be cleared with this

> perspective.

> > Best regards,

> > Ramachandra

>

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity

> of Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>

>

> ____________________

> Links

> *

> advaitin/

>

> *

> advaitin

>

> * Terms of

> Service.

>