Penance of Speach

[Guest guest]

It is said in the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 17, verse 15:

 

 

anudvega-karaḿ vākyaḿ

satyaḿ priya-hitaḿ ca yat

svādhyāyābhyasanaḿ caiva

vāń-mayaḿ tapa ucyate

TRANSLATION

Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others, and also in regularly reciting Vedic literature.

PURPORT by HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

One should not speak in such a way as to agitate the minds of others. Of course, when a teacher speaks, he can speak the truth for the instruction of his students, but such a teacher should not speak to those who are not his students if he will agitate their minds. This is penance as far as talking is concerned. Besides that, one should not talk nonsense. The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying. At the same time, such talk should be very pleasurable to the ear. By such discussions, one may derive the highest benefit and elevate human society. There is a limitless stock of Vedic literature, and one should study this. This is called penance of speech.

 

So the questions I place before the fellowship are these,

 

If even one Person's mind is agitated by what is spoken on this forum, is that not then a sign that the speaker was not taking into consideration his audience and assumed a position of authority as teacher in the presence of one who was not surrendered as a student to that one?

 

And if so, is it then right to denounce that person when they object, as they themselves are not following the injunction of penance of speech? Or is their crying of foul perhaps a worthy and necessary chastisement to one overstepping their bounds, since although being easily agitated by the nonsense of another is evidence of some lack of advancement, is not the careless pontificator guilty of a more gross and direct violation of trust? And perhaps both violations could be addressed individually in proportion to their gravity?

[mahak]

Haribol. I just now wrote this exact citation on another forum, so we must be feeling the same thing.

 

This is a serious matter. If someone is NOT our student, then acceptance of what we say may not be readily forthcoming. Also, even when citing shastra and doing all the correct things, if our writing on these forums is not pleasurable to hear, maybe silence and honest respect and reevaluation of our internet service is to be considered.

 

The forum users are all vaisnavas to a certain agree, anywhere from raw beginners to perhaps some cent percent pure devotees who may post here. If we reject what we hear, because it causes agitation, we solve nothing by defending ourselves like snarling dogs and cause equal agitation.

 

I have no students here (well maybe some, but I am their pupil as well). Thus, I present what I write just for consideration, not necessarily acceptance. If you are my student, then maybe then you can accept, but otherwise, all that I have to say are presented for YOU, and YOU must then put my words to the test by running it thru the lab called Guru-Shastra-Sadhu.

 

But all in all, this wonderful verse reminds us all of the sensivities of those who may read what we have to say, keep it pleasurable, keep is congenial and respectful, and we cann all do what is necessary, that is, to transcend the diversity which we hold so close in favor of the ultimate unity of the Vaisnava Community.

 

Hare Krsna, how amazing, to see this verse here almost immediately after reading it this morning, then commenting on it just before I punched in this forum. Deja vu all over again. Mahaksadasa

[gHari]

It seems to me, that like everything we do, it all depends on where it came from. If it came from the mind, from lust, anger, greed and any of those lower sources, then even if it is pleasant it is still a sort of violence.

 

Directly telling a follower of Jim Jones as they ingest poison for their master that he is wrong, may be unpleasant but it could well be coming to him through you from caitya-guru.

 

Surrender is the only way we can avoid stepping on tiny creatures on the road. Perhaps the same holds true for the tongue and its extensions, the internet fingers.

[Guest guest]

llRamll

The answer to our queries can are very clearly stated in the verse itself and the explanation by HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. I was discussing the same matter when I said that one should speak (vani) with 5 qualities: satyatmak (full of truth), snehatmak (sweet), sutratmak (sufficient- not too brief and not too streched), shastratmak (in accordance with shastras) and madhim (at the right volume).... but to move into the matter, swamiji clearly said that:: One should not speak in such a way as to agitate the minds of others. This means that our INTENT should not be to hurt someone or make someone agitated. In sriramcharitmanas, tulsidasjee repitively uses the three words in order mann (mind), vachan (voice), karm(actions). As previously said, if our words come from a mind which is pure (beneficial to all, no flaws/vikaars, and not aiming to make others feel bad) then we do not have to worry. Ceratinly it would be best if we could have complete surrender in the feets of our sadguru or our prabhu.

 

Furthermore, i would like to add that shastras say that seeing is eyes natural quality and hearing is ears natural quality. If you say something not with the intent of hurting someone and if the listener feels agitated with what you have said, it is not your fault. Vishnu Puran rightly point out that a person should not speak ill, hear ill, see ill, do ill and importatntly feel bad/ill. They are at fault if they feel ill because of something you said provided you didn't want to hurt them. Vishnu Puarn says that we should not see ill but I just said that seeing is the eyes natural quality... vishnu puran is looking to guard ass and caution us as eyes are the generator of thoughts... if wee see ill it is highly likely that we will think ill... and thinking ill is not good (not watching ill)... if u understand what i am trying to say.

 

Hope this helps... i was just brushing through the threads and found this interesting one.

llRamll