Unpleasant truths

January 6, 2000

Dear Members,

I have read that one should avoid telling unpleasant truths. At the same time,

it is said

that one should not lie just to please someone. As you all know, many people ask

questions about dharma, tradition, etc. and many times the answers are quite

unpleasant.

What are we supposed to do in this case? Should we just say " No Comments " ?

Regards

-Nataraj

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

January 7, 2000

Nataraj BV wrote:

> Dear Members,

> I have read that one should avoid telling unpleasant truths. At the same time,

it is said

> that one should not lie just to please someone. As you all know, many people

ask

> questions about dharma, tradition, etc. and many times the answers are quite

unpleasant.

> What are we supposed to do in this case? Should we just say " No Comments " ?

>

> Regards

> -Nataraj

>

Hi Nataraj,

The exact sanskrit subhAshita that says your statement is

satyaM bR^iuyAth priyaM bR^iuyath na bR^iuyAtha satyaM apriyaM |

priyaM cha nAR^itaM bR^iuyAth yesha dharmaH sanAtanaH ||

one should say the truth, one should say pleasing words,

one should not say the truth which is not pleasant (or hurts somebody)

one should not say falsehood which is pleasant. This is the sanAtana

(Hindu)dharma.

I think the idea behind this shloka is that if the truth hurts or is

very bitter, we should be gentle and take care to make sure that the person is

not suddenly hurt by the truth. If I can take a guess and provide my own

example, I think

you are referring to the case where a person who believes in Advaita asks for

the right direction and we have to say that what the person has believed all his

life is false. That can be deeply hurtful to somebody because that kind of blunt

talk

changes all the things that person believed in all life upside down. Very few

people have the clear and dispassionate thinking to change their belief system

even though their rational mind is saying some thing is not right. So, we have

to gently

and very slowly lead them to the truth. It takes a very long time to happen, if

it happens at all.

This shloka refers to the balancing act that we have to play between

telling the blunt truth and hurting somebody in real life situations.

Sri puthige swamiji said in his lectures that we should listen to our

sakshi (or roughly conscience) in such cases. If we keep the sakhi clean by

proper conduct, sakshi will provide the right answer in cases of dharma sankata.

He gave the

example of mahAbharatha where sri vyasa said that he had no problems with a

seemingly immoral behaviour because his sakshi did not object to it. This shows

that when sakshi in a person is kept very pure, it can guide him to the right

dharma in case

of difficult decisions.

Hare srinivasa,

Regards,

Vasu Murthy

--

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

Vasu Murthy

vmurthy

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

January 9, 2000

Dear Mr. Nataraj,

There is a basic dichotomy in the question whether a Truth

should become less acceptable, just because it is pereceived to

be unpleasant by some or even many! The first point to be noted

is that by definition, Truth is unaffected by our perceptions -

It is just Yathartha - as it is, objectively. Irrespective of

whether one finds it possible or even desirable to say it, the

objective content and its validity never changes. Trying to

gloss over it, cover it with the comforting thoughts of

dissimulation, even confronting it with loudly proclaimed

Untruth etc is never successful - for the simple reason, that

it is just unaffected by all the environmental reactions. In

fact, more ofen than not, it is the environment that gets

modified when the " Real " Truth (pls pardon me the language)

emerges victorious. An example is what Galileo said - that the

Earth does move round the Sun, even if he was forced to accept

the opposite by societal pressures. There is no doubt that a

society based on acceptance of Truth is less torn by strife,

less wasteful and more satisfactory in getting the greatest good

to the greatest number.

After having said that, I must now try to say that practical

societies have much to change before such idealistic standards

prevail. The philosophical Bhava Roopa Ajnana covers all minds

and intellects and enables only a partial glimpse of the

reality, which is also distorted some times into appearing as

the exact opposite of what it is. The Three Gunas, particularly

Rajas and Thamas aspects will inevitably convince us that our

selfish, egotistic craze for enjoyment, power and notions of

independence (from the Creator) is completely hidden from view

to be replaced by Altruistic motives of Public good,

Selflessness, and Deotion to God. But, like Galileo, one should

note that we will never succeed in fooling God with all this

inventive genius of Avidya/Ajnana. There is an absolute standard

of Goodness, Justice and Truth which prevals in this world - it

does so, not because of us, but because God decides it to be so.

When we find ourselves in confrontation with Hypocracy or Evil

in the form of all pervasive Maya of Egotistic interpretation of

reality - let us at least say to ourselves, if no one else wants

to hear, I do not accept.

NAPSRao

January 10, 2000

Dear Sri NAPS Rao and Sri Vasu Murthy,

Thank you very much for your answers. I agree with Sri Vasu Murthy that

we should avoid blunt talk as much as possible. However, as Sri NAPS Rao

implied, we should not start twisting the truth in our effort to not hurt

the feelings of the other party.

I personally feel that when it comes to spiritual matters and matters

regarding dharmAnushtAna, it is better to concentrate ONLY on truth and

nothing else. If Srimad Acharya worried about pleasing others, we

wouldn't have access to truth today. Another problem is- if someone gets

into the habit of giving pleasing answers only, how do we know when he is

telling the truth and when he is not ?

As far as the Sanskrit quote is concerned, I don't know in what context

it is to be taken. I personally feel that it is talking about one's

behaviour in everyday life. For example, if someone is ugly but otherwise

a good person, one shouldn't hurt that person's feelings by calling

him/her ugly (which is the truth) and hurt his/her feelings. Same

applies to a lot of other things- power, wealth, health, family, etc.

But when it comes to tattvagnAna and dharmAnushtAna, I think that it is

our duty to tell the plain truth (avoiding blunt talk where possible)

without giving too much importance to how others feel.

Regards

-Nataraj

______________

YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!

Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!

Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:

http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

January 10, 2000

Dear Nataraj,

I will give you one example which is generally quoted. Suppose you find a

butcher chasing a cow with the intention to kill it and the cow escaoes and you

know which way the cow went. If the butcher asks you about the cow and you know

he will kill it if found, you will be commiting a greater sin by telling the

truth than not to disclose it by either saying that you are unaware or by

misguuiding him.

Also there are occasions when you know the death of a person and you don't

disclose it immediately to the nearest kin but wait till the person is in a

state to receive the news, you will avoid telling the truth.

Telling the truth is dharma but on some occasions like this which may occur in

your life discretion is a better course and may lead you to the real dharma.

Best wishes,

bannur.R

Nataraj BV <ntj2 wrote:

Nataraj BV <ntj2