Its not a new topic that has come to my mind all of a sudden. It is something that kept bothering me for over 20 years. Every single time I see a person hiding a plain truth or telling a lie, it used to come to my mind. Every single time I utter gruesome lie, the thought haunts me. Just trying to put what I had in mind.
I was told in childhood that speak truth always in school during moral education class. I studied story of Satya Harischandra who faced tough times in life but refused to utter lie. I was told story of Sree Rama who relinquished the throne to ensure his father's promise is not broken and sin of untruth does not haunt his father. It used to amuse me when the very people who taught me this lesson hide truth or tell untruth in practical life. I was confused if the lesson is only for preaching and not for practice, As I was growing up, I started to tell lies too. How ever my conscience initially used to tell me that I was doing wrong deed. Slowly every time my conscience points out a lie uttered, I started rationalizing it. Rationalizing stating that the lie was needed so as not to get blame, not to hurt someone, not to be put in a embarrassing situation. I backed myself up stating I am not cheating anyone by the lie, how ever I felt I was not right some where deep in heart. I also used to observe the lies others utter. I think it is not difficult to guess many a times if the person is speaking a truth or not, it somehow shows in the body language (either by the facial expression or overdose of gestures or by contradicting oneself in words or by giving excessive explanation when none was needed). I felt while telling the lie, the person is putting oneself under huge stress and it is shown in his/her bodylanguage. Still unsure why one has to bear that stress when plain truth is simple alternative.
From Scriptures:
1)
Mundaka Upanishad says
"satyameva jayate naanritam
satyena pantha vitato devayanah
yena aakramanti rshayo hi aaptkaamaa
yatra tat satyasya paramam nidhaanam"
Truth alone triumphs; not falsehood
The divine path is laid by truth through which,
the sages whose desires have been completely fulfilled
reach the Absolute, where Truth resides.
Very Clear message that truth is the only thing that needs to be advocated and not falsehood. Truth alone leads us to Absolute.
2)
Veda says
'Satyam vada, Dharmam chara, Karmam Kuru'
speak the truth and practice dharma, perfrom your duty
A small story from Mahabharata. Dronacharya teaches above lesson to kauravas and Pandavas one day. Next day except Yudhistar/Dharma Raju every one else tell teacher that they learnt it. Yudhistar takes more than a week to learn this. When Drona asked reason Yudhistar replies that he used to tell small lies just for sake of it while playing or playfully. He can claim to have learnt the lesson only when he stops doing it and it took him sometime to do so. That's why his chariot stands 2 feet above the ground. When he uttered a lie in Kurukshetra war abt death of Aswathama, his chariot also comes to ground like all other people. Such is the power of truth.
3) We need not be told story of Harischandra who stood for truth. I am trying to read abt the dynasty of Raghu vamsa rulers in Kalidasas Raghu Vamsa Kavyam.
4)
On the contrary
satyam bruyat priyam bruyat na bruyat satyam apriyam
priyam ca nanrutam bruyat esha dharmah sanatanah
Speak truth in such a way that it should be pleasing to others. Never speak truth, which is unpleasant to others. Never speak untruth, which might be pleasant. This is the path of eternal morality, sanatana dharma.
Unpoleasant truth is not to be told as per smriti and this is being used very conveniently for telling lies. As smriti karta says in intial slokas, if smriti contradicts with Veda, Veda is to be considered right. Not sure if we can interpret this that way?
5)
Potana Bhagavatam says
VArijAkshulandu, VaivAhikamulandu, PrAna Vitta MAna bhangamulandu paliki bonkavachchu
Breach of promise is allowed in the cases of love, marriage, threat to life, property, or respect
In this padya Sukracharaya says situations where lies are allowed. Its a different matter that Bali chakravarti did not agree with this and keeps his promise to Vamana and thus attain permanent place in history
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Quoting "vaarijaakshulandu..." to support lie is a false pramaanam.
It was given by asura-guru to an asura, who himself rejected that suggestion then and there.
So, this padyam cannot be considered as a sanction to lie in some situations.
Please get your facts right and please do not propagate such popular misconceptions about our dharma.
With due respect to your knowledge (which is evident from the detail in your comment), there is no attempt to suggest to any that lie is acceptable. I just tried to bring up few slokas/padyas I know that talk abt truth either way.
One aspect I, how ever, would like to add here related to Sukracharya. From the comment I perceived that you had low opinion of the sage. (Its a perception though) Sukracharya was counterpart of Bruhaspathi and due to him only many Rakshasha kings have grown to level of challenging Indra. Sukra also shows true traits of a great acharya in Kacha's story where despite knowing Kacha's intent he admits him as student. He also gives Mruta sanjeevani to Kacha despite knowing that it will mean kacha will tear open his abdomen to survive. He is in wrongs company but he does his duty with diligence. Bali, by denying Sukra's words, gets the anger of Guru (who gives Bali Sapa of losing his all kingdom) and this is plot of Lord Vishnu.
gratitude for giving such a great treat on truth , clarifies a lot i was looking for this poem vaarijaakshulandu , lucky i got this wonderful essay
Good essay. I agree with the author that quoting 'Varijaakshulandu ..' from Bhagavatam is not wrong. There have always been such quotations even in the olden times when people wanted to support their arguments. However, the heroes show their steadfast adherence to dharma by rejecting such well-intentioned advice. You will see a similar situation in Ramayana where a Rishi by name Jaabaali tells Rama that he should go back and claim his kingdom rather than continue with his 'aranya vaasa'. What we have to gather is that what makes sense and sounds perfectly reasonable at the day-to-day level (i.e., 'loukika' level) is not so at the spiritual level ('paaramaarthika' level).
Post a Comment