Short Stories, Novels, Literature, Poetry, Essays, Articles, Experiences, Interviews, Columns and more at TeluguPeople.com

Page: 1 of 1

Truth is generally understood as conveying a message without willful distortion. Distortion may occur at two sites. 1. The fact may have been wrongly perceived by the person who reports it. 2. The message may be wrongly understood by the person who receives it. When we say “speak the truth”, what we mean is “speak what you believe is the truth” When a person sees a rope, mistakes it for a snake and reports that he had seen a snake, he should be construed as having spoken the truth, though the message is not true. Truth, as it is generally understood, is thus subjective and has to be assessed with reference to the individual. The orderly run of the universe depends on the consistency or the truthfulness of observance of nature’s laws by everything in nature. The laws relating to energy-matter interactions are observed without exception. They all observe the dharma given to them by nature truthfully. Dharma has many meanings. One of them is the ‘property’ of things. The property of sugar is to be sweet. Then sweetness is said to be the dharma of sugar. Dharma also means an ordained duty. Both the inherent property and action in accordance with it are integrated in the word dharma (which is really duty). Observance of dharma is truth. Rather, truth is observance of dharma, i.e., not transgressing one’s character endowed by nature (for the furtherance of its purpose). Verily, the universe is sustained by truth. If human beings also identify their dharma and stick to it steadfastly, they can reach perfection without breaks or setbacks. That, in fact, is the importance of truth. But humans, endowed with some volition, tend to transgress it due to faulty understanding of truth. Scientists try to discover the ‘truths’ of nature. They observe events and try to relate them by a ‘law’ that they believe will hold good consistently. These are truths, which can be seen by anybody. They are ‘objective’ truths. But the laws may be superceded by others sometime later when new information comes to light. In the long history of science, hypotheses like the phlogiston or ether have thus been abandoned several times. We may, therefore, say that the laws of science are relatively consistent over a reasonable time. Without the acceptance of such temporary truths, we would lose our moorings in the universe. A truth is true in a given context of time and space. All we perceive through our senses are only our subjective impressions of the real or true things. When we see an object, we do not just record like a camera. What we see depends on our past experience of the way our visual world is organized. Optical illusions illustrate the point. To some extent, we see what we are programmed to see. Therefore, it need not necessarily be true. What we see as a solid wall is a large void with infinitesimally small particles (atom nuclei and electrons or strings). Practically all our knowledge is derived indirectly by effects and not directly. When we measure a piece of cloth in the shop with a metal measuring rod, we are likely get a slightly longer piece in summer than in winter. The difference is ‘negligible’ i.e., the measurement is true enough in our context. We may similarly accept the forms and events of nature as ‘working truths’ and not absolute truth. Philosophers define truth as that which is eternal, i.e., holds good for al time. According to them, anything that has an end or change cannot be said to be true. There is only one thing that conforms to their definition. That is the Supreme Being (Paramaatma). Everything else in the universe that is a form of nature, is subject to change or dissolution and, therefore, not qualified to be called truth. Philosophers consider the perceived universe as delusion (jagat mithya) and the Supreme Being as absolute truth (brahma satyam). Their perception of truth is, probably, a correct understanding of the eternal truth. But it bears little relevance to truths in our day-to-day lives. Of more relevance and importance socially is the truth (consistency) in thought, word and deed. The great edict ‘satyam vada’ refers to the spoken word. The consonance between thought, word and deed is known as aarjavam in Sanskrit, which literally means straightness, approximately equivalent to ‘honesty’. This is the opposite of hypocrisy. When the mind entertains bad motives, in order to hide them, the person attempts a smoke screen of talking lofty ideals and doing magnanimous deeds. Then the inner thoughts are at variance with word and deed. To keep them in consonance is truth, honesty and frankness. If a boy copies in an examination, he is dishonest. When he readily admits it, he is truthful. To keep one’s word is also traditionally considered truth. This demands consonance of present thought and word with future action. Raja Harischandra is said to have suffered untold hardships for the sake of truth. He actually suffered to keep his word. Had he told the sage Vis΄vamitra “I did promise you so much money. But now I am not in a position to pay you so much” he could not have been held guilty of untruth since his inability was genuine. Keeping one’s word is, of course, no less important a virtue than truth. But the two are slightly different. In making a promise, one is taking responsibility for a future action. Keeping in mind the importance of chance (daivam) in the occurrence of events, it is not wise to make promises. Spiritually speaking, there is here a certain presumptuousness on the part of the person that he can keep the promise, i.e., he is assuming that he is the doer (kartaa) of the future act. But it is nature that is doing. If it does not cooperate, he is helpless. Therefore, a spiritual aspirant should make no promises. Faith or trust is an assumption of truth. It is the basis of wholesome economic activity. Untruth in such matters leads to chaos. Doctors who prescribe medicines and patients who consume them keep faith in the manufacturer that the medicine contains what it claims to. Betrayal of the trust may even take away lives. Business cannot proceed smoothly with the Damocles sword hanging on the neck of every little transaction. Those who look upon truth as no more than a desideratum for the stability and smooth running of our economic and social systems, tend to lay down exceptions permitting departure from truth. In, what is called, S΄ukra niiti, it is said that one may utter a lie when life, honor, or money is at stake, as also in dealings related to women and marriages. People utter lies precisely for these reasons. This wide blanket of exceptions leaves no occasion to speak the truth. More seriously, a verse announces an ‘ancient dharma’ that one should speak the truth pleasantly, but should not speak a pleasant untruth (as in flattery), or an unpleasant truth. These last words permit one to abstain from telling the truth, which is unpleasant (or might lead to unpleasant consequences). Some Christian stories with religious overtones speak approvingly of hiding and hosting petty criminals. Suppression of truth (suppressio veri) is, however, punishable in law if the intention is to protect the criminal. Can there be situations when truth had better be abandoned for the sake of a better good? Let us see how a spiritual person responds to such a situation. A girl, panting for breath, ran before a sage and disappeared into the bushes. In a few more minutes two ruffians came on her trail. They asked the sage whether a girl passed by and which way she went. The sage sized up the situation. The ruffians were obviously out to molest her. He was in a dilemma. If he told the truth, the girl would be molested. But, being a sage, he would not utter a lie. He thought for a split second and said, “Yes, A girl passed by. But I shall not reveal which way she has fled because it is my sacred duty to protect her”. The enraged ruffians beat him up and went away. The saint was fearless. He did not mind the hurt to his body. He saved his soul. Spiritually speaking there is no truth that should not be spoken. A mischievous twist was given to truth in Mahaabhaarata war. The Paandava war council came to the conclusion that the only way to get Drona, the invincible army chief of Kauravas, to lay down his arms was to convey to him the (false) news that his son Aswatthaama was killed. To make him believe it, the announcement was to come from Yudhishthira. But the latter wouldn’t speak untruth. So they killed an elephant named Aswatthaama and made him announce the fact in such a manner that the word ‘elephant’ would come at the end of the sentence. The great speaker of truth fell into the trap. He announced loudly “Dead is Aswatthaama, the elephant”. The last word was drowned in the noise of drums specially arranged for the purpose. Drona laid down his arms and was killed. This is a technical truth but a palpable untruth. It should be treated as a lie as the intension was dishonest. It is said that, for this single fault in his life, Yudhisthira was taken round hell as a punishment. A modern court would have probably acquitted him? To sift truth from untruth is not always easy. Society has entrusted this duty to courts presided over by learned judges. They depend on the deposition of witnesses ‘on oath’. The ‘evidence’ so recorded is processed by rules of jurisprudence. Occasionally, the process proves inadequate to get at the ‘real’ truth which is at variance with ‘ official truth’. Day by day, the gap between real and ‘held’ truths has been widening. We are witnessing the consequences. If individuals fail to uphold truth, institutions made up of such individuals cannot protect it. Hence the importance of individuals being truthful by a system of inner discipline or religious faith. Why does one utter a lie? Because, thereby, he may be getting a material benefit for himself. Or he may be able to avoid a painful consequence or bodily injury to himself. The common factor behind such excuses is self-interest – his love of himself, his fear of injury to himself, or his indifference to the harm it may cause to others. To be truthful, a person needs no effort. He has just to say what he believes is truth. He has to be himself. It is the liar who has to plan his lies carefully and be under perpetual tension of the possibility of being found out. Truth comes naturally without effort. In that sense “tell the truth” is a negative commandment – “do not lie”.

Syrette alfol oversprinkling. Chibouque whoopee demulsification crystallometry retentive porbeagle trireme stokehold bituminize nonvoid.

Read 2 Comment(s) posted so far on this Article!

Page: 1 of 1