Always tell the Truth

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam all:

I'm starting this thread as a response to what someone said in another thread. I'm sure we've all encountered this saying at one time or another, whether from parents, teachers, etc.

I find it to be a vast oversimplification of life that has its origins in black/white or good/bad western thinking. There is a childrens' book titled 'Number the Stars' by Lois Lowry that provides a great starter for a discussion on this. In the book, the Danes are smuggling Jews out of Denmark over to Sweden during the time of Nazi Germany's occupation of Denmark. The Danes chronically lie or distort the truth to the Germans to save their Jewish friend's lives. Good book with lots of lessons, for those of us here with children.

The other thread got me to thinking (not always a good thing) about the Hindu take on this. What do our scriptures say? Do they parrot the western simplicity, or do they express it in a more complex way, as I have said? From my experience, its always more complicated. Take the example of a person who is going into dementia. What value is it to tell them the truth a mistake they may have made in counting money, etc. The better plan, born out of kindness, would be to just cover for them, no?

Thoughts, anyone?

Aum Namasivaya

[Alise]

Namaste,

I believe that first comes ahimsa & only then truthfulness... So in case truth might really hurt person or people - then it's better avoid it. But in no way person should be two-faced. He or she shouldn't pretend that they like other person & later just back-stab, so I believe person should always think for consequences in long & short term, if person lies & tells truth that shouldn't be told.

Saving person's life with lying is good example while lying to get away from something is the, obvious, bad one...


Have a wonderful day,
~Alice

[sanjaya]

In general I think we'd all agree that telling the truth is the best policy. There's the story of the Sadhu who falsely told Lord Narayana (in the guise of an ascetic) that his boat was filled with worthless vessels, only to be cursed by his lie coming true. However, we should recall that during the Kurukshetra war, Bhima killed Duryodhana by an unfair tactic; literally he hit him below the belt. Sri Krishna fully approved of this, and reminded Duryodhana that because he had never upheld Dharma in his life, Dharma would not be his salvation now. Indeed, my understanding of Gita is that we're taught not to waste our scruples on those who care nothing for honor or Dharma.

I've always found this to be an interesting teaching. It prevents dishonorable and evil men from holding good people hostage with the rules of just conduct.

[sunyata07]

Namaste,

I agree with SweetAlisija in saying that ahimsa should take precedence over satya in practice. Satya without ahimsa is hard for me to swallow. Isn't there a similar story in Hindu tradition to that children's book you mentioned, EM? I cannot remember the full details but it goes something like this:

There once lived a very pious and upright man. He was at home one day when he happened to see another man running away in terror. The pursued man stops at his door and begs him to give him refuge and not disclose where he is for fear that these bandits will rob and kill him. The man of the house agrees, but when the bandits arrive and demand to know where their intended victim is, the houseowner tells them the truth and the bandits drag the helpless man away and kill him. Later when this pious man's life ends, his jiva finds that he will have to undergo rebirth. He demands from the Lord why this must be. He insists he has only spoken truth his whole life, worshipped and honoured the devas, etc. What wrong has he committed that he must undergo rebirth? God's answer is that the merit the man gained from telling the truth that day to the bandits is negligible compared to the harm he did in not following ahimsa first. In effect, he failed to do his duty that day and protect the innocent man from the adharmic actions of his killers.

Bottom line, I don't think truth can be practiced fully without the right mindset of avoiding harm to another being. Such virtue seems almost empty and without compassion. I think Sanjaya has a point about those who continually engage in evil and unjust actions at the expense of others. And yet, I'm not sure I agree on wasting scruples (although I can understand that it's tempting to feel like this), as I believe no good or kind action is ever really wasted.

Om namah Shivaya

[TheOne]

I was meditating on EXACTLY what this post was about for the last few days and here's my conclusion. First, I believe it causes the mind great trouble to put oneself into hypothetical situations like when people ask "Would you kill a random person to save humanity" I find things like that absurd because I know such a situation has less than .0000000000000000000001% chance of happening. That said, let me continue with response to ta very real and valid question.

In regards to whether one would lie to protect others from death. Than yes, I would lie because not only is there less bad karma being generated from lieing than allowing someone to be killed. BUT there is good karma being generated because you are risking YOUR life as well, because you know that if they find out you lied you would be killed too.

I will summarize the conclusion in "mathematical" terms.

Lieing = - 1 Karma
Leading someone to be killed = - 10 Karma
Risking your life for others = +100 Karma

I heard from some Swami's that it's NOT the action that produces the negative karma but our minds intent with the action. We ourselves reap the karma we sow. Just like the person who donates to get limelight as opposed to the anonymous pious donor. Which one will have the favorable Karma?

[sanjaya]

I've been thinking about this some more today...

If I may contradict both myself and everyone else here, there is another side to this issue. We may consider the story of King Harishchandra, who was known for holding to his word and never telling a lie. The rishi Visvamitra put him to the test, going so far as to take his kingdom and family, and the King obliged him rather than go back on his word. In the end the gods intervened, and the King was granted a place in heaven along with his wife, children, and all of his subjects.

Maybe there's something to this idea of always telling the truth after all...

[Believer]

Indeed, my understanding of Gita is that we're taught not to waste our scruples on those who care nothing for honor or Dharma.

I've always found this to be an interesting teaching. It prevents dishonorable and evil men from holding good people hostage with the rules of just conduct.

When we do that, we are charged with the sin of lowering ourselves down to the level of the adharmis that we are trying to eliminate - how to deal with that charge?
-

[Obelisk]

Another instance of this in the Mahabharata is when Drona proves to be too strong to be overcome, the Pandavas decide to trick him into thinking that his son Ashwathama was killed, and having Yudhisthira tell him that since he's the one who took the vow to always tell the truth, and therefore would certainly be believed. To protect Yudhisthira's vow and reputation, they kill an elephant named Ashwathama in their own army and then Yudhisthira tells Drona the half-truth that Ashwathama has been killed. When Drona is stunned with shock due to this news, one of the warriors takes the opportunity to decapitate him.

While it wasn't exactly fair play, it's seen that it was necessary to uphold Dharma. The battle was unevenly matched because Drona's powers greatly exceeded that of the Pandava warriors. Similarly, the duel between Duryodhana and Bhima was unfair in the first place because Duryodhana was invincible in every part of his body except the thighs. So what the Pandavas did in this situation was to "cancel" out the unfair advantages by using some tactics of their own. While they were illegal moves, it was necessary in order to protect Dharma.

I think that nothing is inherently good or evil, it all depends on the way it is used - whether for or against Dharma. It's agreed that killing someone is a terrible sin in 99% of all the cases, but there could still be a narrow, 1% area where it's justified - like shooting an armed terrorist to prevent them from killing an innocent child. Similarly, telling the truth is the Dharma 99% of the time, but there are still those exceptional 1% of situations where lying is necessary to uphold Dharma, like the case of protecting an innocent from pursuing criminals mentioned above. That's what I feel. :)

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste,

In Hinduism there definitely is an emphasis and importance on keeping your word. In the Ramayana we see King Dasharata send his beloved son Lord Rama into exile just so he could keep his word to Queen Kaikeyi.

But I believe there is a distinction between keeping one's word and telling a lie like in the examples that Eastern Mindji laid out. In the Nazi example, I think it would be dharmic to lie to the Nazis. Pretty much from what I understand, if you say you are going to do something or if you promise somebody something then you should keep your word and do it. But that is different from lying in the Nazi situation, where in my view it would be acceptable to lie.

So it's definitely not a black and white thing, and there are distinctions and exceptions.

Jai Sri Ram

[Eastern Mind]

So it's definitely not a black and white thing, and there are distinctions and exceptions.

Jai Sri Ram

Vannakkam Ramakrishna: Yes, that was pretty much my original point. Other exceptions are there too.

Children, for example, when left alone in a house, while parents are out, may answer the phone with, "My parents are busy right now. May I take a message." Out of fear of someone (a bad guy) coming over, kids lie. Similarly, on the internet, we do not disclose too much private information.

Yet another is the fibbing for fun. Tall tales, exaggeration, just for humour. Mark Twain often referred to himself or his characters as liars. Anyone with a sense of humour at all gets this exception, although I admit I've met a few people who wouldn't. I remember a conversation between my wife and a swami. We were walking through some tall grass in the tropics. My wife said, "You must have to cut the grass here a lot." The swami replied dryly, "Yes, Ganga, we just cut this grass yesterday."

I'm not sure about in India, but in the west, this type of lie is distinguished by calling them 'white lies'.

But what I take exception to is the western black/white notion of 'A lie is a lie'. In the Christian and Islamic attempt to put out a world view on life, they make things just far too simple for reality. Perhaps it relates to their basic intelligence. But I think it harms global efforts at peace and discussion, so we need to counter it when we can. For the fundamentalist (of any religion) there are only two ways of life: my way, and the wrong way. By pointing out the grey, we can battle this simplistic and harmful mindset.

Aum Namasivaya

[Adhvagat]

EM, I think things are clearer when we have the concept of dharma itself.

Most of the time when people think about NOT telling the truth is because they did a bad action in the first place. That is my case. I took vow of not telling a lie for convenience ever again after witnessing my parents defending a lie I told in the first place when I was a kid, it hurt me, I felt like the most horrible person on Earth.

The example of the jews sound a little extreme to me. If a clearly potential killer asked me if I knew where a person is I would lie to protect the person, because that would be the correct action to take.

I'm also not found of "white lies"... If you don't wanna talk to someone, don't pick up the phone.

Some years ago I crossed by someone I didn't want to talk to, later on the internet she asked me if I hadn't seen her, I told her the truth and explained the reason behind my action. It would be easier to hide behind a "white lie", but I chose not to do so. So, in this sense I perceive that "white lies" prevent people from dealing with something that may be important to them, that will make them grow in certain aspects.

And what if someone presents me a certain piece of work and asks me if it's nicely done and in my judgement I think it's not good and I don't have the intimacy to criticeze openly. I know people who put on fake smiles and say it's nice, however I try to focus on one particular good characteristic and compliment or just comment neutrally.

However I'm sure some people would defend that a fake smile and a fake compliment would indeed improve your networking. But for me... What is the use of an interaction based on falsehood?

Sorry if I digressed or just didn't make sense. I haven't slept and my mind is not in its best form.

[yajvan]

　
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Is there a difference between speaking the truth, telling the truth and being truth-full (truthful) ?

praṇām

[Eastern Mind]

　
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Is there a difference between speaking the truth, telling the truth and being truth-full (truthful) ?

praṇām


Vannakkam Yajvan: Hey, its complicated enough without questions like this!:)

If you go ahead and attempt to answer or explain the 3 and the differences, I'll throw in my two bits.

Aum Namasivaya

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

　
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Is there a difference between speaking the truth, telling the truth and being truth-full (truthful) ?

praṇām



Yup, I know the difference, because I'm a big liar and do only liars know the difference?
Speaking the truth is different from telling the truth.
In Mahabharatha, we see Krishna making Dharmaraya speak the truth that Ashwathama(the elephant) died, yet he told a lie that Ashwathama(Drona's son) died, where he didn't, due to which Drona died at the hands of Arjuna in the Bharatha war. But, Dharmaraya felt pain in hell seeing his brothers in pain, for the same reason. He could have probably stalled that off had he been blessed with Pragnya that god is karta and not aham.

Being truthful is different from both of these, for example, a thief may steal a bread for himself to survive for few days, until he gets daily wages and lie to the police that he didn't (tell and say) steal the bread. But, after a week, comes back to the shop where stole bread and gives double the price of the bread he stole. This is being truthful.

Here is an example for not being truthful. I wrote my prep exam 1 miserably and so didn't collect information about my marks. My father asked, 'What is your marks?,' I said 'I don't know.' I was speaking the truth and telling the truth, but hey, I was being untruth-full. I realized this and told him that, 'I didn't ask the teachers on purpose hee hee:D:p'

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté upsydownyupsy


' I said 'I don't know.' I was speaking the truth and telling the truth, but hey, I was being untruth-full. I realized this and told him that, 'I didn't ask the teachers on purpose hee hee:D:p'

A very insightful example... thank you.

Being truth-full is being filled with truth. When each and every breath of one's life is filled with truth ( Being) there is no room for untruth to come in.

praṇām

[kd gupta]

Dear EMJi
This is not fair to say that hindu scriptures parrot the western simplicity ;) . Hindu scriptures follow the law of nature as described in vedas . Vedas tell to follow the TATTVA [ Kernel ] and not the truth .
Lord rama killed bali and ravna knowing the tattva . Lord krsn killed bhishma and drona knowing the tattva .
Taking a simple example....Advaita is tattva and Dvaita a truth .

[harekrishna]

.. Is there a difference between speaking the truth, telling the truth ...

Yajvan Ji -
Just taking the point of telling the truth, there is a Sanskrit Shloka going like - सत्यं वद | प्रियं वद | Speak the truth, Speak with love. Both are important. Sometimes, direct truth acts as an incendiary to the untruthful fire. Instead of quashing it, it increases the conflict. So, the overall impact is not very fruitful.
HariH Om!

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Dear EMJi
This is not fair to say that hindu scriptures parrot the western simplicity ;) . Hindu scriptures follow the law of nature as described in vedas . Vedas tell to follow the TATTVA [ Kernel ] and not the truth .
Lord rama killed bali and ravna knowing the tattva . Lord krsn killed bhishma and drona knowing the tattva .
Taking a simple example....Advaita is tattva and Dvaita a truth .

You seem to be saying Truth is not absolute in vedas? Hello, my dear, isn't the ultimate truth know as god, according to dvaitha as well? Besides, the more you are inclined towards the truth, the more you obtain knowledge. Knowledge is essential to become a gnyani like prahlada and there after attain the abode of Krishna. Dvaitha mutts propagate the same, or have you never come across one. The other thing I was quick to notice is that you are sublimally suggesting that all mayavadis are demons. Do you even know why the lord even killed these people? They inclined themselves to falsehood, even they knew truth, so what? They inclined to falsehood and injustice, even though being gnyanis and bhaktas. It just shows all are equal in the eyes of god and that he favours only the righteous. That is why, it is said, 'Dharmoh rkshathih rakshitah.' For example, take the example of yourself and other Iskon bhaktahs here, you people keep forgetting the phrase, 'Sarva devah namaskaram Keshavam pratih gacchatih' of the bhagvad geeta, which Krishna himself told to the world, but nooo.... you guys continue to hurt the feelings of other bhaktas with statements like, 'advaitha is tattva and dvaitha is truth.' I even went to udupi shri krishna temple complaining to the lord, about you guys :D. Besides, since when are you the equals of Madhwacharya, Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya with reference to knowledge? Probably this is why Shankaracharya was criticized for the statement, 'god (brahman) alone is truth.' To my shock, even ghandhiji repeated the same statement ;). It sounds simple and seems to be like western simplicity, but the meaning behind the statement, once completely and perfectly understood, I promise that you will literally see Shri Krishna (god, brahman, etc.).

[TheOne]

You seem to be saying Truth is not absolute in vedas? Hello, my dear, isn't the ultimate truth know as god, according to dvaitha as well? Besides, the more you are inclined towards the truth, the more you obtain knowledge. Knowledge is essential to become a gnyani like prahlada and there after attain the abode of Krishna. Dvaitha mutts propagate the same, or have you never come across one. The other thing I was quick to notice is that you are sublimally suggesting that all mayavadis are demons. Do you even know why the lord even killed these people? They inclined themselves to falsehood, even they knew truth, so what? They inclined to falsehood and injustice, even though being gnyanis and bhaktas. It just shows all are equal in the eyes of god and that he favours only the righteous. That is why, it is said, 'Dharmoh rkshathih rakshitah.' For example, take the example of yourself and other Iskon bhaktahs here, you people keep forgetting the phrase, 'Sarva devah namaskaram Keshavam pratih gacchatih' of the bhagvad geeta, which Krishna himself told to the world, but nooo.... you guys continue to hurt the feelings of other bhaktas with statements like, 'advaitha is tattva and dvaitha is truth.' I even went to udupi shri krishna temple complaining to the lord, about you guys :D. Besides, since when are you the equals of Madhwacharya, Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya with reference to knowledge? Probably this is why Shankaracharya was criticized for the statement, 'god (brahman) alone is truth.' To my shock, even ghandhiji repeated the same statement ;). It sounds simple and seems to be like western simplicity, but the meaning behind the statement, once completely and perfectly understood, I promise that you will literally see Shri Krishna (god, brahman, etc.).


There is no "this is the only way to moksha" and dvaita and advaita are legitimate paths to the divine and I think they compliment each other rather than oppose each other.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: Well, at least I see I got a discussion going.:) Just a couple of clarifications. The 'truth' I was referring to was the daily life stuff, the practical stuff, not that bigger 'Truth' that our rishis realised. Of course if others want to discuss that, go ahead.

@Guptaji: I neved said that our scriptures parrot the western ones. I simple asked if they do or not as I am not aware much of scripture. Scriptural study isn't really my cup of tea within Hinduism.

Regarding being truthful, or truth-full, in English although the suffix 'ful' often has the meaning stated as 'being full of', in reality that's not the case. Being 'full of' implies that there is no room for anything else. A helpful person or a dreadful situation simply means that the person has 'help' in him. or his nature is of a helping kind. Similarly, the situation is 'of dread' not 'full of dread'.

I have yet to realise any difference between saying the truth and telling the truth.

Aum namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté EM,



Regarding being truthful, or truth-full, in English although the suffix 'ful' often has the meaning stated as 'being full of', in reality that's not the case. Being 'full of' implies that there is no room for anything else.

If I have a pot and it is full - there is no room for anything else.
If I am full of truth, there is no room for un-truth to exist.


praṇām

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Yajvan: I understand what you mean, but in everyday language that is not what it means. It just means honest. I wish I were a truth-full person, but I'm not as maya has entered the picture.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/truthful

Aum Namasivaya

[kd gupta]

Telling truth must be a principle but saying the truth is not always feasible . here is the neeti [ policy] shloka..सत्यम ब्रूयात प्रियं ब्रूयात न ब्रूयात सत्यमप्रियम .
प्रियं च नान्रतम वर्जे एश धर्मः सनातनः .
Priyam cha namratum varje , means false praise which is not untrue [ chamchagiri] , most of the prayers like ...om jai jagdish hare...type are prohibited .
For na bruyat satyamapriyam this may be looked , as god spoke to narda....
http://vedastra.blogspot.com/2010/01/garbage.html

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté EM


Vannakkam Yajvan: I understand what you mean, but in everyday language that is not what it means. It just means honest. I wish I were a truth-full person, but I'm not as maya has entered the picture.

It seems then the string could then be named Always be honest, then there is a different conversation , no?

satya सत्य - truth , reality or satyena 'truly'.
satyaṃ - rooted (√) kṛ , to make true

satya is another name for viṣṇu , or rāma-candra and the aśvattha tree . Some use this word with satya-vatī the mother of vyāsa.

You say you are not truth-full. This could be, yet it is only temporary. The core of you is completely filled with truth.
How so? From satya we come to sat-ya. This sat is Being, existence itself. Tathā sati , or 'if it be so' then your very essence (sāra¹) is this sat.

You are destined to know/realize this... perhaps this life? The next? Tomorrow? Do not consider yourself a fallen being, your essence is that which upholds this Universe.

praṇām

1. sāra - the substance or essence or marrow or cream or heart or essential part of anything , best part , quintessence

[sanjaya]

So...forgive me if I'm missing the post that addressed this. But what have we decided about the example of King Harishchandra? He seems to be a clear example from Hindu history on the virtue of always telling the truth, even to the point of absurdity. It'd be nice if anyone has some nice logical argument or piece of linguistic insight (Yajvan?) that can get us out of accepting the idea that it's best to always be completely truthful. Indeed, everything else I see in Hindu Scripture suggests otherwise. But King Harishchandra always spoke truthfully, and after much suffering was immensely rewarded by God. What do we make of this?

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

There is no "this is the only way to moksha" and dvaita and advaita are legitimate paths to the divine and I think they compliment each other rather than oppose each other.
In one of the other threads, I mentioned, I'm in a bitter confusion between advaitha and dvaitha, before I posted this thread. kd gupta told us that advaitha is tattva and dvaitha is truth. It didn't make any sense, thats the reason I made such a post. Ur statement is clear, but his was rather :headscratch:......

[kd gupta]

In one of the other threads, I mentioned, I'm in a bitter confusion between advaitha and dvaitha, before I posted this thread. kd gupta told us that advaitha is tattva and dvaitha is truth. It didn't make any sense, thats the reason I made such a post. Ur statement is clear, but his was rather :headscratch:......
:) You can understand the same language here , which has no diff .
Adhibhootam ksharo bhaavah purushashchaadhidaivatam;
Adhiyajno’hamevaatra dehe dehabhritaam vara...4/8 gita
Adhibhuta (knowledge of the elements) pertains to My perishable Nature, and the
Purusha or soul is the Adhidaiva; I alone am the Adhiyajna here in this body, O best among the
embodied (men)!
So it can be concluded that the adhiyajna makes the reality and is tattva while adhidaiva gives the true sense of dvaita .

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté sanjaya

It'd be nice if anyone has some nice logical argument or piece of linguistic insight (Yajvan?) that can get us out of accepting the idea that it's best to always be completely truthful.What do we make of this?


Let me offer the following for one's kind consideration. If we look to the śanti parvan ( section) of the mahābhārata, yudhiṣṭhira asks bhīṣma -ji¹ the following:

What is truth ?
What is falsehood?
Under what conditions should (can?) a person tell an untruth?Bhīṣma-ji offers us the following: To tell the truth is consistent with dharma (~righteousness~).

So, one may say that is pretty fuzzy to me, is there a better definition of this righteousness?

Bhīṣma-ji helps us and says its not easy to indicate it ( or pin it down - my words here) - no one can indicate it accurately. Yet that said, this righteousness was declared by brahman for the advancement and growth of all creatures - therefore that which leads to advancement and growth is righteousness. This righteousness was also declared for restraining creatures from injuring one another.
Hence it is called righteousness (dharma) because it upholds all creatures.

If we look at the word dharma it is rooted dhṛ धृ (dhri) meaning to hold , bear (also bring forth) , carry , maintain , preserve , keep. So dharma is that which upholds. What does it uphold? Advancement + growth + restraint from injury.

Now that said, bhīṣma-ji continues:
I will now tell you what is generally unknown by men.

There, where falsehood would assume the aspect of truth, truth should not be said.
There again where truth would assume the aspect of falsehood even falsehood should not be said.But the question is still - when can one tell untruth? When there is the notion of harm to come. Bhīṣma-ji says if there is the notion of being plundered ( by robbers) or adding to another that will bring plundering, then silence is best. Yet if in harms-way, and if one can escape the robbers (or sinful men) by false oath, one may do so without incurring sin. He says, when life is at risk one may speak an untruth.

praṇām

words

yudhiṣṭhira - from yudi, 'in the battle', and sthira, "calm, undisturbed" or he that is calm in battle.
bhīṣma son of śāṃtanu and gaṅgā . In the great war of the bharata-s he took the side of the sons of dhṛtarāṣṭra against the sons of pāṇḍu , and was renowned for his continence , wisdom , bravery , and fidelity to his word ;The bhāghavataṁ says that there are only twelve men in the whole world who know the ins and outs of dharma in all its subtlety. These twelve are: Brahmā, the Creator; Narada, the roving sage; Lord Śiva; Lord Subrahmaṇya; the sage Kapila; Manu the law-giver; the boy-devotee Prahlada; King Janaka; bhīṣma; King Bali; the boy-sage śuka son of vyāsa narrator of the bhāgavata-purāṇa to king parikṣit, and Yama, the Lord of Death and Dispenser of Justice

[NayaSurya]

A child of 10, it was the first Monday of Summer break (the traditional 3 months of June, July and August that children are given from school to help with farm duties).

I was in a short night shirt that said "Leo" and a pair of underwear....hands deep in a sinkfull of dishes...and it happened.

A hulking man well over 6 feet rushed through the front door and shut it behind him. My Mother gone to work and my father in the DMZ in Korea. I rush around the corner from the kitchen and find this filthy man towering over me. He was dirty, I could see and smell the sweat from his stained shirt and filthy pants. His hair, long and greasy....covered by a dirty, crooked baseball hat.

Just as shocked to see me as I was him, he stammered trying to make up a lie. "Some lady dropped me off here to work on her house."

It was summer, our mother had covered the windows to keep the hot sun out...and this blinded me from knowing his true intentions.

He looked down upon me as a man who is changing his plans...one who came to rob...but now seeing me...he begins to think of other things.

He asks me if my parents were home. This ten year old golden child with blue eyes looked up to him and without hesitation spoke the word.."Yes."

The man's eyes changed again...this time almost seeming to retreat wholly...he requests to use the restroom...which I believe was his way of stalling to figure out what to do.

Without hesitation I call to my older sister, 16 and very fat...I thought she would be able to help me fight him off. She had found a hiding spot in the basement and refused to come help. Only my brave tiny little sister came to help me. I told her of the lie and then I began having a one sided conversation with my "Father" calling down the basement stairs and telling him we had company.

The fat hulking man comes rushing out the door..."so you're father's HOME?"

I nodded and told him of our plans to go fishing in the lake upon the military reservation...that my father was a vet and a Master SGNT in the U.S. Army. I then offered to go get him to speak with the man.

Just as cooly as that I played out the bluff...and the man then fully retreated from my home.

As I went to the door to lock it shut the truck pulled up to the front door, back opened to empty the house out....raced out of the yard.

This lie saved the life of my little sister and I...of this I have no doubt. Although... I often wished, I had simply told the whole truth and ended this journey then. But, my sister was there you see...and I couldn't let her be harmed.

A ten year old child who was so innocent, unable to lie...suddenly told such a story that this criminal ran.

I would like to say I have always told the truth, but the times when lies have been necessary are so profound I remember them by the event.

My Father was there that day, my true Father...watching over this bewildered little being...even if she would rather have left this place.


So maybe that wasn't such a good example of a lie...and maybe other examples really aren't such lies either.

When you tell the person your father is home to save a life...or when...filled with such love...you tell another they look beautiful...with their makeup run from crying and a snotty nose.

Because they are not really lies. Father is always home....inside of you...and you are always beautiful...because of this wondrous truth.

I am full from the truth of this.