Always tell the Truth

[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
~~~~~~

namast�

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

praṇām

[Eastern Mind]

　
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

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
~~~~~~

namast�

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'

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast� 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'

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 . 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 . 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