In an age when people lie not just to others, but to themselves as well, being confronted with reality can be quite painful for some people; so, is telling the truth an act of violence? If so, which principle is higher, ahimsa or satya?
[QUOTE=Giza;74752]is telling the truth an act of violence? If so, which principle is higher, ahimsa or satya?[/QUOTE]
Is life not violent? On the simple physical level there is much violence in nature, life feeds on life, your very being as human relies on violence, your body is a combat zone full of dead and dying, existence involves violence, what does one mean by ?higher?, it simply is.
So what you’re saying is that the concept of non-violence is an unrealistic one (that ahimsa is devoid of satya). Do others agree?
I guess it depends on how it’s delivered, the manner, why it’s delivered, the motivation, and to whom.
[QUOTE=Melchizedek;74762]I guess it depends on how it’s delivered, the manner, why it’s delivered, the motivation, and to whom.[/QUOTE]
The ‘to whom’ is what I find interesting; the idea that you can gently and out of compassion for another person unknowingly deliver a devastating blow, just by telling them a truth you believe they should see. But, is it better then to just lie to them, because it is less violent? Patanjali wrote about both ahimsa and satya, categorizing both as yamas. But sometimes one must break one precept to satisfy the other; which, then, should one break first?
Principally, ahimsa means what it says: ?don?t add to the suffering?. Speaking truth (satya) exposes illusion (maya); eliminating maya precludes the need for help, suffering ceases.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;74764]Principally, ahimsa means what it says: ?don?t add to the suffering?. Speaking truth (satya) exposes illusion (maya); eliminating maya precludes the need for help, suffering ceases.[/QUOTE]
In the big picture the elimination of illusion will certainly contribute to the cessation of suffering, agreed; but I think that it can have the opposite effect in the immediate frame. Who was it that said, “Truth pierces like an arrow, and like an arrow it is bound to hurt.”? So, I’m asking: is it okay to commit violence in the “little picture” to prevent suffering in the big picture? Is “the break an egg to make an omelet” mentality appropriate for a yogi?
[QUOTE=Giza;74765]In the big picture the elimination of illusion will certainly contribute to the cessation of suffering, agreed; but I think that it can have the opposite effect in the immediate frame. Who was it that said, “Truth pierces like an arrow, and like an arrow it is bound to hurt.”? So, I’m asking: is it okay to commit violence in the “little picture” to prevent suffering in the big picture? Is “the break an egg to make an omelet” mentality appropriate for a yogi?[/QUOTE]
It seems the most compassionate thing one can do is awake with clarity from the dream, perhaps if one is sincere in alleviating surrounding sufferings they should perfect the only means of help they have?Themselves?
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;74787]It seems the most compassionate thing one can do is awake with clarity from the dream, perhaps if one is sincere in alleviating surrounding sufferings they should perfect the only means of help they have?Themselves?[/QUOTE]
Agreed; and thank you for your willingness to comment. However I am admittedly dull and not really able to understand how your answers suit my questions; would you please make your answers simple and direct? A yes or no would be ideal. Please be patient with me. 
[QUOTE=Giza;74752]In an age when people lie not just to others, but to themselves as well, being confronted with reality can be quite painful for some people; so, is telling the truth an act of violence? If so, which principle is higher, ahimsa or satya?[/QUOTE]
Was there ever an age when people did not lie? Existence is violent, the details of the exact situation are unknown however it seems you?ve come to a cross road of choice whether to intervene, do what you feel compelled to do. Things to consider; are your intentions unconditional, free of expectations or of self-interest.
It depends from case to case.
IF someone has very bad cancer you cant tell him the truth as there is a big chance he will pass away, a yogi is allowed to lie if it save lives.
So if you tell this person that he/she has very bad cancer there is no chance of recovery if that person just gives up. We have all heard of people suriviving the worst cancer and if they give up they die and so it would not be good to tell the truth.
And if you want to tell someone the truth even though it is painful, do you think the person will change? Some people will never listen they need to have a real awakening experience that will be lifechanging. Until then nothing will change. Some people do have this experience but go back into their habitual life. Maybe they dont know any other way so they fall back.
Also karmic plays a big role.
Then we must also ask why do you want to tell the people the truth? or was it just a general question.
[QUOTE=fakeyogis;74790]It depends from case to case.
IF someone has very bad cancer you cant tell him the truth as there is a big chance he will pass away, a yogi is allowed to lie if it save lives…
And if you want to tell someone the truth even though it is painful, do you think the person will change? Some people will never listen they need to have a real awakening experience that will be lifechanging…
Then we must also ask why do you want to tell the people the truth? or was it just a general question.[/QUOTE]
It was a general question, but generally speaking if one has compassion for another person he wishes for them to be happy; that often means confronting painful issues - BUT Patanjali has a precept against causing pain. One thing I’m not clear on was, were these precepts intended to be mere guidelines to follow, or Moses-style, “these are the rules in every circumstance” commandments? Did I read somewhere that raja yogis took vows to uphold the Yamas and Niyamas?
So if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that Ahimsa is higher than Satya, and sometimes impressing an understanding of Satya is just a lost cause, so we shouldn’t try. Correct?
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;74789]Was there ever an age when people did not lie? … it seems you?ve come to a cross road of choice whether to intervene, do what you feel compelled to do. Things to consider; are your intentions unconditional, free of expectations or of self-interest.[/QUOTE]
That is not the case. Perhaps I should have phrased my initial post in better detail and with a higher degree of clarity. In fact, I’m simply curious on what one does in such a situation, provided he really does have the correct unconditional and disinterested motivation to help someone out of respect for that person, or for the divine.
[QUOTE=Giza;74752]In an age when people lie not just to others, but to themselves as well, being confronted with reality can be quite painful for some people; so, is telling the truth an act of violence? If so, which principle is higher, ahimsa or satya?[/QUOTE]
A thought provoking question.
Truth can hurt people, especially if it is inconvenient and makes them feel bad. I mean telling a person who you think is ugly, that they are ugly is likely to hurt that person, and will make you a horrible person for saying it. Thus there are certain truths that you need to withhold, or it may hurt you. Ahimsa is the guiding principle for that, is the truth necessary? Will it cause hurt? Will it serve a greater good?
Some truths we can easily keep to ourselves like telling a child santa clause is not real. We know it is not true, but it is not necessary to tell them that, because it will hurt them and serves no greater good. On the other hand, if an adult believes Santa clause is real, then it is necessary to tell them the truth because it is delusional, the greater good served is that they grow up. It may hurt, but they need to be told straight up.
I have two very controversial threads in the religion forum, “Is the OT the most barbaric and primitive scripture in the world” and “Is Puranic Hinduism the stupdist religion in the world” These threads have a hurt a lot of sentiments of people, but in my view they tell a truth that is necessary and serve a greater good of challenging fundamentalist and superstitious thinking.
I believe I’ve found my answers, thank you all.
Shedding further light, I recently discovered this quote from the Mrigendra Agama, "Even though he causes pain to his patient by applying certain remedies, the physician is not taken to be the cause of the suffering, because in the final analysis he has produced the good that was sought after."
Your answers were good, and, Surya, I will be sure to check out those threads.
Aum Namah Shivaya
" so, is telling the truth an act of violence? If so, which principle is higher, ahimsa or satya?"
This very question, as to which principle is higher - “ahimsa” or “satya”, is a question of enormous egotism. One asks such a question because one believes that if one follows through with certain ways of behavior, one will become more “spiritual”. There can perhaps be nothing more nourishing for one’s ego than for one to create a “spiritual” persona out of such concepts. Neither are our ideas about “ahimsa” - non-violence, absolute. If you look in the East, different traditions have had different interpretations as to what true ahimsa is. Amongst the Jains, every other tradition is living with enormous violence. Even to step on an insect unknowingly, is considered violence. They will take such caution not to harm any other creature, but as to themselves, they are very violent. It is not uncommon for the Jain to fast himself to the point of being malnutritioned and neglecting the needs of the body. One of the major sects of Jainism is also violent towards women. In that sect the only way a woman can enter the spiritual path is if she becomes reincarnated as a man. Is that not violence enough, that just somebody has a female body, she becomes excluded from enlightenment ?
Our ideas about what is “violent” and not violent are very relative. In Islam, the prophet Muhammed had spread the whole Islamic empire by the sword. To him, that was not considered violence, it was seen as a necessary means. The Christian inquisition, again, their actions to them was not seen as violent, it was seen as a divine duty to spread the true religion of Christianity.
It is not just our ideas of non-violence which are relative, but morality itself. There is another kind of “morality” which is well beyond morality itself. It is not because you are following some idea, creed, belief or philosophy. It is just that certain qualities naturally become awakened in you once you come into communion with existence at the level of consciousness. That is why it is no coincidence that every Buddha naturally became compassionate - it is just a side-effect of self-realization. Compassion does not follow rigid ideas as to what “should” or “should not” be done. That is just the compassion of one who is far too entangled in his own egotism. True compassion is totally spontaneous and flexible. It is just doing whatever may be needed to assist another towards their own freedom. Sometimes, a grandmotherly kindness may be helpful. At other times, a sharp sword which cuts fiercely through the veils of delusion.
Thank you for your answer, Amir.
It really put the whole issue into perspective.
Om.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;74863]" so, is telling the truth an act of violence? If so, which principle is higher, ahimsa or satya?"
This very question, as to which principle is higher - “ahimsa” or “satya”, is a question of enormous egotism. One asks such a question because one believes that if one follows through with certain ways of behavior, one will become more “spiritual”. There can perhaps be nothing more nourishing for one’s ego than for one to create a “spiritual” persona out of such concepts. Neither are our ideas about “ahimsa” - non-violence, absolute. If you look in the East, different traditions have had different interpretations as to what true ahimsa is. Amongst the Jains, every other tradition is living with enormous violence. Even to step on an insect unknowingly, is considered violence. They will take such caution not to harm any other creature, but as to themselves, they are very violent. It is not uncommon for the Jain to fast himself to the point of being malnutritioned and neglecting the needs of the body. One of the major sects of Jainism is also violent towards women. In that sect the only way a woman can enter the spiritual path is if she becomes reincarnated as a man. Is that not violence enough, that just somebody has a female body, she becomes excluded from enlightenment ?
Our ideas about what is “violent” and not violent are very relative. In Islam, the prophet Muhammed had spread the whole Islamic empire by the sword. To him, that was not considered violence, it was seen as a necessary means. The Christian inquisition, again, their actions to them was not seen as violent, it was seen as a divine duty to spread the true religion of Christianity.
It is not just our ideas of non-violence which are relative, but morality itself. There is another kind of “morality” which is well beyond morality itself. It is not because you are following some idea, creed, belief or philosophy. It is just that certain qualities naturally become awakened in you once you come into communion with existence at the level of consciousness. That is why it is no coincidence that every Buddha naturally became compassionate - it is just a side-effect of self-realization. Compassion does not follow rigid ideas as to what “should” or “should not” be done. That is just the compassion of one who is far too entangled in his own egotism. True compassion is totally spontaneous and flexible. It is just doing whatever may be needed to assist another towards their own freedom. Sometimes, a grandmotherly kindness may be helpful. At other times, a sharp sword which cuts fiercely through the veils of delusion.[/QUOTE]
An interesting contribution. By the way, I’m still waiting for your answer to the only other thread I’ve started, “chakra pain”. Would you be so kind as to answer it? 
[QUOTE=Giza;74752]In an age when people lie not just to others, but to themselves as well, being confronted with reality can be quite painful for some people; so, is telling the truth an act of violence? If so, which principle is higher, ahimsa or satya?[/QUOTE]
The injunctions or “rules” of yoga are of a decidedly practical nature.
You can tell someone the truth without hurting them. You could, like I’ve read it said of the Buddha, make a game of it. And if you can’t tell them the truth without hurting them; well maybe they don’t need to (at this time) hear it.
It’s discretionary, and the resultant karma (if any) is dependent on a variety of factors.
The Yamas(Ahimsa, Satya etc) are not morals, but practical guidelines to assist one on the path of Yoga. It is common sense how telling the truth is better for peace of mind than telling lies, because lies will engender guilt and fear of being caught. Then again telling truths that are uncomfortable will also engender guilt and fear. So one must use these guidelines flexibly and wisely.