• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bhagavad gita questions

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
The word "Tirukkural" actually translates to "holy verses in the kural style". Tamil Veda is just its nickname. ^_^
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
The Tirukkural is primarily an ethical scripture. Although it does touch on the nature of God and such philosophical things a bit, its primarily on ethics.

A much deeper and profound book is the Tirumantiram of Tirumoolar. There are others like Tiruvacagam of Maickavasagar as well.
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member

makropo

New Member
Dear forum members,

My students in Thailand are studying the Bhagavad Gita as part of a university course here. The course itself is borrowed from one published free online by MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) called Foundations of World Culture I: World Civilizations and Texts.

One of the texts in the MIT course syllabus is the Bhagavad Gita. The students also read the children's Gita because of the easier English.

During our study, one passage in the children's Gita generated a lot of discussion, but we still had questions about it, and so we thought we should seek the views of the learned members of this forum.

This is the passage in question *edit*.

"Lord Krishna’s purpose in telling Arjuna this story was to teach Arjuna that sometimes we have to choose between a rock and a hard place. Lord Krishna told Arjuna that the hermit shared with the robber the sin of killing a life. The robber could not have found the merchant if the hermit had not told the truth. So when two noble principles conflict with each other, we have to know which one is the higher principle. Ahimsa has the highest priority, so the hermit should have lied in this situation to save a life. One may not tell a truth that harms a person in any way. It isn’t easy to apply Dharma (or righteousness) to real life situations because what is Dharma and what is Adharma (or unrighteousness) can sometimes be very difficult to decide. In such a situation, expert advice should be sought."

It surprised us to see this justification of lying, even though the logic is clear. The surprise was due to the fact that none of us are familiar with any other primary religious texts (of any religion) which include a similar justification of lying. Such a thing may exist, but we are not aware of it.

Since we are focussing mainly on religious texts as sources of cultural values, the question we have is this. Does this justification for lying in exceptional circumstances where a life is in danger lead some people in contemporary Hindu societies to use it to justify lying in circumstances in which the level of threatened danger, or harm, is low, or even of a nature unintended by the original scripture? That is, is this principle sometimes misapplied or abused? For example, can some people lie with a clear conscience while conducting business in order to protect his/her family, say, from financial loss?

I presume the members of this forum would regard such a practice as unethical, but my question is whether this principle has become watered down over the centuries, so that some elements of society refer to it in order to reduce the seriousness of lying as an unethical and unacceptable act.

Thank you for any help you can give us to aid our understanding of this magnificent text and its influence.

Mark Starrs
Thailand
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Since we are focussing mainly on religious texts as sources of cultural values, the question we have is this. Does this justification for lying in exceptional circumstances where a life is in danger lead some people in contemporary Hindu societies to use it to justify lying in circumstances in which the level of threatened danger, or harm, is low, or even of a nature unintended by the original scripture? That is, is this principle sometimes misapplied or abused? For example, can some people lie with a clear conscience while conducting business in order to protect his/her family, say, from financial loss?

Hi Makropo,

Dharma (loosely translated as religion), is the science of God. It is explained in the religious texts and, exists for the satisfaction of Supreme Lord.

Therefore, when one lies, not for one's own sense gratification, but for the satisfaction of Supreme Lord (in other words, for a higher cause), then that lie is higher than truth.

For instance, in the example cited, because the hermit became a party to the killing of a life (by not lying), he had to share the sin of killing. On the other hand, a Kshatriya (warrior class), even though killing by hundreds, does not incur sin. Because they are killing for the protection of their kingdom and society, this killing qualifies as Ahimsa. If they do not kill, that will be Himsa and sinful.

This can be understood from the following statement of Lord Krishna to Arjuna, who wanted not to fight, based on bodily conception of life:

atha cet tvam imaḿ dharmyaḿ
sańgrāmaḿ na kariṣyasi
tataḥ sva-dharmaḿ kīrtiḿ ca
hitvā pāpam avāpsyasi​

If, however, you do not perform your religious duty of fighting, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter. [B.G. 2.33]
 

Onkara

Well-Known Member
Welcome to the forum Makropo
I have never seen this explanation or story in the Bhagavad Gita and I am very surprised and pleased you have raised it as a concern.

Vrindavana Das has provided a good explanation of duty and ahimsa with respect to the warrior class, of which Arjuna belonged. This is a topic that can cause doubt.

I do not agree with the verse you kindly quote, lying is not justifiable even in duty. In fact Sri Krishna explicitly names 'truthfulness' as a quality belonging to men of divine nature:

Bhagavad Gita Chapter 16.2

The Blessed Lord said: Fearlessness, purification of one’s existence, cultivation of spiritual knowledge, charity, self-control, performance of sacrifice, study of the Vedas, austerity and simplicity; nonviolence, truthfulness, freedom from anger; renunciation, tranquility, aversion to faultfinding, compassion and freedom from covetousness; gentleness, modesty and steady determination; vigor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, freedom from envy and the passion for honor—these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature.


I would be pleased to provide further quotations from Hindu scripture or commentary to support my position that lying is not justifiable, if that would help you or your students. A man in the hermits position could have best have remained silent or have refused, if the hermit did indeed know the intention of the robber. :)

Kind regards and thanks!
 
Last edited:

ratikala

Istha gosthi
dear makropo ,


firstly may I explain that infact dharma has many subtlties in meaning , vrindavana das gives "religion" as a loose translation , I would like to give the definition as duty , throughout the gita krsna goes to great lengths to impress upon arjuna that dharma is duty , and it is this duty that dictates religion .
therefore by fullfilling our duty we uphold religion , we uphold rightiousness .

Dear forum members,

This is the passage in question *edit*.

"Lord Krishna’s purpose in telling Arjuna this story was to teach Arjuna that sometimes we have to choose between a rock and a hard place. Lord Krishna told Arjuna that the hermit shared with the robber the sin of killing a life. The robber could not have found the merchant if the hermit had not told the truth. So when two noble principles conflict with each other, we have to know which one is the higher principle. Ahimsa has the highest priority, so the hermit should have lied in this situation to save a life. One may not tell a truth that harms a person in any way. It isn’t easy to apply Dharma (or righteousness) to real life situations because what is Dharma and what is Adharma (or unrighteousness) can sometimes be very difficult to decide. In such a situation, expert advice should be sought."

looking at the passage above in the light of duty , it is everyones duty to uphold rightiousness , so the question being raised is that of when truth should be freely given and when it is permissable to refrain from telling the truth .

this is a question of wisdom ,
true , truth (satyam)is one of the higest principles in hinduism but ahimsa non harming is also one of the higest principles .
so on the occasion that by telling a truth one would bring about unnececary harm , then one should refrain from telling that truth .
in much the same way as we would not instruct a small child how to use matches untill we felt he was responcible enough to use them wisely . he may repeatedly ask where the matches are kept , he may ask how to create fire simply because he is facinated by it ! but untill he is wise enough to use fire for its correct purpose no one will tell him .
this is wisdom ! we may have knowledge , but we must now use wisdom when applying it !

but this knowledge is not exactly truth , truth the principle of satyam is a higher principle which we must learn to act in accordance with .



It surprised us to see this justification of lying, even though the logic is clear. The surprise was due to the fact that none of us are familiar with any other primary religious texts (of any religion) which include a similar justification of lying. Such a thing may exist, but we are not aware of it.
there is a rule within buddhist practice which describes wisdom and its aplication in speach and action , ....

wisdom relating to speach is knowing what to say , when to say it , and when to remain silent !
wisdom relating to action is knowing when to act , knowing how to act , and when to refrain from action !


Since we are focussing mainly on religious texts as sources of cultural values, the question we have is this. Does this justification for lying in exceptional circumstances where a life is in danger lead some people in contemporary Hindu societies to use it to justify lying in circumstances in which the level of threatened danger, or harm, is low, or even of a nature unintended by the original scripture? That is, is this principle sometimes misapplied or abused? For example, can some people lie with a clear conscience while conducting business in order to protect his/her family, say, from financial loss?
with regard to business , to lie for unnecessary gain would be adharma ,
to refrain from telling the truth in some circumstances may be permissable if one needs to protect ones financial security , take for instance a simple merchant who conducts business simply to feed his family , imagine that he is aproached by a wealthy business man who asks the name of his supplier so that he may cut him out and go directly to the supplier simply to make more profit , the merchant may justifiably avoid to tell the truth about the identity of his supply , as this would jeopardise the security of his family ! but if another poor merchant came to him asking for help he should not lie but should help him as he realises that he to must support his own family , this is the aplication of wisdom .

of course in the case of business this principle will no doubt be abused , as the business man often wishes to amass more wealth than he actualy needs , it is the duty of the merchant to provide for his family but it is beyond his duty to amass more wealth than he needs as that causes deprevation for others . it is only a lack of faith in god and a lack of understanding of the true order of life , that leads to a missplaced sence of importance placed on the self above others , that leads to the abuse of any principle such as the ammasing of wealth .

when the hindu or buddhist speaks of truth (satyam) , it is ultimately the greater truth relating to "the true order of life" that is of supreme importance , all daily activitys are to be conducted in a way which ultimately leads to an understanding of that greater truth , thus religions throughout the world give codes of conduct relating to our daily behavior so that we might live a life which will bring us closer to an understanding of god and the true order of life .

I presume the members of this forum would regard such a practice as unethical, but my question is whether this principle has become watered down over the centuries, so that some elements of society refer to it in order to reduce the seriousness of lying as an unethical and unacceptable act.

the problem is that over the centurys love of god and rightiousness have declined and iriligion and self interest have increased , we serve god (and his natural order) less , and place more emphasiss on serving the self , in this way lying and un ethical behaviors have become the norm as we do not trust in god to provide , nor are we happy to live a simple life sharing with others .

I hope this will be of help , this is a wonderfull topic to be discussing , I hope your teaching is both enjoyable and fruitfull ,
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
hari bol onkara ji ,
I do not agree with the verse you kindly quote, lying is not justifiable even in duty. In fact Sri Krishna explicitly names 'truthfulness' as a quality belonging to men of divine nature:

true lying is in most instances adharma , :yes:
and divine in quality :yes:

but remember not to cast pearls amongst swine ?

Bhagavad Gita Chapter 16.2

The Blessed Lord said: Fearlessness, purification of one’s existence, cultivation of spiritual knowledge, charity, self-control, performance of sacrifice, study of the Vedas, austerity and simplicity; nonviolence, truthfulness, freedom from anger; renunciation, tranquility, aversion to faultfinding,and freedom from covetousness; gentleness, modesty and steady determination; vigor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, freedom from envy and the passion for honor—these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature.

cultivation of spiritual knowledge, charity, self-control, and of corse , compassion !

. A man in the hermits position could have best have remained silent or have refused, if the hermit did indeed know the intention of the robber. :)

Kind regards and thanks!

ah ... here you have it :yes: he should remain silent :D

I will return to this later it is a wonderfull question .
 

Onkara

Well-Known Member
Hari Bol Ratikala ji
Thanks for the thoughts and feedback, this is indeed an interesting question and I look forward to exploring it further. :)
 

SageTree

Spiritual Friend
Premium Member
Seems like the questions got answered... so,

It's one of the spiritual texts that I've read more than any other.
I hope that it bears fruit for you like I feel it did for me.

:namaste
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Truthfulness is a divine quality and lying and deceit is demoniac. On a material platform, that is correct. Such truth will have a good reaction and lie would have a bad reaction according to the law of karma.

However, on the spiritual platform of Dharma; truth or lie spoken in the service of the Supreme Lord is transcendental and has no reaction. No reaction because it is for the satisfaction of Lord.

For instance, violence or killing is a sin. However, for Kshatriyas, hunting is allowed because it is their duty to be prepared for a battle. That is how accidentally King Dashratha (father of Lord Rām) accidentally killed Śravana Kumār and was cursed by his parents.

Also, lying is a sin. However, for the vaiśya (mercantile community), lying for profit is allowed.

Here is an excerpt from here: Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 18 Verse 47

śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ
para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt
svabhāva-niyataḿ karma
kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam​

It is better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one's nature are never affected by sinful reactions.

PURPORT

One's occupational duty is prescribed in Bhagavad-gītā. As already discussed in previous verses, the duties of a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra are prescribed according to their particular modes of nature. One should not imitate another's duty. A man who is by nature attracted to the kind of work done by śūdras should not artificially claim to be a brāhmaṇa, although he may have been born into a brāhmaṇa family. In this way one should work according to his own nature; no work is abominable, if performed in the service of the Supreme Lord. The occupational duty of a brāhmaṇa is certainly in the mode of goodness, but if a person is not by nature in the mode of goodness, he should not imitate the occupational duty of a brāhmaṇa. For a kṣatriya, or administrator, there are so many abominable things; a kṣatriya has to be violent to kill his enemies, and sometimes a kṣatriya has to tell lies for the sake of diplomacy. Such violence and duplicity accompany political affairs, but a kṣatriya is not supposed to give up his occupational duty and try to perform the duties of a brāhmaṇa.
One should act to satisfy the Supreme Lord. For example, Arjuna was a kṣatriya. He was hesitating to fight the other party. But if such fighting is performed for the sake of Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there need be no fear of degradation. In the business field also, sometimes a merchant has to tell so many lies to make a profit. If he does not do so, there can be no profit. Sometimes a merchant says, "Oh, my dear customer, for you I am making no profit," but one should know that without profit the merchant cannot exist. Therefore it should be taken as a simple lie if a merchant says that he is not making a profit. But the merchant should not think that because he is engaged in an occupation in which the telling of lies is compulsory, he should give up his profession and pursue the profession of a brāhmaṇa. That is not recommended. Whether one is a kṣatriya, a vaiśya, or a śūdra doesn't matter, if he serves, by his work, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Even brāhmaṇas, who perform different types of sacrifice, sometimes must kill animals because sometimes animals are sacrificed in such ceremonies. Similarly, if a kṣatriya engaged in his own occupation kills an enemy, there is no sin incurred. In the Third Chapter these matters have been clearly and elaborately explained; every man should work for the purpose of Yajña, or for Viṣṇu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Anything done for personal sense gratification is a cause of bondage. The conclusion is that everyone should be engaged according to the particular mode of nature he has acquired, and he should decide to work only to serve the supreme cause of the Supreme Lord.
 

Onkara

Well-Known Member
This may become a discussion of both sides and different views... a friendly one of course as this is about the ideas. :)

One cannot say "I am going to lie for God, because it is Yoga so it's OK". This is sinful thinking.

The Lord doesn't promote lying, he promotes duty. I think we should be clear on the difference between the two.

Selling goods for a profit is a duty not a lie. This is the crux of the misunderstanding in my opinion of the purport because it has already assumed that profit is a sinful lie. It is not. Profit is not a sin or a lie. Profit is economics, it is not a lie and should not be used to justify a verbal lie. The nature of the two are different.

The price of an orange can change, there is no true price of an orange as it grows on a tree with nature, so there is no truth and no lie about the price of an orange. A 5 dollar orange is just a 5 dollar orange it is not a lie. People choose to buy it or not. Profit is economics based on supply and demand.

Verbal lying has the intention of misleading someone. This intention is untruthful and sinful by nature. If it is done in the name of Krishna then it is awful. The correct verbal action is not to lie.

:)
 
Last edited:

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
"Lord Krishna told Arjuna that the hermit shared with the robber the sin of killing a life. The robber could not have found the merchant if the hermit had not told the truth."

There are three scenarios possible:

1. Consciousness of hermit is to satisfy his own self: In this case, of being a truthful man under all circumstances. We see, that he had to suffer the reaction of sharing the sin of killing a person.

2. Consciousness of hermit to save the other person: This is a higher cause than the first one. Had he lied and misled the robber for this higher cause, he would have not have shared the sin of killing a life. However, he still would have incurred the sinful reaction for lying.

3. Consciousness of hermit for satisfying the Supreme Lord: This is the highest cause. For this cause, had he mislead and lied, he would not suffer any reaction as, this is on the transcendental or spiritual platform - service to Supreme Lord.

Good and bad reactions happen for activities that are performed on the platform of mundane material consciousness.

Activities which are done on the Absolute or transcendental platform, do not attract any reaction as they are performed for the service of transcendental Lord.

That is my take on the matter.
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaskaram vrindarvana das ,

Truthfulness is a divine quality and lying and deceit is demoniac. On a material platform, that is correct. Such truth will have a good reaction and lie would have a bad reaction according to the law of karma.

truthfullnes is without doubt a divine quality , we should act in accordance with dharma at all times , ....and to lie inorder to deceive for any personal reason is adharmic , and of course bears a reaction .

However, on the spiritual platform of Dharma; truth or lie spoken in the service of the Supreme Lord is transcendental and has no reaction. No reaction because it is for the satisfaction of Lord.

so had the hermit remained silent in order to save the merchant from harm then there would be no reaction , as his act is one of compassion in accordance with dharma .

Also, lying is a sin. However, for the vaiśya (mercantile community), lying for profit is allowed.

this I fear is taking things a little to literaly ! to think that one were permitted to lie for profit simply because one is of merchant class would be gross foolihness ,

"he who is satisfied with gain which comes of its own accord who is free from duality and who does not envy , who is steady in sucess and failure , is never entangled , allthough he performs actions . B.G ch 4 ...v 22


here krsna explains that one does ones duty , satisfied with the gain that ones karma dictates , that one should not attatch to the outcome , thus one remains ballanced , equipoised ! one accepts what comes naturaly from honest endeavor .
this way a ny one regardless of caste may act in a way which would please lord krsna whilst fullfiling the duty of their varna .


Here is an excerpt from here: Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 18 Verse 47

śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ
para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt
svabhāva-niyataḿ karma
kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam​

It is better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one's nature are never affected by sinful reactions.

PURPORT

One's occupational duty is prescribed in Bhagavad-gītā. As already discussed in previous verses, the duties of a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra are prescribed according to their particular modes of nature. One should not imitate another's duty. A man who is by nature attracted to the kind of work done by śūdras should not artificially claim to be a brāhmaṇa, although he may have been born into a brāhmaṇa family. In this way one should work according to his own nature; no work is abominable, if performed in the service of the Supreme Lord. The occupational duty of a brāhmaṇa is certainly in the mode of goodness, but if a person is not by nature in the mode of goodness, he should not imitate the occupational duty of a brāhmaṇa. For a kṣatriya, or administrator, there are so many abominable things; a kṣatriya has to be violent to kill his enemies, and sometimes a kṣatriya has to tell lies for the sake of diplomacy.
Such violence and duplicity accompany political affairs, but a kṣatriya is not supposed to give up his occupational duty and try to perform the duties of a brāhmaṇa.

interestingly enough srila prabhupada here says .....
"there are so many abominable things; a kṣatriya has to be violent to kill his enemies, and sometimes a kṣatriya has to tell lies for the sake of diplomacy."

here he illustrates duty , the duty of a ksatria , which he does without attatchment therefore because he fullfills his dharma for the sake of krsna he is absolved of any reaction . this I agree with entirely .



One should act to satisfy the Supreme Lord. For example, Arjuna was a kṣatriya. He was hesitating to fight the other party. But if such fighting is performed for the sake of Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there need be no fear of degradation. In the business field also, sometimes a merchant has to tell so many lies to make a profit. If he does not do so, there can be no profit. Sometimes a merchant says, "Oh, my dear customer, for you I am making no profit," but one should know that without profit the merchant cannot exist. Therefore it should be taken as a simple lie if a merchant says that he is not making a profit. But the merchant should not think that because he is engaged in an occupation in which the telling of lies is compulsory, he should give up his profession and pursue the profession of a brāhmaṇa. That is not recommended. Whether one is a kṣatriya, a vaiśya, or a śūdra doesn't matter, if he serves, by his work, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Even brāhmaṇas, who perform different types of sacrifice, sometimes must kill animals because sometimes animals are sacrificed in such ceremonies. Similarly, if a kṣatriya engaged in his own occupation kills an enemy, there is no sin incurred. In the Third Chapter these matters have been clearly and elaborately explained; every man should work for the purpose of Yajña, or for Viṣṇu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Anything done for personal sense gratification is a cause of bondage. The conclusion is that everyone should be engaged according to the particular mode of nature he has acquired, and he should decide to work only to serve the supreme cause of the Supreme Lord.

however here srila prabhupada engages in a little theatre , "Oh, my dear customer, for you I am making no profit," , we all know that the indian merchants have a tendancy to exagerate some what , here prabhupada simply plays upon the indian character ,

when I first read srila prabhupada I took him litteraly and I did not realy like his purports , now reading them after many years of study , I read them a little less literaly and I find more benifit in them .


the merchant in this case engages in banter , the theatre of street selling , he does not deceive , everyone knows that he will make some profit , prehaps not much , this might be an exageration but it is not truely a lie !

I am not wishing to argue , simply to place things said in a fresh light for the sake of contemplation .
 
Top