Today let us try and analyse one of the core human values on which modern (and ancient) society has depended upon to maintain some semblance of order - TRUTH
Always speak the Truth has what has been hammered in to our skulls from the time we were able to comprehend the meaning of the word. But first things first. What is truth? Truth can be loosely defined as ‘Conformity to fact or actuality’. That means describing things as they really are. Is it really possible to do that? My truth may be different from your truth. It is so much colored by our upbringing, our prejudices that what I state as truth may not be what you perceive as the truth. Truth is bound by the limitations of time, place and person. Truth can, in most instances, never be absolute. Does God exist? Is Democracy the best available option of governance? Which newspaper depicts current events most accurately? Are Armani suits the best? Is Shahrukh Khan better than Amitabh Bacchhan or Aamir Khan? Does your mom cook the best alu bhindi in the world? Does life exist elsewhere in this universe? Is this the only universe or are there infinite more such universes? For most such and similar questions asked, one will receive a vigorous, spirited and definitive answer. Try and prove the answerer other wise and all hell is likely to be let loose. For the simple reason that my truth will differ from your truth and neither would actually be wrong.
One more problem with the conventional definition of truth is that it is limited by current knowledge. As of now it is believed that Sir Hillary was the first guy to step on the summit of Everest. However there is a staunch group that thinks that British mountaineer George Leigh Mallory achieved this feat in 1924, when Hillary was a five year old kid (Hillary eventually conquered the Everest in 1954). However who is to say that someone did not climb Mt Everest much before 1924? Everest has been around since hundreds of centuries and mankind too has been in place since thousands of years. It has been proved that it is possible to the scale the peak without the aid of artificial oxygen. Just because a fact has not been recorded doesn’t mean that it has never occurred – does it? I can go ahead and cite hundreds of such examples but I believe you get the general drift. As Einstein put it – ‘Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods’.
Now coming to the moral aspect of Truth. Is always speaking the truth a good thing? This again is akin to stirring a hornet’s nest. Can anyone place his / her hand on the heart and say that s/he has never uttered a lie (and I am not talking about two year olds here :))? If a truth is likely to cause immense heartache to the listener without any immediate or long term benefit what so ever, then is uttering that truth a wise thing? Whitehead remarked – ‘There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil’. Can any one relay events exactly as they happened? Isn’t exaggerating or underplaying akin to falsehood? A machine (like a video camera) can to some extent record and relay events with the least of prejudice. But a thinking, rational human being can never do so. His rendition is likely to be colored by his belief system however microscopic. And we should not forget that the machine is always operated by a thinking human.
You are correct in your interpretation of truth. This question has been haunting mankind's since centuries. The search for truth has been the mission of almost all religious and spiritual leaders. This is a world of relativity and surely there is nothing as absolute. So is the case with truth.... for this reason Vedas have said that there is only one truth in the world "OHM" all others are maya (Illusion).
ReplyDeleteKnowledge is like a candle in a dark room. Man know only those thing which are within the range of his knowledge but there are many truths beyond limits of his knowledge.
as far as our relative truth is considered, It is more like "conflict with our internal self". This internal self (Atma) has been described in vedic literature as a part of the universal OHM (Parmatma). However to be able to understand the language of this atma you need a lot of spritual purity.
In short the search for truth is not a simple and straight forward path and we should be happy with our lies....
Excellent topic for discussion and well written as usual. I believe truth depends on the questions you are asking ... say for example "did you eat the pie or not?" ...straight and simple... either its a yes or a no that has to be tallied with the facts. But then there are questions that are too ambiguous (like the ones that you had in the article) and would have relative answers but that does not make truth relative in all possible cases. Morality on the other hand is a matter of choice ... be it in case of holding to the truth or any other virtue ... now whether that's a good thing or not ... the answer to that again stands with a lot of ambiguity :D
ReplyDeleteNice interpretation. Now a days who tells the truth? Everybody saysthat "Truth"must prevail but in reality "Lie" prevails everywhere, be it office/workplace or home. Without being loyal to work, if we say Truth must prevail then it has no meaning/sense.
ReplyDeleteIndeed 'Truth' in many cases depends on our knowledge and/or perception.
ReplyDeleteComing back to the core human values, if 'truth' is substituted by 'honesty', then maybe some of the above issues get resolved.. ;)