- Apr 8, 2012
- 891
- 190
truthful living is extension of speaking truth. if you do not speak the truth, you cannot have a truthful living?
Should One Always Tell The Truth?
- Thread starter Harry Haller
- Start date
- Replies 49
- Reads 7K
As I have already stated, in different words, is that there are times when speaking the literal truth will result in a grave injustice. These occasions are few and far between, but they do occur.
I cannot fathom saying to a mob, "I cannot tell a lie. My dearest friend, who is a Sikh, is in the trunk/boot of my car." Of course, lying for a greater good is a dangerous, slippery slope to be used only in the most extreme cases.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
What are lies?
The dictionary says that to tell a lie is to purposely say something that is not true because you want to make the other people believe it; it is an attempt to deceive or mislead someone normally for a personal gain of some sort, however small.
A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment or repercussion for one's actions. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth. A liar is a person who is lying, who has previously lied, or who tends by nature to lie repeatedly - even when not necessary.
Lying is typically used to refer to deceptions in oral or written communication. Other forms of deception, such as disguises or forgeries, are generally not considered lies, but their influence, according to Gurbani, is the same as the underlying intent and is in general the same as a lie. However, even a true statement can be used to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being overall untruthful rather than the truthfulness of any individual statement that is considered the lie.
The above is from Sikhiwikki, and quite frankly it makes no sense to me, neither do the puritans who insist that we all go round telling the truth and not deceiving people.
Some points
1. When Guru Gobind SInghji made the pretence of chopping off the heads of the Panj, was that not a deception?
2. When Guru Gobind Singhji disguised himself as a pathan to avoid being caught was that not a lie?
3. Is dressing another so that they look like you to fool the enemy and make your escape not a lie?
4. Do not most military tactics not involve some sort of lying and deception?
It appears to me that the whole truth aspect of Sikhism has been reduced to very simple 'don't tell lies' whereas it is in fact much much bigger and so much more important than that, I would wager that any deception or lying in the name of truthful living is acceptable, but one needs the wisdom and discretion to be able to call it. Can you imagine a Sikh nation living on such principles? is it possible?
Churchill once said that the truth was so precious, it needed a bodyguard of lies.
The dictionary says that to tell a lie is to purposely say something that is not true because you want to make the other people believe it; it is an attempt to deceive or mislead someone normally for a personal gain of some sort, however small.
A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment or repercussion for one's actions. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth. A liar is a person who is lying, who has previously lied, or who tends by nature to lie repeatedly - even when not necessary.
Lying is typically used to refer to deceptions in oral or written communication. Other forms of deception, such as disguises or forgeries, are generally not considered lies, but their influence, according to Gurbani, is the same as the underlying intent and is in general the same as a lie. However, even a true statement can be used to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being overall untruthful rather than the truthfulness of any individual statement that is considered the lie.
The above is from Sikhiwikki, and quite frankly it makes no sense to me, neither do the puritans who insist that we all go round telling the truth and not deceiving people.
Some points
1. When Guru Gobind SInghji made the pretence of chopping off the heads of the Panj, was that not a deception?
2. When Guru Gobind Singhji disguised himself as a pathan to avoid being caught was that not a lie?
3. Is dressing another so that they look like you to fool the enemy and make your escape not a lie?
4. Do not most military tactics not involve some sort of lying and deception?
It appears to me that the whole truth aspect of Sikhism has been reduced to very simple 'don't tell lies' whereas it is in fact much much bigger and so much more important than that, I would wager that any deception or lying in the name of truthful living is acceptable, but one needs the wisdom and discretion to be able to call it. Can you imagine a Sikh nation living on such principles? is it possible?
Churchill once said that the truth was so precious, it needed a bodyguard of lies.
- Jul 20, 2012
- 1,393
- 1,921
Perhaps I can shed a little light on this since I am in the military and Sikh.
I joined the military for the opportunity to help people. In the case of first world countries, military is more in a defensive role, including the USA (though their judgement on that might be scrutinized) but nobody voluntarily joins the military to be on offensive attacks ever anywhere. Peacekeeping, helping in natural large scale disasters, and its all seen from defensive point of view. And yes, sometimes it can become an active fight where people die, and you have to follow orders. But, the way I look at it is that fighting against injustice and oppression is NOT a new thing for Sikhs! In fact, as Khalsa we are told to uphold justice and fight oppression, defending others and though killing someone is obviously not what we are aiming for, if it happens in a life or death situation to save someone else who is being attacked, oppressed etc then I think it falls into the spirt of Sikhi even though someone unfortunately was killed. Case in point, ISIS (ISIL) they are killing countless people in Syria, selling women as sex slaves and brutalizing them, they have destroyed most infrastructure, and sent countless thousands trying to flee for their lives. They are torturing people and killing them in horrific ways. I think that being involved in the military who are trying to stop these inhuman monsters, is well within the realm of truthful living and in Sikhi spirit of upholding justice and fighting tyranny. But yes, it involves people dying unfortunately. And though its not what anyone aims for, in this case it may be the only way to stop ISIS and save all those people. I am sure that Guru Gobind Singh Ji had wished that there were better ways to deal with attacking Mughals, but there was not, and even the 40 liberated died. I am sure Mai Bhago killed numerous attackers when she was injured....Guru Ji made her a body guard.
Harkiran Kaur ji,
My criticism of the military is addressed to the USA military. Any pretense that invading Afghanistan or Iraq was defensive is nothing more or less than a lie. I have never heard of Canada invading anybody and starting wars for no pressing reason. Canada has done a few bad things, but starting wars of aggression isn't amongst them.
Fighting tyrants and making war on injustice are time-honored Sikh values and I have no trouble with those. Of course, one should try to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.
Those I know who have joined the USA armed forces - none of them Sikhs - did so for one reason only, to get money for college. Patriotism had nothing to do with it. They all went to Iraq and/or Afghanistan and all came back messed up.
- Apr 8, 2012
- 891
- 190
inderjit je I am surprised that you are giving examples of military. being a sikh woman i believe you have not joined the military. The military code of conduct is based on truth. The political code of conduct is based on lies. One has to learn to lie to become a politician. No soldier fights against the enemy but they fight for their code of conduct and under the command of the politicians. so there got to be some lie involved. If u have any doubt about my message; Yes I am a fifteenth generation soldier starting from the battle of Chamkaur Soldiers who do not fight for and with their code of conduct are the ones who get messed up
Last edited:
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
When India went through partition, we had Masterji, the Muslims had Jinnah, JInnah was no saint, but he is probably completely responsible for what is now Pakistan.
Maybe all the sardar jokes are not because we are simple, but because we are truthful.
Maybe all the sardar jokes are not because we are simple, but because we are truthful.
.....would you really? that would mean, you'd accept Jo blogs lie on a cv [morally wrong] to secure a job to feed his/her family [morally right]. Would that be the correct interpretation of what you are saying Sir ?
I am not talking about "the military," per se. I have no problem whatsoever about military power defending its homeland or the countries of its allies, when called upon to do. Hence, while I was none to pleased with Operation Desert Storm, I didn't oppose the USA's involvement. Kuwait was an ally the USA had sworn to protect. Likewise, I do not object to making war when it is to destroy a barbaric force such ISIS. They should go in, get the job done, and leave as soon as possible.
I am talking about a very specific military in a very specific situation. An important fact is that this is an all-volunteer force. Every soldier enlisting knows that he or she will be joining an aggressor military that is at war with a country that was illegally invaded(Afghanistan) and had before invaded and effectively destroyed another country (Iraq). A case could be made that the USA invaded Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban, a tyrannical force that the USA itself had created. The Taliban were swiftly defeated; the USA military is still there 14 years later. I think it was clear to every thinking person that the Taliban cannot be defeated and stay defeated by any conventional warfare. I have heard that the USA military invading Iraq expected to be hailed as liberators. When they were not, they should have been given orders to leave, and gone home. The tactics and strategy of the military are not in the hands of the soldier; choosing to join in the first place is.
I will back off a bit and concede that the situation is different for medical personnel; wounded soldiers do need the best of medical care, whether the war is just or unjust, legal or illegal. I realize I have strayed a bit from the topic, but I feel the need to clarify that I am not anti-military; I am just anti-aggressor.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
why not, most people accept that CV's are full of lies just to advance ones career, to feed ones family surely is even more noble.
How does this differ from your hostage scenario? a morally wrong action to achieve a morally right result.
Did no one read the lines from Gurbani I posted earlier.
Anyone here who has taken Amrit or claims to follow the Guru, your Guru has specifically told u not to lie in Gurbani, so why do you still think that lying is okay.
The mayadhari thinks his way is right, the Gurmukhi surrenders at the feet of his Guru.
Guru Gobind Singh Ji was so highly spiritually advanced that more or less his his every action was to glorify God.
So when he did the above, it was in His name.
But for us mere Bhagats, He, through our Gurus has told us not to lie.
If we don't bow down to the Gyan of Gurbani and accept and apply it, then we run with maya.
The Gurus were not mortals- God spoke through them. When they spoke it was Truth speaking.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
that does not make sense, if the tenth master used certain tactics in battle that could not be used by his Generals, then Sikhism is reduced to do as I say, not as I do, which does not pass my own particular litmus test
but that is your personal interpretation of Gurbani, perhaps you could supply some quotes so that we can debate them.
Hi
Your own particular litmus test doesn't matter in this case. A Satguru who is beyond the mortal state and cannot fall as our Gurus were, isn't answerable to you or I, He blessed them to be the most beautiful souls he has yet created.
God knows why our Gurus actions were that way because God himself worked through Him and our Guru knew it, if God gave him a hukam and he followed it then good.
Our Gurus proved time and time again their full dedication to Truth, they lived for Truth.
The quotes I provided in my previous post should suffice, we are told many times not to lie.
- Jan 3, 2010
- 1,254
- 423
- 79
One must stick to truth. In some cases there may be some problematic response but one must learn to bear this. Finality of Truth is always positive.
Sikhilove,
I agree with much of what you write, but there are instances where you become persistent and overbearing; like now for example, on this truth and thing.
Generally speaking, we should always speak the truth, but there may be times when we are morally obliged to lie. Classic example of which I cited in another thread, the maniac neighbour wanting to kill your dad and how might you deal with it [ring a bell ?]. Now, if you were to tell the truth and inform the whereabout of your father, jo public would've cried out "murder", hence consider you highly immoral to have had your dad killed simply because one ought to tell the truth. Telling the truth is indeed virtuous and an obligation which one should uphold provided no other overriding factors are present.
Gdnite -
I agree with much of what you write, but there are instances where you become persistent and overbearing; like now for example, on this truth and thing.
Generally speaking, we should always speak the truth, but there may be times when we are morally obliged to lie. Classic example of which I cited in another thread, the maniac neighbour wanting to kill your dad and how might you deal with it [ring a bell ?]. Now, if you were to tell the truth and inform the whereabout of your father, jo public would've cried out "murder", hence consider you highly immoral to have had your dad killed simply because one ought to tell the truth. Telling the truth is indeed virtuous and an obligation which one should uphold provided no other overriding factors are present.
Gdnite -
- Jan 3, 2010
- 1,254
- 423
- 79
Two points raised about Guru Gobind Singh are devoid of facts
1. When Guru Gobind SInghji made the pretence of chopping off the heads of the Panj, was that not a deception?
2. When Guru Gobind Singhji disguised himself as a pathan to avoid being caught was that not a lie?
3. Is dressing another so that they look like you to fool the enemy and make your escape not a lie?
4. Do not most military tactics not involve some sort of lying and deception?
It appears to me that the whole truth aspect of Sikhism has been reduced to very simple 'don't tell lies' whereas it is in fact much much bigger and so much more important than that, I would wager that any deception or lying in the name of truthful living is acceptable, but one needs the wisdom and discretion to be able to call it. Can you imagine a Sikh nation living on such principles? is it possible?
Churchill once said that the truth was so precious, it needed a bodyguard of lies.[/QUOTE]
Two points raised are not based on facts
1. 'the pretence of chopping off the heads of the Panj', Is there any evidence that it was a pretence?
2. Guru Nanak was accepted as 'Uch da peer' by the 'Uch da peer' himself and called him to be so. Guru Gobind Singh only carried forward the same acceptance of Gurus as 'Uch da Peer' . It was not Guru Gobind Singh who himself called him Uch da Pir; it was Ghani khan who said so.
1. When Guru Gobind SInghji made the pretence of chopping off the heads of the Panj, was that not a deception?
2. When Guru Gobind Singhji disguised himself as a pathan to avoid being caught was that not a lie?
3. Is dressing another so that they look like you to fool the enemy and make your escape not a lie?
4. Do not most military tactics not involve some sort of lying and deception?
It appears to me that the whole truth aspect of Sikhism has been reduced to very simple 'don't tell lies' whereas it is in fact much much bigger and so much more important than that, I would wager that any deception or lying in the name of truthful living is acceptable, but one needs the wisdom and discretion to be able to call it. Can you imagine a Sikh nation living on such principles? is it possible?
Churchill once said that the truth was so precious, it needed a bodyguard of lies.[/QUOTE]
Two points raised are not based on facts
1. 'the pretence of chopping off the heads of the Panj', Is there any evidence that it was a pretence?
2. Guru Nanak was accepted as 'Uch da peer' by the 'Uch da peer' himself and called him to be so. Guru Gobind Singh only carried forward the same acceptance of Gurus as 'Uch da Peer' . It was not Guru Gobind Singh who himself called him Uch da Pir; it was Ghani khan who said so.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
Your suggesting that he did actually cut their heads off?
- Apr 8, 2012
- 891
- 190
Aurangzeb had sent a convert muslim to observe what guru was doing. He was present at Anandpur sahib and he wrote that kafraan de peer ne sir katte. this document is available in university of Aligarh. so go and check it out
swarn bains ji, It would be most helpful if you'd translate what the Muslim convert said into English.
Thank you.
- Apr 8, 2012
- 891
- 190
The convert was a brahmin converted to islam. He wrote that guru Gobind singh cut the heads of five people in his report to the king and the document is available at Aligarh
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
