There is a time and place to say things especially the truth. If the time and/or the place is not ripe, Silence is the most appropriate statement to make!
Bhagavad Gita 17:15- anudvega-karam vakyam satyam priya-hitam ca yat svadhyayabhyasanam caiva van-mayam tapa ucyate "Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others"
“Saying what you feel’ if it hurts or agitates the others, no matter how truthful the saying, is “himsa”
Further Swamy Says "Even if you cannot oblige, you can at least speak obligingly. This means that you have to cleanse your speech of cynicism and satire and be ever sincere and sweet. You may differ from co-workers on methods and programmes, but this should not leave a scar on your heart or their heart...”
“Both unpleasant truth and pleasant untruth have to be avoided.”
---
SABN Sir,
I see your well-reasoned points, and I know for sure that they are sincere. If I can have some more of your input to our discussion, and Swami presents the right course of action through them, you can be sure that there will be no further public statements in my private site! I guess the Socratic method suits best, as the many more years that you have will present richer experience, and thereby, wiser thoughts.
Bhagavad Gita 17:15- anudvega-karam vakyam satyam priya-hitam ca yat svadhyayabhyasanam caiva van-mayam tapa ucyate "Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others"
Now, Krishna talks of austerity by using 'truth' as the first adjective, not 'pleasing' not, 'not agitating'. What if the truth were not pleasant? And what if the silence continued to the extent that pleasantness of speech became an acceptable, and probably necessary substitute for truthfulness of speech? Secondly, in such a circumstance, is it more beneficial to let untruth flourish without hindrance (to the extent that a spiritual monument becomes a platform for spiritual performance rather than spiritual penance), at the expense of words which are disruptive, no doubt, but probatory for good reason?
“Saying what you feel’ if it hurts or agitates the others, no matter how truthful the saying, is “himsa”
What about saying what you don’t feel as it will please and ingratiate others, no matter how untruthful the saying. Which is the greater evil here, the himsa of the truthful word, or the ahimsa of the sweet lie,- if at all the latter is ahimsa?
Further Swamy Says "Even if you cannot oblige, you can at least speak obligingly. This means that you have to cleanse your speech of cynicism and satire and be ever sincere and sweet. You may differ from co-workers on methods and programmes, but this should not leave a scar on your heart or their heart...”Kerala is a Communist state, and for obvious reasons, the states with one of the most outstanding records for un-industrialization in India. One entrepreneur from Kerala settled in Singapore (or somewhere else I don’t really recollect where) and engaged in the shipping business decided to order two vessels from Cochin Shipyard, whilst Korean shipbuilders offered slightly higher prices, but with accurate deliveries. But this guy was patriotic and tried to engage even the lower-level workforce from Cochin Shipyard so that they too would realize the importance of playing to international rules (for their own benefit). He was very sweet and cordial, and to the cut the story short, he learned a very expensive lesson. This happened around four years back.
Another story, and this is based on personal experience. We have factory-people who come from many different states of South and North India. Now, I always have problems with people of two specific states. I can be sweet and cordial and keep getting a hit to our productivity, and consequently, to the entire company, or I can let go of a few rotten apples to save the rest of them. What I have done in the past is the practical thing from my perspective, not the benevolent thing, but the practical thing.
I will totally obey what the Avatar says on leaving hearts unscarred, but let me also ask this question: When the Avatar asks us to be sincere and sweet, and when the entire focus is on sweetness at the expense of sincerity, what do you think Swami might find more wrong - poison parading as perfume, or the pungent fumes of truth?
Among the very few that I can personally look up to, and currently engaged in some form of official capacity, KN (famous for, among others, ‘we cannot plan for everything, but we can pray for everything’, ‘we should not only serve Swami, but also serve as Swami’) stands out for being genuinely sincere, and incredibly sweet at the same time. But then, how many KNs do we have? So, when the difficult gel of sincerity and sweetness has to be professed, where do you think it should start? I know what you will say (it should start with myself!), but when we have a world full of yes-men, shouldn’t someone say no so that people know there is some kind of divergence of opinion and thought? Hasn’t humanity progressed because a few people at all levels questioned the status quo, whether it be of the geocentric universe, or that of life after death? In my own company, some of the most powerful people are those who will actually question me or counter my point of view. If I am a lawyer, will I make impolite admissions to defend my client, or offer silence to allow his defeat?
“Both unpleasant truth and pleasant untruth have to be avoided.”
Many years back, while in Boeing, I was forwarded a document on a software application named CATIA that was supposed to improve productivity, but did very well to affect the opposite. But after having spent half a billion dollars on the application, decision makers demonstrated perfect non-rational escalation of commitment by pumping more money for this project, in effect, to repaint a house standing on shallow foundation. But a few people felt this was wrong, and just about no one complained. People feared one or more of the following: losing their positions, going out of favour, or appearing to be plain stupid. What do we do under such circumstances? Remaining a mute spectator while claiming to be a foot-soldier of Krishna’s army is, in my opinion, the equivalent of retiring to the forest promptly after securing a PhD in social welfare. Furthermore, in a spiritual setting, do you think that communism of thought and pretense of vision, added to selfishness of interest, should be silently reviewed from the sidelines, or commented upon? Which is the greater evil?
If you still believe that the path of silence is the preferred choice, I will seriously go for it. The thing about Swami is that He gives us mixed signals with one clear message. I guess He wants us to use our viveka. This is where the satsang of the wise will help, and that is why I will agree with your experience.
