| Truth and Falsehood
The Roots of War
 We were speaking about the lie of Karna, last week
(See: Karna Learns Archery). Is a lie always detestable? Can falsehood not be acceptable at all, whatever be the circumstance? Before going into this question, we need to think of other instances in our epics, draw parallels and reflect on the acceptability or not of such situations and come back to the moot point again.
Though uttering falsehood is considered one of the five major sins - pancha-maha-paadhakam - there are exceptions to the rule. Concessions are made in the case of not-so-serious lies, like the one uttered by Sugriva who told Rama during their first meeting that he did not know anything about Ravana, while the ogre had earlier stayed in their household for a month, when friendship developed between him and Vali. That one pales into insignificance, when Sugriva’s intentions are taken into consideration. In fact, nobody takes notice of it at all.
He did not mean to suppress a vital piece of information deliberately and therefore that could be pardoned. He might have erred; or forgotten or slipped. Or he could not think properly because he was in a delirious state of mind. Similarly, when Janaki denied any knowledge of the identity of Hanuman, when the guarding demonesses questioned her, she was, of course, not speaking the truth. But the situation makes it right and acceptable. This will be discussed in the appropriate context.
 Even the strictest disciplinarian, Valluvar, allows a minor discount for such instances. ‘poymayum vaaymai idaththa,’ he says. Even falsehood can be placed somewhere near Truth. That is to say, a lie can never be accepted as valid as truth; but yes, one can place it somewhere close to truth. It may not enjoy the same status; but let it be seated nearby - at least a notch lower than Truth. But conditions apply, says Valluvar. ‘purai thIrndha nanmai payakkum enin.’ If that lie brings common good. ‘purai thIrndha,’ he qualifies the nature of goodness that the lie results in. It should not only result in goodness, but that goodness should be pure and unstained in all respects.
That is the reason why, we are not able to digest the lie of Dharmaputra - though what he uttered was true in all respects. Yes, it was an elephant that was named Ashvatthama, which was killed that day. But when his preceptor sought information, it was about his son. Dharmaputra was aware of it. Think of it. When so many of his own trusted men were around him, Acharya Drona chose Yudhisthira to vouch for the killing of Ashvatthama - a siranjIvi, an immortal, who is not supposed to die at all - since he trusted him so much for his truthfulness and honesty. Though Yudhisthira was his student, he was the enemy that the Acharya was fighting against at that moment. Read in this context, the penchant for Truth of Dharmaputra and the kind of trust that the Acharya had in him is more than obvious. Even though he was against it, Yudhisthira was forced by circumstances, though that is no excuse.
That resulted in good, no doubt. But it was not the ‘purai thIrndha nanmai’ goodness, pure in all respects that Valluvar speaks of. He avoided a direct answer, though he uttered the truth. He gave an irrelevant answer, twisted his words and rephrased his response in such a manner that it was understood differently. The intention here, in fact, is to make the Acharya misunderstand. A truth uttered with ulterior motive. And that is why we are not able to accept it. A statement even though it is not falsehood, is not given the status of truth.
And it cannot be given that status. That is why Vyasa mentions that the chariot of Dharmaputra, which was floating about four inches above the ground, touched the ground and ran on the ground from that day.
Therefore, Truth or falsehood is more determined by context than by what is uttered, directly. It is the intention, the motive, the purpose behind the statement that is more important than the statement itself. That is why while we are able to forgive Sugriva for his misstatement about his knowledge of Ravana, accept Janaki for her denial of any knowledge about Hanuman, we are not able to accept Yudhisthira, even when he spoke the truth.
This is the background that we needed to examine the falsehood of Karna that he uttered to his master, Parasurama. Let us now examine the situation. In our next instalment, that is.
Hari Krishnan
harikrishnan@vsnl.net
|
