உண்மையும், பொய்மையும்

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

For some reason this thread got closed - by mistake, I think. Please continue posting.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

....So, to compare the expressions in Sanskrit and Tamil in my opinion is like comparing apples and oranges. One expresses the total conduct including speech and the other refers only to mere speech.

Dear Shri KRS, we are agreed that Satyam as something immutable and real can be justified only by resorting to religious dogma. We are also agreed that Satyam and Vaaymai are not the same. But I do not agree that comparing these two words is like comparing apples and oranges.

Words are nothing but artifacts intended to communicate abstract concepts. So, when a phrase like "satyam Eva jayate" is expressed, we need to figure out what this Satyam is and why only it will be victorious. A religious answer is inadequate. It is a very weak argument to say the prerequisite to see Satyam as Satyam is religious faith. So, we have to take it out of religious arena. Further, this is the motto imprinted in the seal of GOI. So, for this to make sense, a secular argument must be made. In a secular sense, Satyam is unbending truth. It is rigid. No nuance, it is black and white. Yet, it presents itself as different things to different people.

Next, why only it will succeed? This is not self evident. Nobody takes part seriously anyway.

In Sanskrit, one is stuck with the word Satyam. But, Tamil is fortunate enough to have the word vAymai in its lexicon. It is a beautiful word, well defined by Thiruvalluvar. It is a word trying to convey a concept similar to Satyam (truth). So, comparing Satyam as in satyameva jayate to vAymai as in வாய்மையே வெல்லும், is not at all unreasonable.

Finally, IMO, what வாய்மையே வெல்லும் conveys is much more beautiful, practical and useful compared to satyameva jayate.

Cheers!

 

[Visalakshi Ramani]

உண்மை சுடும் என்பது கூட உண்மையே!

"சுட்ட பழமா வேண்டுமா அல்லது
சுடாத பழமா?" என்றான் முருகன்.

சுடும் உண்மை சத்தியம்;
சுடாத உண்மை வாய்மை.

நமக்கு எது வேண்டும் என
நாமே நன்கு சிந்திப்போம்.

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,
My comments below in 'blue':

Dear Shri KRS, we are agreed that Satyam as something immutable and real can be justified only by resorting to religious dogma. We are also agreed that Satyam and Vaaymai are not the same. But I do not agree that comparing these two words is like comparing apples and oranges.
It is not very clear to me that Satyam can only be justified by religious dogma, however it is readily obvious if one follows the foundations of religions. And, let us first realize that the so called religious 'dogmas' at least in ancient religions were established through observing nature. At the highest level, there is only one Truth, that which makes the Universe to function. Out of which flows all fundamental laws of nature which support such functioning. So, in Hinduism we call the source as Brahman and the laws of nature as Sathyam (as the desirable outcome of one's actions(dharma). Strip away the nomenclature, you are still left with the basic concept.

Words are nothing but artifacts intended to communicate abstract concepts. So, when a phrase like "satyam Eva jayate" is expressed, we need to figure out what this Satyam is and why only it will be victorious. A religious answer is inadequate. It is a very weak argument to say the prerequisite to see Satyam as Satyam is religious faith. So, we have to take it out of religious arena.
I think you are making several invalid assumptions here. As I have already mentioned above, a 'religious' answer is as good as any answer that a 'secular' answer would provide. Because relativism as argued by those who do not believe in religions are nothing but lower level morality issues. When we discuss the big 'Sathyam', it is absolute either from a religious or secular perspective. The only difference is that a secularist does not want to go near it, because there are no proper answers to that grand question. Hence they want something that is reduced to what can be 'verified'. In my opinion this is exactly why these two approaches are different, like 'apples' and 'oranges'.
Further, this is the motto imprinted in the seal of GOI. So, for this to make sense, a secular argument must be made. In a secular sense, Satyam is unbending truth. It is rigid. No nuance, it is black and white. Yet, it presents itself as different things to different people.
I do not understand your last sentence. How does it presents itself as different things to different people? By the way, one can not argue that because people do not understand or follow 'Satyam' it 'presents' itself differently. One can not describe the quality of Sun through various glasses worn by it's observers!

Next, why only it will succeed? This is not self evident. Nobody takes part seriously anyway.
Again, Truth is Truth. Just because it is evident to only a few, that does not make it non true.
In Sanskrit, one is stuck with the word Satyam. But, Tamil is fortunate enough to have the word vAymai in its lexicon. It is a beautiful word, well defined by Thiruvalluvar. It is a word trying to convey a concept similar to Satyam (truth). So, comparing Satyam as in satyameva jayate to vAymai as in வாய்மையே வெல்லும், is not at all unreasonable.
'Vaymai' is not 'Truth'. It can best be described as the absence of 'Poymai' in ones' WORDS. Does not describe one's conduct. One may be speaking Vaymai, yet can resort to filthy actions. Yes, it is beautiful in its own context. But let us not compare it with Satyam. Again, apples and oranges!

Finally, IMO, what வாய்மையே வெல்லும் conveys is much more beautiful, practical and useful compared to satyameva jayate.

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

It is not very clear to me that Satyam can only be justified by religious dogma,

Dear Shri KRS, Thank you for your perspective. I happen to disagree with much of what you have expressed. On the authority of Thirukkural, I have to say, your final statement about Vaimai is demonstrably false.

Cheers!

 

[suraju06]

Nara said:

//Words are nothing but artifacts intended to communicate abstract concepts. So, when a phrase like "satyam Eva jayate" is expressed, we need to figure out what this Satyam is and why only it will be victorious. A religious answer is inadequate. It is a very weak argument to say the prerequisite to see Satyam as Satyam is religious faith. So, we have to take it out of religious arena. Further, this is the motto imprinted in the seal of GOI. So, for this to make sense, a secular argument must be made. In a secular sense, Satyam is unbending truth. It is rigid. No nuance, it is black and white. Yet, it presents itself as different things to different people.//

I agree with KRS’s answer to this that a religious answer will be as good as a secular answer. I would add the following:
Yes. Let us take it out of religious arena and use the touch stone of human experience to understand what can be the meaning of Satyam. Satyam in sanskrit also means permanency. Satyam means the suchness of the universe. While the observer may understand different things about the suchness because of verious influences such as the limitations of perception, the given initial conditions in the presence of which the suchness is perceived etc. The suchness does not undergo any change and it remains what it is irrespective of the initial conditions because the initial conditions are not the attributes of suchness. They are only existing in the calculus of the observer who requires some approximations from which he can make a beginning in understanding the suchness atleast partially.Its existence is permanent.Now, coming to the language, we express our understanding of the suchness with the language. Even with a laguage which is super rich in vocabulary we will be communicating only what we have understood of it while it remains what it is really. This state of affairs or suchness is satyam. From the time of Aristotle to Rene Descartes to Isaac Newton to Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr our understanding of the suchness has travelled a long distance. But for Isaac Newton his understanding of the suchness was final just as for us the understanding using the quantum mechanics appears to be the final truth while the satyam remains what it is. So it is not the satyam which presents itself as different things to different people. It is different people who understand satyam as different things. I am not talking here about the eastern religious way of understanding this satyam through an entirely different approach because for atheists it is a no no area and whatever I say will be straighaway discounted fully.

//Next, why only it will succeed? This is not self evident. Nobody takes part seriously anyway.//

Satyam because it is satyam (or truth because it is truth), is always permanent. It never perishes or changes. It is not destructible and so is victorious always. While lesser truths, relative truths and false truths fall by the way side satyam remains for ever.

//In Sanskrit, one is stuck with the word Satyam. But, Tamil is fortunate enough to have the word vAymai in its lexicon. It is a beautiful word, well defined by Thiruvalluvar. It is a word trying to convey a concept similar to Satyam (truth). So, comparing Satyam as in satyameva jayate to vAymai as in வாய்மையே வெல்லும், is not at all unreasonable.//

Satyam is not a word we are stuck with as is made out. We are fortunate to have such a word which precisely denotes the underlying idea. In one word it says all that I have put above. That is why Brihad-aranyaka upanishad says “Asatoma satgamaya”. Thaithreeya upanishad says in a very practical way “satyam vada”.
In one word it picturesquely reveals the permanancy of the ultimate truth. While உண்மை , வாய்மை , மெய் etc are words in Tamil meaning truth, உண்மை is nearer to the sanskrit word satyam-only nearer.

//Finally, IMO, what வாய்மையே வெல்லும் conveys is much more beautiful, practical and useful compared to satyameva jayate.//

உண்மையே வெல்லும் would have been more precise but that was not to be in the logo for very obvious political reasons.
Cheers.

 

[sangom]

I feel there is a confusion here between the two Sanskrit words 'Sat' and 'Satya'. The respective meanings are given below (from Monier Williams' Dictionary).

Satya, mf - n. true, real, actual, genuine, sincere, honest, truthful, faithful, pure, virtuous, good, successful, effectual, valid

Sat, mt - n. that which really is, entity or existence, essence, the true being or really existent (in the Vedanta, ' the self-
existent or Universal Spirit, Brahma '), RV. &c. &c.; that which is good or real or true, good, advantage, reality, truth, ib. ; water, Naigh. i, 1 2 ; (in gram.)

Satyam is the dwiteeyA vibhakti as per current sanskrit grammar of Panini. But this is an archaic usage outside Panini's rules. It means "truth alone triumphs". There can be no direct reference to the ultimate reality, suchness, etc. This forms part of the Mundaka Upanishad. The full mantra is as follows:

satyamEva jayate nānṛtaṁ
satyena panthā vitato devayānaḥ |
yenākramantyṛṣayo hyāptakāmā
yatra tat satyasya paramaṁ nidhānam ||[2]

In Devanāgarī:

सत्यमेव जयते नानृतम् सत्येन पन्था विततो देवयानः ।
येनाक्रमन्त्यृषयो ह्यात्मकामो यत्र तत् सत्यस्य परमं निधानं ॥

Meaning:

Truth alone triumphs; not falsehood.
Through truth the divine path is spread out by which
the sages whose desires have been completely fulfilled,
reach where that supreme treasure of Truth resides.

Pl. see Satyameva Jayate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the meanings of the whole of the first line "satyamEva jayate nānṛtaṁ" is "'Truth Alone Triumphs, not(na) that against(ana) Sacred law(Rta)". Hence, according to this interpretation even truth will not succeed if it is contrary to the Sacred Law or ṛta. This word has also been used in the sense of "truth in general, righteousness, right", in rigveda, atharva veda, vaajasaneyi samhita, etc. So we may also take the simple meaning as anrita or untruth as well.

 

[Nara]

.... The suchness does not undergo any change and it remains what it is irrespective of the initial conditions because the initial conditions are not the attributes of suchness.

[...]

quantum mechanics appears to be the final truth while the satyam remains what it is.
[...]
It never perishes or changes.

All the above claims can only arise out of religious predisposition. In as much as human understanding is incomplete, and it is very likely that it can never be complete, we cannot be sure that there is anything in this universe that remains unchanging. To claim there is something that remains as is, forever, never undergoing any change, requires appeal to religious dogma or pure speculation.

Even if there is something that is unchanging, about which we have no knowledge free of mere faith, what significance is there to say, that unchanging stuff only can be victorious (satyam Eva jayate)? Such a statement has no practical significance or value to anyone.

On the other hand, look at வாய்மை

வாய்மை எனப்படுவது யாது எனின் யாதுஒன்றும்
தீமை இலாத சொலல்.
​

(Vaymai is to speak the words that can never cause any harm to anyone)
​

This vAyamai is not some esoteric concept that needs deep contemplation and religious wisdom to understand. One's own mind knows what it is, and when one stumbles from truthfulness, that knowledge will burn your mind.

தன்நெஞ்சு அறிவது பொய்யற்க பொய்த்தபின்
தன்நெஞ்சே தன்னைச் சுடும்.
​

Further, vAymai is what makes one pure. External cleanliness comes with water, but internal purity comes from vAymai.

புறம்தூய்மை நீரான் அமையும் அகம்துய்மை
வாய்மையாற் காணப் படும்
​

After 9 beautiful couplets, Thiruvalluvar grandly declares in the final one that of all the true codes of conduct, there is nothing more virtuous than vAymai.

யாம்மெய்யாக் கண்டவற்றுள் இல்லை எனைத்துஒன்றும்
வாய்மையின் நல்ல பிற
​

Satyam can't hold a candle to வாய்மை, IMO.

Thanks...

 

[Raghy]

Satyam and vaymai (வாய்மை) are two different entities. Satyam is just 'plain truth'. Vaaymai may not be the whole truth. Thiruvalluvar defines Vaaymai as 'யாதொன்றும் தீமை இலாது சொலல்' that is 'an act of uttering words (which) do not cause any harm (to anybody). Satyam is an entity that exists on its own. Vaaymai is an act conducted by someone. While vaaymai need not be whole truth, satyam is just plain & whole truth.

வாய்மை எனப்படுவது யாதெனில் யாதொன்றும்
தீமை இலாது சொலல்.

This is the kural that inspired me in my teen-age years to decide not to speak a lie in my life. As of today I could maintain it because, I follow vaaymai....I don't have to tell the whole truth; but I can get away with 'யாதொன்றும் தீமை இலாத சொல்.' (words that cause no harm to anyone).

Vaaymai can be twisted. Satyam can not be twisted. For any given incident, we can get few versions of vaaymai; but there can be only one version of satyam.

Cheers!