Theosophy - Truth or the Semblance of Truth? by N.Sri Ram
TRUTH
OR THE SEMBLANCE OF TRUTH?
by N.
Sri Ram
OCCULTISM
of the real sort is not an exotic thing, dressed in motley, as some people imagine
it to be. It has been from the most ancient times a Science concerned with facts
or truth. Fancy is one thing, and facts are something other. But this particular
Science is also concerned with life and consciousness, and it is only when one’s
life is based on truth, that it assumes the aspect of wisdom. Wisdom cannot
be separated from life; when it finds its way into life, life begins to show
a new quality, lustre and beauty, different from what ordinarily obtains
Truth
admits of no compromise, although one’s behaviour may. Convention and
expediency also vary according to circumstances. We may be standing together
within a limited space, I then accommodate myself to your needs or ways, and
you do the same with regard to mine. That is right and necessary. Such compromise
has its place in life; but one cannot take liberties with one’s understanding
or qualify a truth without making it untrue. One cannot mix logic with ideas
that are illegal, to suit oneself.
The world
“Truth” has such an extraordinary meaning that we might not even
guess its nature. In order to discover that meaning one has to apply the most
rigorous standards to one’s life and thinking. Without doing so it is
impossible to come to such truth as has to be realized in oneself, as distinguished
from facts external to oneself that any one can observe. There are the concrete
things around us which with the faculties we normally use we can observe. We
can understand their nature and properties at least superficially, but truth
means very much more than such understanding but it is not to be confused with
any vision that one might project out of preconceived ideas or his personal
predilections. It is easy to fall under some pleasing illusion and imagine it
is truth.
What
causes illusion, fundamentally, is the seeking of the pleasurable, the gratifying,
at whatever level. We like to accept something mentally or physically because
it gives pleasure, it is convenient to do so, or it is a comforting thought;
it suits the curve of our mental spine, so to say. Realizing the truth is not
the same as getting hold of an idea and clinging to it with fervour. The mind
is easily bribed with pleasure. We often give pleasure to some person in order
to make him do what we want him to do. That is a practice which obtains everywhere.
The mind will willingly consort with the giver of pleasure. Therefore, one has
to be strict with oneself in the matter of living the truth - and that is a
necessary basis for Occultism.
I might
say incidentally that in no country in the world has the importance of living
the truth been so much stressed as in India, where satyam (truth) and
ritam (rectitude) have been proclaimed as unalterable. “Truth alone
conquers” is the ancient maxim adopted by the Indian Government. It is
widely accepted verbally, but one might ask, How far is it honoured in practice?
That is for every one concerned to find out in relation to himself. One can
apply some practical tests to one’s own conduct to see how far truth is
being lived by himself.
Most
of us do not realize that there is an important distinction to be made between
truth and the semblance of truth. In so many matters what is actually true is
one thing, but we act as though conduct which sports the colours of truth will
do equally well. The distinction between them is pointed out by Plato in one
of his Dialogues.
We should
not make this distinction purely metaphysical, as philosophers have done in
India when they speak of Sat and Asat - that which is the true,
the existent, and that which is not true, an illusion or myth. All that is on
some high plane, but we should bring the distinction down to the plane of practical
living and thought, without which the metaphysical terms become just counters
with which to juggle and amuse ourselves.
In diplomacy
it is the semblance of truth which is all the time practised to a nicety, and
all those concerned know this to be a fact. The successful diplomat has to be
gracious in his manner, otherwise he will not be able to gain his purpose. He
must smile and smile and smile, even though his purpose may be villainous. The
ability to ingratiate oneself and please is regarded as a requisite for success
in that profession. Generally the courtiers round kings and princes had perfect
manners, but often displayed them to exaggeration, either to make their way
all the better, or because we all tend to exaggerate anything we think is good
in ourselves. But at the same time the courtiers as a class were intriguers
and liars, with some exceptions. Charming manners may not always betoken good
intentions or a beautiful mind and heart.
The business
man, too, has to be smooth-tongued and affable in order to bring off his contracts.
There may be some business men who, having risen to the top, can afford to be
brutally blunt. Also there must be some who are straight in spite of all temptation,
but generally speaking, the tendency would be to act in such a way as to make
the customer do what the business man wants him to do, to be nice in ways he
will appreciate. Very large sums are given as allowances to big business executives
to entertain prospective customers and please them.
In the
province of law it is not uncommon for an advocate who is intent on winning
his case to argue in such a way as to “make the worse appear the better
reason”. That is constantly being done. The judge has to be sharp as well
as knowledgeable not to be taken in by such clever argumentation.
Generally
speaking, the pursuit of success, in so far as it depends on others, demands
the trimming of one’s sails. When kings are in power, one is a royalist;
when the monarchy falls, he may become a republican; but if it is restored he
might try to wangle himself again into the royalist camp. This sort of thing
has been practised by some very famous people. They have been able to come out
on the top of every wave of change, though others around them were overwhelmed
and had to succumb.
Living
a life of truth does not consist merely in speaking the truth. To pretend to
be what one is not is as corrupting as untruth in speech. There must be in one’s
heart a genuine love of truth. One can be wholly true only if he values truth
and gives it importance in his life and thought, or he must be so full of love
that he cannot entertain the least wish to deceive. When one lives a life of
truth, he will begin to love the very feeling of being true and one’s
whole nature assumes a shape that is in harmony with the true nature of things.
Mere knowledge will not create that harmony. Love of knowledge is not the same
as love of truth, without which there is no possibility of wisdom.
This
is an age of advertisement for diverse purposes. The attempt in advertisement
is always to build up a glamourous image. The word “image” is much
in currency at present, because people are concerned not with truth, but only
with success and the image which is presented. There is the attempt to create
an image of oneself or someone else, whether as president, leader, religious
teacher, candidate or something else. An image is created also of one’s
wares, which will tempt people to buy them. All expert advertisers try to build
up in the mind of readers of newspapers and magazines or through TV and posters
an image which will make people fall for the things that are advertised. But
the image is only a phantom, an appearance, and unless it reflects what actually
is, the attraction created is a false attraction.
If humanity,
or any section thereof, is to be advanced to any real extent, it can be done
only by an actual change, by forces which bring about improvement in the minds
of people, their tastes, outlook, values and behaviour, and not by the creation
of pleasing illusions and the attribution of imaginary virtues to men or things,
either for profit or for tyrannous or vainglorious ends. Creating impressions
which do not correspond to the truth leaves things as they are and gives rise
to action on the part of oneself and others that positively prevents any real
change for the better. Any glorification of someone, which does not spring out
of real feeling for him and appreciation of his qualities is only a conjuring
trick, and produces mass hypnotism, as has been the case in Russia, Germany
and other places. The bubble, however colourful it may seem for a time, must
eventually burst, and then there is disillusion and a heavy reaction to what
has gone before.
Speaking
of love or affection, would the world be better for the reality of love in one’s
heart, or for the simulation of love which can take many a deceptive form? One
can create an impression of friendship, as is being done by the ostentatious
political hug, but that is just part of the diplomatic game. It is the feeling
or spirit of love within oneself that counts in a person and helps others. I
do not know how good it is to “pretend a virtue, if you have it not”.
One may be easily satisfied with the pretence and not care about the reality.
If the substitute works well, why bother to find the genuine article?
The word
“God” is a common substitute for God the Reality. God is Something
about which we know nothing, but can form such notions as we will; and there
are all kinds of ideas about God, though society, State and religion do not
always permit one to have ideas of his own in actual practice. There have been
times when people have been persecuted for entertaining ideas, differing from
those of the community, about God, the nature of the universe or any other matter
however unconnected with their conduct and life. They were considered heretics
and burnt on mere suspicion. A heretic was one who not merely did not conform
outwardly to established ways or who openly professed an idea contrary to what
was ordained; but even to seem to be thinking certain thoughts was considered
sinful and subversive.
One cannot
say that a symbol is without value. There may be no other way of objectively
referring to the reality. But a symbol does not become that reality.
It can have its value, provided we understand that it is only an indicator or
a substitute for the real thing. It becomes a fetish when it is worshipped in
the place of the reality. From one point of view a symbol is a shadow and the
light is behind the man who is looking. In Plato’s allegory of the cave
the light is behind the men who are looking at the dense shadows on the wall
which they are facing. The shadow has the value of indicating the presence of
light and giving an outline of the object that obstructs, but one must look
in the proper direction for the light itself.
Is it
important to live the kind of life which the word “spiritual” implies,
or to be known as someone who has achieved success in that unknown field, to
be wearing that label, encircled with an artificial halo? To be thought of as
spiritual is one thing, and to be actually spiritual without giving any thought
to it at all is something entirely different. A man who is self-consciously
spiritual cannot be spiritual in reality. Should one renounce whatever is to
be renounced easily, without making a fuss about it, or be known as a persons
who has renounced?
In this
country, India, we have plenty of examples of ostentatious renouncers. They
adorn the banks of the Ganges, and are also to be found elsewhere. But a man
who has truly renounced certain things will have no pleasure in drawing any
attention to that fact. When a person talks about renunciation, it may be that
he has renounced a few things, like taking coffee in the morning, but he has
definitely not renounced the primary thing, which is his self. The whole tendency
of the human mind at present is to materialize and degrade everything which
is true or real, bring it down to the level of a bargain counter or the marketplace.
We are so apt to use the word “spiritual” with a material mind and
in a materialistic spirit.
When
we speak of the vagaries of “the mind,” and not of anyone in particular,
we can be quite impersonal. We think of the mind as one of the elements of existence,
with a certain nature. It is subject to illusions but it is possible for it
to find the truth and free itself. We need not identify it with somebody in
particular and direct criticism, inwardly or outwardly, towards him. One can
criticize oneself as much as others. But criticism directed even towards oneself
need not be faultfinding, it can be a simple understanding of what is not right,
of what is mistaken or false in one’s thinking and behaviour. It is just
like judging a picture: Is it beautiful, or not beautiful? That kind of criticism
is of value, but not faultfinding, blaming someone or oneself - all of which,
because it is vain and fruitless, becomes sheer self-deception.
I referred
to the judging of a picture, but here too there has to be a distinction between
the real and the unreal. The picture can be really beautiful, or it may have
only a so-called beauty. Beauty of the highest order arises out of a deep realization,
out of life itself or from some unknown source within it. Then it has the stamp
of truth, but there can also be “beauty” which is synthetic, which
is only an appearance, a mere presentation.
To come
still closer to the heart of this matter: When we use the word “love”
in relation to another, do we really love him or her, or do we just think we
love that other person? There is a great distinction between thinking we love,
and actually loving. Merely to rehearse the idea of love and enjoy the pleasure
it brings does not amount to love, it is merely an exercise. But we are so apt
to delude ourselves into thinking that we love the whole of humanity, even when
we do not love the individuals who compose it. We have to make a clear distinction
between what is actual or true, and what is merely conjured up by the mind.
This requires a very sharp intelligence and constant awareness of the difference
between the real and the imaginary.
Is it
important for some great cause to have a huge estate, an empire, and all the
paraphernalia which go along with it, or to have in the people who are devoted
to that cause the right kind of feeling and understanding? The spirit which
is needed can never be paraded, put on permanent display or advertised in any
manner. One cannot make money out of it.
Such
distinctions can range over the whole field of life, over all our activities
and thought. It is only when the mind is alert enough to perceive these distinctions,
to separate the light from the darkness, that it can come to the truth of things.
It is
the great assertion of the spiritual Teachers that we can know the absolute
truth, and not merely argue for it. establish it by reasoning, guess at it or
postulate it. We can know it, as we know ourselves. There may be various
hypotheses which help to explain; they are valuable, if plausible and illuminating;
they may even be necessary to bridge the gaps in our observation and thinking.
Where we fail to see, the bridge or the supposition enables us to connect those
facts which are perceived. Since we do not see the connection in Nature between
one particular event and another, but see that a connection must exist, such
supposition is a temporary substitute for a truth one is unable to perceive
at present.
I began
this article with the word “Occultism”. Occultism is a far more
exacting endeavour than we might realize. It is not just telling fair tales
and believing them - that is the Occultism of children. There has to be, especially
in a Society which is interested in what is called the occult, an orientation
which will advance it to absolute truth in all things, without being satisfied
with appearances. We have to be very careful at every step to see that we proceed
on the way of truth, which is also the way of real love, and not be satisfied
with fancies either with regard to ourselves or the nature of things, because
these are comforting and pleasant.
The Theosophist
1968
|