by Yogi Ananda Viraj (Eugene P. Kelly, Jr.)
Satya, the restraint from falsehood, is the second of the five yamas listed by Patanjali. Satya is defined by Vyasa as, “. . . speech and thought such as correspond to the object intended; and speech and thought corresponding to what is seen, inferred or heard.”1 Given this definition, the practice of satya is the adherence to language that is truth. Both the spoken word and thought are language. The practice of satya encompasses soliloquy, monologue, and dialogue. All language, when used to convey, must be truthful. Language is the residence of the true and the false. Satya practice begins with the knowledge that language is true or false.
What we hope to accomplish as language users, and as the used of language, through the practice of satya is the conveyance of knowledge. This transportation must not be deceitful, erroneous or sterile. Language that is deceitful is deceit itself. According to Yoga, speech (language) should be used for service, not hindrance, to all beings,. Proper intentions bear serviceful fruit only. A proper intention and a harmful effect are seen in the light of satya practice as mutually exclusive.
Language is deceit, and not in conformance with satya, even if a “truth” of a kind is conveyed. For example, the Yoga teacher considering the practice assigned at the previous week’s class asks the student, “Did you practice this week?” The student, having neglected all but a few moments of sincere practice responds, “yes,” holding in mind the few moments and deliberately covering up or ignoring the intent of the teacher’s question. The teacher’s “intended object” and the student’s “intended object” do not “correspond.” Deceit is the response; harm is the product. It is this play of deceit, this one or two second delay in folly, which the practitioner of satya begins to grow aware of and eliminate. This minute hiatus is the occasion for the breach of truth. This rupture of truth stands in opposition to a calm mind and a non-violent condition.
Errors are also hindrances to the practice of satya. Thoughts and speech must correspond to the intended object leaving no room for error. Language must also “match” what is seen, inferred or heard. Spontaneous language, or sudden mind, is what is seen, inferred or heard. Eye witness accounts of a crime must be true accounts. An error could lead to disastrous consequences. To reason out the solution to a math problem (inference of a sort) or to infer that an item was stolen instead of misplaced allows for no “gray zones” or ambiguity. The practice of satya is impartial, like the truth in these examples. There is only one true or correct answer and only one alternative can be chosen. If the language is held, it should be the truth. Of course, one can put aside the problem or the choice, depending on the situation. However, if one thinks (language) but does not speak, that thought must conform to satya. If one believes that an item was stolen but doesn’t voice that belief, it does not effect the truth or falsehood of the belief. All language must correspond; whether it be language thought or spoken.
One might be led to think that trivialities somehow escape the demand to conform to satya practice. “Did they have any strawberries at the store?” could in some cases, be followed by, “I think so.” Does this response convey knowledge relative to the question? No! There is ambiguity present and not truth. Generally, what is meant is, “I’m not sure,” which would be the truth. This sloppiness is what the practitioner of satya omits. Truth must become the profession of speech.
In addition to deceitful and erroneous speech and thought, we now consider “sterile” language. This is language barren of knowledge or information which in effect brings harm upon those who fall within it. Many examples can be cited. Profanity is a very obvious example of sterile language. What is conveyed? There is violence present as profanity is used. It serves no other purpose. If we maintain that there is a “distance” between the literal meanings of the words and an “emotional” outburst, the fact is no knowledge, help or information is transmitted, hence asatya or falsehood is present.
There are more examples of sterile language just as obvious: harmful gossip, pedantry, boastfulness, arguments without educational value and exaggeration. These are the “hot air” of asatya. In a word, these forms of language are unnecessary. All barren language is unnecessary; all unnecessary language is barren. These forms of language do not conform to satya’s demand for economy. If it is thought that gossip, for example, does convey truth, which in fact is the view normally held, there is the standard of valid purposefulness to contend with. What is the purpose of gossip, exaggeration, or pedantry, etc.? Valid purposive language does not violate the principle of ahimsa or non-violence. Does one do violence to “self” or “others” by employing gossip, exaggeration or pedantry, etc.? Within the ambit of Yoga the answer is yes. There are no escape clauses in Yoga. The unnecessary cannot be validated.
In this essay on the practice of satya, we have discovered that the three standards that govern the practice are complete and subtle. Upon employing the language in a deceitful manner we have seen that we enter into a kind of perversion of truth. We have grown accustomed to condemning other types of perversion. However, the perversion of language somehow escapes our ethical eye. It is the perversion of language which is the most fundamental and grotesque. The distortion of language (asatya) comes to a halt when the one or two second delay in deceit that we generally practice is omitted through the application of restraint (yama). The clear mind suffers no delays. The clear mind is devoid of violence. Language deteriorates in value through asatya. When language deteriorates chaos rules. If one falsehood is uttered, than another and another, what becomes the standards to limit falsehood? The borders of truth recede until they are no longer within reach, and what truth, what language, will draw them close again? Falsehoods told or falsehoods thought are the same. What truth can possibly divide them?
Erroneous language is often the most apparent breach of satya practice simply because its consequences are often obvious. One might conclude that a mistake should carry no blame. This is acceptable. However, mistakes do demand responsible action. Mistakes cannot be undone but prevented. The responsible language user makes few mistakes. This attitude of responsibility derives from examination of the delay in deceit; “do I really know that it was stolen?” Mistakes are known to be mistakes in consequence. Finding that item misplaced and thought stolen, realizing you do not have enough money, giving the wrong directions, dialing the wrong number all bear fruits of error as their effects are made known. Errors result from distractions which veer the language user away from truth. The language that is truth is displaced by erroneous language. Attentiveness is adherence to truth.
Sterile language is the third of the forms of language discussed. We saw that the law of truth in this context was necessity. Barren language is superfluous. It conveys violence. The language of truth is purposive. What set of criteria can we call upon to validate needless language? “I’m bored so I gossip” is itself needless. “I guess I exaggerate out of habit” is needless. “But I feel I just have to add to what others say,” is also needless. All the rationalizations of the language of barrenness are themselves barren. One cannot put out fire with fire!
The threefold standard of the practice of satya, that language must be fertile or productive, purposive and accurate, must be employed in any and all uses of language. Both thought and voiced language have to conform to this standard. The aim of this standard is for the practitioner of satya to become “firmly situated” in the practice. This being “firmly situated” (pratistayam) in satya bears certain consequences. Patanjali says that such a one becomes totally responsible for actions (kriya) and their results (phala). What this person says comes to be. No outside agents have caused this person to act; nor is this person at the effects of unknown actions. The person of perfected satya knows no violence of mind.
The threefold standard of satya is implicitly a recognition of spontaneous mind. One requires “time” to tell a lie. Truth is spontaneous. Even mistakes are avoided if the moment of distraction “in time” does not occur. The very possibility of telling or thinking falsehood depends upon the presence of the language that is truth. There is sometimes made present, on top of truth, a space-moment which is the womb of falsehood (asatya). This space-moment is just large-long enough to decide upon falsehood. However, the basis for this womb of asatya is truth. There is no need for the construction of a pseudo-basis of falsehood on top of the base that is truth. The language of falsehood is an attempt to become the basis. However, this attempt always remains attempt. The foundation is already laid. Falsehood is always in conflict with the already. Asatya takes energy to put forward; it inevitably faces opposition. It is born in opposition. Spontaneous mind is free of this tension; it has no opposition. Lies can compete with one another; truth has no competitors, only comrades. Truth requires no effort, it simply is—prior to attempts.
The practice of satya is the relaxation of the strategy. Truth, being spontaneous, does not call for artificial means of support. Falsehood is a stratagem. Its intent is deception; sterilization of language; and error. The practice of satya is a re-cognition, a re-knowing of the spontaneous mind that is truth. This practice thwarts the occurrence of the space-moment of weakness wherein truth is obscured and effort is born. Initially one must recognize the “delay” that makes a decision for asatya. This recognition takes place from the real viewpoint of authenticity, truth. In and through this re-cognition satya is achieved. However, this re-knowing of truth may not be itself truth. Satya practice must conform to a yet higher practice and that is ahimsa or the practice of non-violence. If one touches upon truth in this moment of re-cognition, is it harmful to speak or sustain in thought? If a truth uttered is the occasion for harm, it is in fact no truth. The practice of ahimsa is the ultimate norm. To do violence to others is to do violence to self. The culmination of Yoga training is the realization of our prior unity and hence the validation of ahimsa. A harmful truth sustained in thought is also violence. Re-cognition does not have violence as its aim. So let the truth be known and violence be overcome.
Therefore let (the Yogin) consider what is good for all beings and (then) speak with satya.2
Vyasa
1. The Yoga-System of Patanjali, trans. James Haughton Woods (India: Motilal Banarsidass, 1977 reprint), p. 178 ↩
2. Ibid. 178 ↩