2005-5-15 01:47:00
Looks like I should add a few comments about deception.
It appears the discussion is centered around whether or not an outright lie is right in extreme circumstances. Let's get back to my previous example.
You are in Nazi Germany and the SS knock on your door and want your son. You know that if they get their hands on him he will be tortured and killed. You have him hidden in a secret hide-a-way in the basement. Do you lie to save his life?
If you do, is there anything wrong with doing so?
To understand the repercussions we must look at the result of the two decisions.
Decision One: If you tell the truth and your child is killed then you are partially responsible for his death and suffering.
Is being an accomplice to murder wrong? Yes, very wrong.
Decision Two: You tell a convincing lie and the SS leave. You have saved your son's life. Was it worth it? Yes, of course. Anyone with an ounce of humanity would do this and more to save his child. Most would be willing to face the jaws of hell and risk their own soul rather than be a part to such harm to a loved one.
Does this mean that no harm was caused by the lie?
Let me put it this way. If one man endures a cut to his finger and another has a whole leg whacked off do both afflictions cause harm to the body?
Yes.
Are both painful?
Yes.
Is the pain equal?
No.
Would it be worth it to endure the cut finger to save the leg?
Yes, of course.
Would it make sense to lose the leg to save a cut finger?
Of course not.
Since the right thing to do is so easy to see in this case then why is it so difficult to see in the circumstance where the Nazis knock on the door? The lie is the cut finger and the loss of the child is the lost leg.
The point is that both the lie and the murder would be wrong but the lie is the lesser evil. When faced with two evils the second key of judgment must be used to choose the lesser of the two.
Some may ask. Does a lie create harm even in this extreme circumstance?
Does the cut finger still have some pain, even though it saved the leg? Yes, it still smarts, but was indeed worth the sacrifice.
Every lie knowingly told adds to the cloud between consciousness and soul. If the person can live his life in complete honesty, to his highest understanding, the clouds will disperse and the barrier between himself and the soul will be removed making him a soul infused personality.
So how does the disciple achieve such honesty? After all, do we not have circumstances come up now and then where we feel we have to lie?
Yes, just about all do.
Does not every person who is human have his limits? In other words, is there not some circumstance that would create enough pressure to force any person to tell a lie or intentionally deceive?
Yes, we all have our limits. Some may think they do not, but they do.
Then how is complete honesty possible?
It is possible when the disciple decides to take control of his life and make his own reality structured according to his own desired creation. If he desires complete honesty he must do three things.
If such a disciple had lived in Nazi Germany as Hitler was coming to power he would have been contemplating the future and taken his family out of the country before the real trouble began thus avoiding the circumstance forcing him to lie. Einstein, for instance, was one of those wise enough to smell the coffee and leave Germany and thus never had to lie to the SS troops.
As fledgling disciples it is our duty to commit ourselves to total honesty, but to assess our limitations and seek to control our lives to the extent that the truth can always be revealed.
If the disciple can look over his past ten years and see that he has been more honest than in the pervious ten then he can take this as a sign he is progressing toward liberation from material forces on the path to life eternal.
He who has not a good memory should never take upon himself the trade of lying. Michel de Montaigne (1533 - 1592)
Copyright © 2005 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved