That the world is in such bad condition morally is a conclusive evidence that none of its religions and philosophies, those of the civilized races less than any other, have ever possessed the truth. The right and logical explanations of the subject of the problems of the great dual principles—right and wrong, good and evil, liberty and despotism, pain and pleasure, egotism and altruism—are as impossible to them now as they were 1881 years ago.

—Lucifer, July 1890

Who loves truth in this age for its own sake? How many of us are prepared to search for, accept and carry it out, in the midst of a society in which anything that would achieve success has to be built on appearances, not on reality, on self-assertion, not on intrinsic value? We are fully aware of the difficulties in the way we receive truth. The fair heavenly maiden descends only on...the soil of an impartial, unprejudiced mind, illuminated by pure Spiritual Consciousness. In our century...man...allows himself usually to be drifted down from cradle to grave, nailed to the Procrustean bed of custom and conventionality. Now conventionality—pure and simple—is a congenital LIE, as it is in every case a "simulation of feelings according to a received standard"; and where there is any simulation there cannot be any truth.

—H. P. Blavatsky

We have mastered the art of dissembiling, as the above quotation points out. "Chameleon," a short story by Anton Chekov, is about a puppy who bit the finger of a workman in a timber yard, and the indignant inspector vowed to teach the owner of the dog a lesson and fine him heavily. However, when he learned that it was the General's dog he began to caress it and was angry with the workman for complaining, saying that it was impossible for such a little dog to reach up to the finger and bite it. Then, when the Constable pointed out that he was sure it was not the General's dog, but a stray dog, again the inspector was ready to punish the owner. Thus, by turns, like a Chameleon, the inspector changed colours, depending upon whether the dog belonged to the General or not. Truly, "there is simulation of feelings according to a received standard." We are all guilty of it at some time or other. We do not dare to express what we really feel. Do we honestly express our opinion when we come across a painting or a classic? As Erich Fromm points out, more often than not, if the painting is by a famous painter like Picasso or Van Gogh, we judge it to be extremely beautiful. If we were honest, we would admit that we did not find the painting particularly impressive, but judged it beautiful because we are supposed to find it so—because we have heard from our childhood that certain authors and artists are great and that it is a mark of "good taste" to like and admire their work.

There is a lot of connivance to deceiving in the society. People who may be extremely charming in their interaction with others, slander behind their back. In the article "Is Denunciation a Duty?" H.P.B. observes that people died a comparatively quick death by the claws of hungry wild beasts in the arena of the Roman Colisseum, while in our so-called refined and enlightened civilization, behind the closed doors of modern drawing-rooms, the graceful and ferocious great cats sharpen their rose-coloured claws, tearing apart the character of their own best friends, for real or imagined vices and crimes. "Severe denunciation is duty to truth," on condition that we denounce and fight against the root of evil and not the evildoer, who is, most often, the victim and product of his environment. If a person happens to be "a public officer, a judge or magistrate, a barrister or even a preacher, it is then of course his duty to his country, his conscience and those who put their trust in him, to 'denounce severely' every case of 'treachery, falsehood and rascality'" (H.P.B. Series No. 33). It is the duty of Theosophy to expose falsehood and redress wrong. Thus:

Theosophy has to fight intolerance, prejudice, ignorance and selfishness, hidden under the mantle of hypocrisy. It has to throw all the light it can from the torch of Truth, with which its servants are entrusted. It must do this without fear or hesitation, dreading neither reproof nor condemnation. Theosophy, through its mouthpiece, the Society, has to tell the TRUTH to the very face of LIE; to beard the tiger in its den, without thought or fear of evil consequences, and to set at defiance calumny and threats. As an association, it has not only the right, but the duty to uncloak vice and do its best to redress wrongs, whether through the voice of its chosen lecturers or the printed word of its journals and publications—making its accusations, however, as impersonal as possible. But its Fellows, or Members, have individually no such right. (U.L.T. Pamphlet No. 22, p. 12)

Individually, when the reports of wrong committed by another person reach us, we have no right to believe in them, until we get undeniable proof of the correctness of the accusation. If the report happens to be true, then pity, forbearance and charity should prompt us to excuse our sinning brother. "A Theosophist ought never to forget what is due to the shortcomings and infirmities of human nature." However, if by allowing the guilty to go unpunished, we are going to cause injury to others in the society, then we must "speak the truth at all costs." It is to be done after mature deliberation and after consulting our conscience. If it is our duty, under Karma, to point out the wrong in a person, we must do so openly and direct to his face (The Key to Theosophy). Says the Buddhist precept:

Condemn no man in his absence; and when forced to reprove, do so to his face, but gently, and in words full of charity and compassion. For the human heart is like the Kusuli plant: it opens its cup to the sweet morning dew, and closes it before a heavy shower of rain. (H.P.B. Series No. 33, p. 41)

Sometimes, we take pride in speaking the truth, in being forthright, in our ability to point out the wrong bluntly without mincing words. Often we hear people say, "I told him point-blank," which actually means that I told the truth without contemplating the effect my words will have on the person. We must bear in mind some specific and subtle precepts of speech given in the Laws of Manu:

Let him say what is true. Let him say what is pleasing.
Let him utter no disagreeable truth. Let him utter no
agreeable falsehood.

"Let him say what is true"—not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because another person might, perhaps, base his own acts upon it, thinking it to be true. "Let him utter no disagreeable truth." We should be able to tell the truth without hurting another person's feelings, and if we are not able to do so, it shows that we have failed to build a relationship where we can tell the truth without hurting him. "Should we speak the truth even when it is going to cost a person his life?" is a subtle moral question.

There are two kinds of truth—Relative and Absolute. Absolute Truth or Absolute Knowledge—which is Wisdom—has to be reached or realized by each one for himself. For this, we need to paralyse the appetites of the lower personality. There are certain preliminary preparations and the difficulty of reaching Absolute Truth is described as

outside a certain highly spiritual and elevated state of mind, during which Man is at one with the UNIVERSAL MIND—he can get nought on earth but relative truth or truths, from whatsoever philosophy or religion. (U.L.T. Pamphlet No. 17, p. 11)

Relative knowledge is ratiocinative. Purely rational knowledge has its own limitations. Our knowledge of things is limited by our perceptive faculties. We know an object in terms of our sense perceptions. For instance, a blind person may know a rose only by its smell. A scientist may know even its chemical composition. But the rose as we see it is not identical with the rose as it is in itself. So, Kant said that there is something like a "thing-in-itself." Absolute knowledge is the knowledge of the thing-in-itself.

Unfortunately, by knowledge we mean that which we gather through our senses. Science believes that it is not possible to know the constituents and properties of plants and minerals without using chemical and mechanical processes. We can never know about the thoughts and feelings of people till they express the same in words. As against this, The Voice of the Silence says that when the Buddhi in man is active, he gets the powers of clairvoyance and clairaudience and he can read the thoughts passing through the mind of the ant. Thus the sages and seers could look into the "very kernel of matter and record the soul of things."

In the case Great Beings or Wise Men, there is permanent conjunction of Buddhi and Manas. The Voice of the Silence says, "Blend thy Mind and Soul." We must let our mind contact universal ideas through good books, scriptures, etc. Depth of mind comes from enthusiasm and commitment to go deeper into the subject. Instead of asking, "Is this the right answer?" we need to ask, "What is the truth?" and then it becomes an ongoing quest. Besides the depth and breadth of mind we need the heart quality of the mind—developing qualities like love, goodness, altruism, etc. Our modern civilization does not regard morality as a vital factor. As H.P.B. writes:

Our age, we say, is inferior in Wisdom to any other, because it professes, more visibly every day, contempt for truth and justice, without which there can be no Wisdom. Because our civilization, built up of shams and appearances, is at best like a beautiful green morass, a bog, spread over a deadly quagmire. Because this century of culture and worship of matter while offering prizes and premiums for every "best thing" under the Sun, from the biggest baby and largest orchid down to the strongest pugilist and the fattest pig, has no encouragement to offer to morality; no prize to give for any moral virtue....This is the age, which although proclaimed as one of physical and moral freedom, is in truth the age of the most ferocious moral and mental slavery, the like of which was never known before. (U.L.T. Pamphlet No. 32, p. 2)

"Knowledge is a function of being. When there is a change in the being of the knower, there is a corresponding change in the nature and amount of knowing," writes Aldous Huxley. At times, we are required to become something different in order to acquire knowledge, and when we are ready, inwardly, the meaning dawns on us. But till such time there is no hurry to accept or reject a thing. H.P.B. quotes from Narada: "Never utter these words: 'I do not know this—therefore it is false.' One must study to know, know to understand and understand to judge." Nor should we try to somehow fit it into our existing belief system. We should not be in a hurry to reach any definite conclusion, but must be willing to remain in a state of doubt and uncertainty. Mr. Crosbie says, "Truth, as we ought to know, always explains. When we have the explanation, we have found the truth." Also at times there is heart response. We have the intuitive feeling from within that this is true.

When we take "truth" in its highest sense, we find that the teachings of all the scriptures put together do not contain the whole truth. A different mode of spiritual experience is necessary to grasp the full truth. There has to be direct intuitive apprehension of Spiritual facts. So the claim of any religion that it alone possesses the whole truth is absurd. It is like the story of six blind men. When they came across an elephant, one of them felt its trunk and said that the elephant was like a thick rope. Another touched the legs and concluded the elephant was like a pillar, and so on. All of them were right, but each had only partial truth. So also each religion gives out only partial truth; each needs to cultivate tolerance towards other religions. Hence Jainism points out that various systems of philosophy that give different accounts of the universe, present only different aspects of the many-sided universe. So, too, no person can give complete knowledge of an object—because of limited understanding, imperfection of speech, etc. Hence they say that every judgement should be qualified by the word "syad," i.e., "in a way," or "somehow"—in one sense and from one point of view. Like Ancient Wisdom, Theosophy says, "There is no Religion higher than Truth."

Mr. Crosbie says, "Truth is not a man, nor a book, nor a statement." Scriptures are only pointers—means of reaching the truth. "As many benefits as there are in a tank stretching free on all sides, so many are there for a truth-realizing Brahman in all the Vedic rites." (Gita, II)

It is not right to judge a man,
By hasty glance or passing whim,
Or think that first impressions can
Tell all there is to know of him.

Who knows what weight of weariness
The man we rashly judge may bear,
The burden of his loneliness
His blighted hopes his secret cares.

A pompous guise or air of pride
May only be an outward screen,
A compensation meant to hide
A baffled will, a grief unseen.

However odd a person seems,
However strange his ways may be,
Within each human spirit gleams
A spark of true divinity.

So what can first impressions tell?
Unthinking judgements will not do,
Who really knows a person well
May also come to like him too!

—Alfred Grant Walton