How should I speak?
The Five Yamas: Satya Part II
In case you missed it: One of our community members has recently started a subreddit for the purposes of having open discussions, collecting questions, and having a generally safe place to share experiences as we progress through this journey together. You can use it to anonymously ask questions about this article, previous articles, or “spirituality” in general. You are all invited to join and invite others you think may be interested. You can find it here at r/EmptyYourCup.
Om Sri Gurubhyo Namah. Salutations to all the teachers.
Last week, we began a discussion on satya, the second of the five Yamas. The Yamas are the first limb of Yoga, and deal with our daily interactions with the world around us. Normally, we consider ourselves to be a separate little individual in a vast, uncaring Universe, even though we may intellectually understand that this is not the case, and that all separations are mental projections. This mental “block” or “veil” is known as avidya, and the purpose of Yoga is to remove this veil to uncover the Self.
The Yamas are a method to use our daily interactions with the world as a tool to break down the mental divide between what we normally call “self” and “other.” Since this barrier is the root of all suffering (specifically dukkha, or the underlying sense of unease and dissatisfaction that pervades our lives), removing this barrier of avidya results in freedom from dukkha, and complete fulfilment, called Moksha.
The first of the Yamas is ahimsa, or non-violence, and as discussed over the past couple of weeks, it takes priority over all the other Yamas - in fact, it is the purpose of all the other Yamas. In practice, this means that in case of a conflict between Yamas, ahimsa always comes first.
The second Yama is satya, and it has six components:
Satya: Words that reflect the evidence, without misleading the listener
Kaale: At the appropriate time, and in the appropriate context
Hitam: To others’ benefit
Mitam: Minimally
Visamvaadi: For the purposes of understanding
Peshalam: Lovingly
Last week, we discussed the first and second aspects of satya - speaking words that reflect evidence, without misleading the listener, and speaking at the appropriate time and in the appropriate context. This week, we will go over the other four aspects.
Hitam: To others’ benefit
Hitam (pronounced hit-umm) means “interest”, “favour”, “benefit”, or “welfare”, and is the third aspect of the second Yama - satya.
Consider a time when you spoke ill of someone else. Be honest. How did it make you feel?
There are three possibilities here:
It made you feel bad
It made you feel good
You didn’t feel anything
Let’s take these scenarios individually. Note, as with all the Yamas, acting in accordance with the hitam aspect of satya includes speaking ill of others yourself, getting others to do it for you, or allowing it to happen when you could have reasonably prevented it.
In the first scenario, you spoke badly of someone else, and it made you feel bad. Perhaps you had a feeling of guilt (a la “I shouldn’t have said that”), or perhaps a feeling of fear (a la “oh no! what if they heard what I said”). Either way, the mind is now restless.
In the second scenario, you spoke badly of someone else, and it made you feel good. Perhaps you felt a sense of being better than that person, and that made you feel good about yourself. Perhaps you felt that you are “observant”, “a good judge of character” or some other such self-compliment. Either way, you have created a sense of differentiation between you and the other person - you are better, smarter, or simply the observer, and they are worse, less intelligent, or the observed. In leaving these impressions in your mind, this type of speech strengthens the divide between “self” and “other.”
Finally, perhaps you didn’t feel anything at all. You said something bad about another person, but it is such an ingrained habit pattern that you are numb to the reactions in the mind. In this scenario, you don’t care what others think, nor about the consequences of your words. You said the words, and that’s all that matters. This is an indication of a clouding of tamas in the mind, which is a sign of a strong mental divide between “self” and “other.”1
To be clear, there is no moral judgement being applied here. It is not “good” or “bad” to speak well or poorly about another person. There is no claim of a God sitting in the clouds who will judge you later, or any sort of magical force that will come back for retribution. Speaking ill of others is simply counterproductive to the goals of a calm mind, and of eliminating avidya.
There is more to this aspect of satya as well. We often speak in terms of absolutes - “they are a bad person”, “that restaurant is terrible”, or “your dress is ugly.” In truth, “bad”, “terrible” and “ugly” are adjectives you are choosing to use based on your own personal likes and dislikes (kleshas in your mind). By using words like these, you are strengthening these likes and dislikes in your own mind (ie. strengthening the kleshas). As we have seen, the kleshas are the cause of our suffering, and so speaking ill of others results in long term suffering in the mind of the speaker.
Additionally, it strengthens the false idea that the objects or people are good or bad in themselves, rather than seeing them as colourings on top of thought patterns based on past conditioning. This strengthens your identification with your own mind.
Finally, another angle to hitam is to speak such that others benefit from your words. This can look like openly giving credit to others for work that they did, acknowledging the inputs of others into your thought process, or using words to help others in some other way. This is not to say one should put themselves down in favour of others, but rather to truly acknowledge the inputs of others so as to benefit them in addition to yourself. As with all the Yamas, the principle is the same - work to dissolve the boundary between “self” and “other.”
Mitam: Minimally
“Speak only if it improves upon the silence.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
As briefly discussed last week, we often fill the void of silence with words out of our discomfort with silence.
Try to remember a time like this, when you felt the urge to speak even though there was nothing to be said, or no need to say anything at all. Remember the unpleasant feeling in the mind during the silence, that you tried to avoid. Now let us break this down in terms of Yoga psychology.
The vritti in the mind was a pramaana-vritti of the silence going beyond a certain period of time. This vritti was coloured with the klesha of dvesha, or aversion. In order to avoid this aversion, you filled the void with silence.
In following any tendency, you strengthen it. As a result, if you indulge your tendency to fill silence with words, you will be more likely to feel this aversion to silence again in the future.
Now ask yourself - did you like the feeling of discomfort? If the answer is no, then the goal would be to get rid of your aversion to silence. As with any tendency, the way to get rid of it is to stop following it, as to get rid of a channel in the soil, one needs only to stop pouring water in it.
When the mind expresses itself (that is, in internal or external speech), it moves, so to speak. To be more specific, this means that there are vrittis constantly bubbling up - vikalp-vrittis of what to say next, smriti-vrittis to remember what one just said, pramaan-vrittis of the sound of your own voice and of the reactions of the speakers, and so many more.
Now if you recall, the definition of Yoga is chitta-vritti-nirodha - “the mastery of the vrittis in the mind.” Vrittis are the very mental scattering that the Yogi is trying to rid themselves of, like ripples in the lake of the mind, and so just speaking is in itself counterproductive to the goals of Yoga. This is one of the many reasons for the practice of maun-vrat, where the practitioner does not speak for an allotted amount of time, or on specific days. (For more on vrittis and kleshas, you can click on the green links to find the articles on those topics).
When we do not speak, we allow the mind to (at first) express itself internally rather than distracting it with words. In doing so, we give the mind a chance to tire itself out, as a child becomes calm after running around the playground. Once the mind gets tired of this chatter, it settles down. If we regularly allow our mind to settle in this way, taking every opportunity to do so, this settling down of the mind becomes easier, and quicker - mental calm becomes the new automatic habit pattern, gradually replacing the old pattern of mental chatter.
There is a deeper meaning here as well. When we speak, internally or externally, we are using symbols (ie. words) to signify objects. In fact, we are not just signifying objects, we are creating them by pointing them out. For example, when we say, “look at the flower”, we are automatically excluding the flower from the water, the soil, the sun, and the air from which it grew, in which it is sustained, and into which it will return. In this way, not only are we failing to observe the flower in its totality, distracting the mind with symbols that we throw out from our own memories, we are diluting the reality of the flower - turning it into a caricature of what it really is. The flower is not actually an independent entity - it is intrinsically connected with its environment. Without the environment, there is no flower, and so to even call it a “flower” is an oversimplification, or a compression, of a much more complex reality. This is similar to when someone tells a joke and then explains it, or when you try to analyse music or art in words in favour of feeling it deeply.2
More importantly, in using words (or other symbols) we are separating the flower from its background, and from you, the observer. As we have discussed, these separations do not exist in reality - reality has no boundaries. All separations are mere convention, and taking these conventions seriously is avidya. In this way, using words - any words at all - strengthens the sense of separation between “self” and “other”, and so the Yogi must use words minimally, and only when absolutely necessary.
The meaning of the word mitam (pronounced mit-umm) is “measured”, “brief”, or “frugal”, and speaking in this way is a core part of the practice of satya.
Practically speaking, this can be difficult. In order to communicate at all, we must use language. However, for the goals of Yoga, it is important to know the effect that speaking has on the mind so that we use it judiciously. In time, with practice of being aware of the mind as an object, we can notice the urge to speak before the words actually leave our mouths (and eventually even before the thought arises). What’s more, the feeling of aversion or anxiety towards silence can be used as a mental reminder of sorts, reminding you ask yourself whether it is necessary to say anything at all.
“A person who thinks all the time
Has nothing to think about except thoughts. So, he loses touch with reality and lives in a world of illusions.”- Alan Watts
Visamvaadi: Such that others understand
Speech is the transference of thought from one mind to another. Sometimes, however, the words we speak are not for understanding, but for the purposes of making ourselves look smarter, more educated, or more accomplished than the people around us.
Consider a time when you used words that were big or fancy, even though you knew that the people listening wouldn’t understand. Why did you do that? If you dig into it, it may come down to a deep set insecurity - perhaps you (ie. this body-mind) want to seem smarter, safer, or accepted because you don’t feel that way. On the other hand, perhaps you do feel smarter, and want to assert that superiority over the people you are talking to. Either way, the purpose of your speech is not for understanding, it is so that you can assert the superiority of your body-mind over others. You want this body-mind to have something more than those around it.
You can see the pattern here. Intentionally speaking in such a way that others do not understand the meaning of your words, whatever your rationale, strengthens the very “self”-“other” divide (avidya) that we are trying to get rid of through Yoga. As a result, in order to weaken avidya, the Yogi must communicate simply, in such a way that those who are listening can understand.
In addition to this aspect of speaking for understanding, the word visamvaadi (pronounced vi-sum-vaah-dee) can also mean “non-contradicting.” This means that while the Yogi must speak in such a way that others understand, they must also take care not to directly contradict the words of others, or themselves. This aspect takes a lot of practice, but becomes easier over time. To be clear, this does not mean that one should not disagree with others. Disagreement is critical to dialogue. Rather, this means using the seven-valued logic discussed in the article on ahmisa, rather than the normal binary “true/false” thinking that we often fall prey to, and allowing others a way out from their current point of view without them feeling as though they have “lost face.”3
Peshalam: Lovingly
सत्यं ब्रूयात् प्रियं ब्रूयान्न ब्रूयात् सत्यमप्रियम् ।प्रियं च नानृतं ब्रूयादेष धर्मः सनातनः ॥Satyam bruyat priyam bruyanNa bruyat satyamApriyamPriyam cha naAntritam bruyadEsha dharmah sanaatanahSpeak the truth, speak kindly/lovingly, do not speak truth if it is not kind/loving.
Don’t speak untruth, even if it is kind/loving. This is the eternal way.
- Manusmriti, 4.138
We often lionise truth-tellers who speak the truth regardless of how their words will make others feel, or the consequences they will have. However, this kind of truth-telling is counterproductive to the goals of Yoga.
Speaking hurtful words is a form of violence, at the level of the mind. Again, this is not to say that it is morally wrong, or somehow “bad” to speak unkindly to others. Rather, as with physical violence, where an “othering” is necessary to commit the violence, violent or hurtful speech strengthens the sense of “otherness” in the mind of the speaker.
P: But sometimes the truth hurts, what should I do if I know that the truth will be hurtful to the other person?
Jogi: First consider, is it necessary to share the truth, or will silence suffice?
P: Ok, there are times when I can stay silent. But what about scenarios in which I need to say something for the good of the other person?
Jogi: Again, just because you think it is beneficial for the other person, doesn’t mean that it is. However, there are certainly scenarios where speaking a hurtful truth may be necessary.
In these situations, the key is to find a way to say it such that the other person will not feel like you have hurt them. For example, you can first ask questions to understand if your concerns are valid. Are you correct in assuming that they need to hear those words?
If even after this you feel that you must speak, you can share the reason that you are telling them, or reaffirm your goodwill towards them, using the four attitudes of friendliness, compassion, gladness, and equanimity. You can follow the other guidelines of speech here too - ensure that the words reflect the evidence, that the context is appropriate, that the words you say will actually benefit them and others, that you are not saying more than is necessary, and that you are speaking in such a way that they understand the thought you wish to convey.
The word peshalam (pronounced pay-shuh-lum) means “loving”, “pleasant”, “kind”, or “tender.” This type of speech requires being highly present with the listener, watching for cues and adjusting your message to ensure it does not cause pain. It takes practice and presence of mind, but silence is usually an option.
There are, however, times when one must speak up, even if the truth is hard to hear. In these cases, the Yogi must make sure that they have done whatever they can to avoid violence in action or words, using the seven-valued logic discussed last week, and not speaking in terms of absolutes, since there is, in fact, no language to describe absolute truth. As with all the Yamas, one must simply remember the underlying principle - dissolve the boundary between “self” and “other” in order to reduce dukkha.
The Result
Each Yama has a companion sutra which describes the result when the Yogi is completely established in it. For satya, it is as follows:
सत्यप्रतिष्ठायां क्रियाफलाश्रयत्वम् |SatyaPratisthaayaam kriyaaPhalaAshrayatvamWhen [the Yogi] is established in satya, their actions bear fruit according to their will.
- Yoga Sutras, 2.36
Think of a time that you were listening to someone speak, and you knew, viscerally, that they were telling the truth. There is a certain power to truth that is a common experience. Hearing the truth in this way, the listener instinctively feels that they will not be exploited, and that the words are to their benefit. In this way, habituation in truth gives the Yogi the power of persuasion, so long as the words they say are in accordance with satya. Don’t take my word for it, you can try this for yourself. Notice how you feel when others are speaking in accordance with satya, and look for cues in how others respond when you speak in this way.
This sutra has another side to it as well. When the Yogi is fully established in satya, all their thoughts, including subtle thoughts that are not in the realm of their immediate conscious experience, are also reflective of truth. This means that no matter what the Yogi thinks, says, or does, it is in accordance with satya. Even when the thoughts are about the future, they will be true, since the mind of the Yogi does not include any fancies or imaginations, conscious or otherwise that are beyond the realm of evidence. As a result, what such a Yogi says will happen. This doesn’t mean that they can tell the future, just that they are unable to say or even think anything which is not supported by evidence.
Traditional commentators give the example of a Yogi who says to a student, “Be virtuous”, and the student actually becomes so. The explanation for this is that such a Yogi would not even think, let alone say “be virtuous” to a student who was not capable of this change, and who did not display at least subtle signs of becoming virtuous in the future. There is nothing mystical or magical here, although it may seem so at first.
In summary, satya has six aspects:
Satya: Words that reflect the evidence, without misleading the listener
Kaale: At the appropriate time, and in the appropriate context
Hitam: To others’ benefit
Mitam: Minimally
Visamvaadi: For the purposes of understanding
Peshalam: Lovingly
Like with the other Yamas, practice of satya includes truth in thought, word and deed.
In terms of words, it is as described above - speaking truthfully, at the appropriate time and in the appropriate context, speaking only that which is beneficial, speaking minimally and avoiding words devoid of meaning, speaking for understanding, and speaking lovingly.
In terms of action, satya means to make sure that your actions conform with your words. If you say you will do something, do it, and be clear about what you will and will not do. Sometimes, others may think that we have committed to doing something, when we feel that we did not. For example, perhaps you told someone at work that you would finish writing a document, but they took it to mean that you would write it by a certain date. Even for smaller things - perhaps you told a friend that you would meet them for dinner, but they took it to mean that you would cook them dinner. In the practice of satya, speech is not about the speaker - what is heard and understood by the listener is what is most important.
In order to avoid such scenarios, the Yogi must speak clearly, ensuring that the thoughts in their mind have been transferred effectively to the listener. You can use tools like asking the listener for feedback, asking them questions, or taking subtle cues from questions that they ask to figure out if you have been understood as desired. Be careful when doing this, since it may come across as though you don’t trust the listener to have understood, or as a sleight on their intelligence. Just remember to be kind, with the intent of non-violence. Additionally, remember that just like with everything in Yoga, it takes practice to improve.
Finally, in terms of thoughts, the practice of satya includes weakening the tendency of the mind to create stories that do not reflect evidence.4 This requires a constant vigilance of the mind, and resetting of old habit patterns. As with the other Yamas, practicing truthfulness in thought is a lot harder than practicing truthfulness in words or actions, but with with practice and dispassion, the Yogi can adjust their own habit patterns to meet the goal.
Until next time:
In your next conversation, whatever the subject matter, carefully notice the moments of silence. What thoughts arise in the mind? This will give you an indication of your current habit patterns.
Notice how these habit patterns differ from the principles of satya. Be honest with yourself, and take notes.
Now you have a course of action. Use your daily conversations with friends, or even meetings at work to hold the silence, and speak intentionally, in conformance with satya. Use the feeling of anxiety or discomfort with the silence as a reminder to practice. Take notes on how this practice affects your state of mind - do you feel calmer? As an aside, you may notice that at first the mental chatter increases as you intentionally try to cultivate satya. Don’t worry, this is temporary, and is a sign that your mental habit patterns are shifting. Take notes to see if it becomes easier with practice.
As always, feel free to respond to this email with questions, comments, or objections, or leave a comment below. Additionally, you can add questions anonymously on Reddit at r/EmptyYourCup.
Next week: The 5 Yamas: Asteya (non-stealing), Brahmacharya (non-indulgence), Aparigraha (non-ownership)
Gossip is a particularly interesting case for the aspect of hitam in satya. Even if we are not speaking badly about others ourselves, allowing it to happen in front of us is sufficient to create tendencies in the mind that separate “us” from “them.” Notice, the pattern of gossip is usually something along the lines of “how bad that person is” in comparison with “how good we are.” Gossip puts others down with the purpose of making the speaker or listener feel good in comparison. This kind of speech can, in fact, bring people together, making them feel like they are a part of a close in-group, or community. But, it comes at a cost - an in-group is only an in-group in opposition to an out-group. Even if you feel closer to the people you are gossiping with, you have created a mental divide between you and the people you are gossiping about - this has the effect of strengthening your own avidya, thus leading to further mental scattering and general dukkha.
This is not to say that analysis of art does not have value, just that focusing on analysis takes away from the visceral experience of the art.
Phrases like “yes, and” rather than a blanket “no”, or using questions rather than statements are helpful tools for this aspect of satya.
Hariharananda, a commentator on the Yoga Sutras, takes this aspect of satya so far as to suggest that the Yogi should abstain from reading fiction or occupying their minds with worldly trivia, focusing their reading on svaadhyaay - the study of soteriological texts (Mokshashaastras) - and occupying their mind with the contemplation of the nature of Reality.
Editor's note: The seven-valued logic was discussed 2 weeks ago (https://kunaldatta.substack.com/p/why-should-i-be-good-to-others?s=r), not last week as mentioned in this article.