Dr. Viktor Frankl wrote that in his opinion, it was possible to “lie with the truth.” He cited as an example a man who came to him plagued with guilt about an illicit affair he had some 20 years earlier. His wife never learned of it and was still ignorant of it when he sought Frankl’s advice. Dr. Frankl implored him NOT to tell her. His reason for doing so was because he believed that the man truly loved his wife and had no desire to traumatize her. Based on what he knew of the man’s wife, he was convinced that there was little to no chance of the wife receiving the news without drawing the false conclusion that he did not love her, and consequently would not be able to forgive him. So he attempted to coach the man, that telling her the truth, would be akin to lying, for it would encourage her to believe a lie—that her husband did not ever love her. The man ignored Frankl’s advice, and the result was an ugly divorce with both parties deeply emotionally traumatized. Was Frankl right? What is Creator’s perspective?

Here again is a good illustration that there is a time and a place for truth, and a time and a place to shield someone from unpleasantness that serves no useful purpose and, moreover, is likely to be quite destructive in such a situation, to adhere strictly to conveying truth that would end up doing greater harm. This is very much akin to the issue of people having a tremendous past history they are largely unaware of but can access the akashic records via their deep subconscious and dream about it. If they are told by a psychic medium, for example, they have done something horrendous in a past life without offering a way for them to heal the karmic consequences, it becomes a kind of hexing that can haunt them and cause grave damage in imparting fear that now they will be punished, that God might not love them, that they might be a worse person than even they believed, and so on. The situation described is a perfect example of a beneficial lie, that is a lie of omission, but shields the wife from a severe overreaction that would cause harm to both parties when that could be avoided and genuine love still shared by the couple. That is a far better outcome than adhering to the seemingly high standard of holding to truth scrupulously, and to a fault, in this case. The admonition in our rule for living, to raise up others with no harm to the self, and raise up the self with no harm to others, is illustrated beautifully in this moral dilemma, seemingly. If you look simply at who benefits and why, and who is harmed and why, through sharing the true life history that would be damning for the husband, it is reduced to a kind of energetic equation that is perhaps more manageable to see in the light of how to proceed than an arbitrary black and white interpretation of right versus wrong, truth versus falsehood, can convey. There are practical consequences from every life decision and choice of action, and it is the energetic consequence that is utmost in importance. To be sure, an energetic consequence can play out as guilt when truth is avoided inappropriately and the conscience takes a toll on a person, but that is simply an extension of what we are suggesting here as a way of dealing with such dilemmas, to analyze their merits, pro and con, with the choices being considered, and to honor both parties and the relative degree of negativity either way—that will be a useful guide in most instances. There are many examples where people can see truth to a much greater degree and because most humans are flawed, and many deeply so, one who sees this even though representing, in that respect, a higher authority, with respect to knowledge and discernment, to go around criticizing people for their flaws might be an exercise in truth-telling but fails dismally in terms of morality because, in the energetic equation of what is lost and what is gained, it becomes very clear that someone told about their flaws, over which they may have little ability to change, can be deeply hurtful rather than helpful, and to be the one in a position to point out their shortcomings only gains a reward to their ego because seeing someone else as being lesser is not a feat of greatness.