The judge in a lower court ruled a person guilty of stealing a car and sentenced him to imprisonment. That person appealed to a higher court. While testifying before the judge there, he said, "Sir, it is true that I stole the car. But I did not do so to serve my selfish ends. A truck struck a full term pregnant woman in my locality. She was in a very precarious condition. I did not even know who she was. I thought that I should try to save the woman and the baby. I looked around for help. I saw a car parked nearby. Immediately I took the pregnant woman in that car to a nearby hospital. I begged the doctor there to save her and her child. In spite of the doctor’s efforts, the woman and the baby in her womb died. I became depressed. A couple of hours had elapsed by then. I realized that I had to return the car to its owner. While I was driving back, the police caught me and charged me with car theft. The purpose for which I had taken the car was not served. My intention was to save two lives that were in helpless condition. What is wrong with that intent? It is not my fault that the woman and her baby did not survive. It is therefore not just to sentence me to imprisonment".

The public prosecutor immediately stood up and said:
"Your honour! This is a very dangerous line of argument. This thief does not deny that a mistake was committed. He is saying that there was a reason behind the mistake. Well, every thief can assign one reason or the other for his mistake. ‘If I do not steal, my wife and children will starve’, ‘If I do not steal, I may die of starvation’ so on and so forth. If all such reasons are accepted, then there can be no punishment for any crime in the society. Anyone in the society can rob anyone else and get away with it. No society that considers itself civilized will accept this. Therefore, I urge this court to punish the accused suitably."

On hearing this, the defense lawyer sprang to his feet and said, "Sir, it is surprising to note that in spite of being an educated attorney, my friend is talking heartlessly. Every nation in the world has seen men who have sacrificed for a just and humane cause. In fact, it is on account of such selfless people that advances in culture, art, science, technology and various fields has become possible. What is true sacrifice? Is it caring for one’s kith and kin? Or is it earning one’s livelihood? No. Striving for the welfare of the fellow beings and the society even at the cost of personal happiness and comfort is true sacrifice. On the other hand, the tendency of whiling away time lazily and deceiving others to earn one’s living should be termed as ‘stealing’. It appears as though my friend, the public prosecutor is using these two terms as if they were synonyms. Sacrificing to that absolute extent may not be possible in today’s world. But, if someone has developed that tendency to some extent, is it proper to consider him a thief? Is it good for the society? No. In the present context, this man took someone else’s car. This subjected the owner of the car to some tension and anxiety. But it should be remembered that the accused did not take the car for his own pleasure or benefit. All he wanted to do was to save the pregnant woman whom he didn’t even know. That he was not successful is a different aspect. What is important is the intent behind his act. The intent was ‘helping others in times of distress’. In this context, the intention was to save someone’s life. Nothing is as precious as life. Not even law. If we call this act of trying to save someone’s life as robbery and label that person as a thief, we are indirectly saying that sacrificing nature has no place in our society. Therefore, keeping in mind the interests of the civilized society, I urge this court not to consider the act as theft."

The public prosecutor stood up again and said:
"Your honour! My friend’s eulogizing of sacrificing nature of man is acceptable to me to a great extent. No civilized person will deny the importance of helping nature. Nor will anyone talk lowly about such acts. But, if someone says that a crime is not punishable because the intent behind it was ‘helping others’, it can not be accepted. If it is argued that it is acceptable, in the name of helping others, murdering, robbery, cheating and practically any crime can be committed without fear of law. I only wish that in his unbridled enthusiasm of upholding the virtue of sacrificing nature, my friend, the defense lawyer does not get carried away. My dear friend gave an impression that it is impossible to develop sacrificing tendency without committing a mistake. May I draw his attention to the fact that none of the great men who are praised and remembered for their sacrificing nature indulged in criminal acts. In the present case, it is true that the accused wanted to help someone. But that he stole someone else’s car to help another person can not be defended as an act of sacrifice."

The judge adjourned the case to a later date and began to think about the merits and demerits of the argument and the counter-argument.

Let us put ourselves in the judge’s position. What would we have done?

Everyone agrees that stealing is a crime and that it deserves punishment. Why is stealing a crime? ‘Because it pains others’ – you may tempted to say. Consider this. A doctor gives an injection to his patient. The patient experiences pain. Now, should the act of the doctor be considered a crime? No one says that a doctor is at fault. Why? Because his intent was good. If intent alone is the criterion, why then is the accused in this present case be ruled ‘guilty’? When a doctor pricks his patient, it does not cause ill health. In this case, the accused stole someone’s car to help another person. How can one draw parallel between him and the doctor?
As far as the intent is considered (that of helping others), both are equal. However, in the case of a doctor, there is no doubt if he is at fault or not. On the other hand, in the case of this accused person, there is room for doubt. Why? It is because, he caused pain to one person to help another person.

Why then are we hesitant to label him ‘guilty’ straightaway? It is because we feel that the magnitude of his intention (of helping the pregnant woman) is far more than the temporary hurt he caused to the owner of the car. Although the accused did not succeed in his attempt, we still laud his efforts. Therefore, we are unable to convict him straightaway.

In other words, we are defining for ourselves, the boundaries of crime and helping nature. The child in the neighborhood is crying loudly because it wants an ice cream. To make it stop crying if a person takes someone’s car parked nearby without the knowledge of its owner, we do not call it helping nature. On the other hand, if the same person takes the car to save someone else’s life, we feel like appreciating it.

How can we say if an act is a crime or not? How can we know their limits? It is not easy. We approach the court of law because we are unable to decide. Agreed. Judges are intelligent people. A law court is a place where justice resides. Why then is so much of argument and counter argument needed to decide a case? However much brilliant a person might be, when it comes to define the boundaries, the only guiding factor is the decisions given by the ‘elders’ who are intelligent, experienced and unbiased.

When we see that the word ‘elders’ has been qualified by so many adjectives, we can realize how tough the problem is. In the present case, there is not one, but many problems. Deciding what constitutes helping nature and what does not is one. What is the greatness of favour and what is the gravity of crime? Deciding this is another problem. To understand the genuineness of intent is another problem. There are many other difficulties.
There is another important quandary. In this world, favour takes many forms. Some people develop liking to some forms while others may consider other forms as noble. Inclination depends on liking. Sometimes the liking takes the form of emotional and vociferous expression. Inclination is not harmful. But it should not take a radical form. If the inclination takes a radical form, the person tends to become an extremist. In such circumstances, even the wise elders find it difficult to draw a line between favour and crime.

When confronted by such a situation, what do the wise do? They look back and see what the ‘elders’ did in similar situations. The following Sookti is intended to help those who are looking for an answer.

Ye dharma mohaat vidhritogra vaadaah
Choraadivat te tu na garhaneeyaah
Dharmaika deshe ratirasti teshaam
Te sneha saadhyaah pavanaamayaabhaah

Those who follow extremist path thinking that they are upholding a just cause should not be viewed just as a thief (who justifies his action). It should be borne in mind that such persons still have in them reverence for a part of Dharma. They can be mended by Sneha (friendliness), just as Vata type of disorders can be remedied by using Sneha (unctuous substances). (According to Ayurveda, using unctuous substances is the remedy for disorders caused by Vata).

This Sookti seems to be discussing about Dharma. Our earlier discussion revolved around helping others. What is the relation between the two? According to Dharma Shastra, helping others itself is considered as Punya (merit). Observe this popular verse given by sage Vyasa:

Shlokaardhena pravakshyaami yaduktam grantha kotibhih
Paropakaarah punyaaya paapaaya parapeedanam

"Let me put in a nutshell what is described in millions of scriptures. To help others itself is a meritorious act. To harm others itself is sin."
Therefore, what we have discussed till now is about merit and sin. It is a discussion related to Dharma.

We now have to see as to how this Sookti helps us in out present discussion. It was told that acts of favour could have innumerable forms. In the Mahabharata, in the episode of Dharmavyadha, it has been mentioned by Sage Vyasa that Dharma has various paths and that it is very subtle. In our earlier discussion, it was mentioned that among the innumerable forms that ‘favour’ takes, some people have special inclinations towards some forms and that thy tend to attach greater importance to them. In the third line of the above Sookti, it has been said ‘Dharmaika deshe ratirasti teshaam’ – ‘they have reverence for a part of Dharma. What is wrong if they have? The answer to this question could not be found in our discussion.

The above Sookti answers this question. It says ‘Ye dharma mohaat vidhritogra vaadaah– they have taken recourse to extremism because of they feel that what they practice alone is Dharma and, as a consequence, they commit acts of Adharma.’

It has been mentioned in Mahabharata that Dharma has various paths. What is the intention behind saying so? There are two purposes. A person treading a particular path should not degrade other paths. This is one purpose. A person following a particular path should not think ‘this alone is the true form of Dharma’. This is the second purpose.

Our society is very diverse and complicated. When there are innumerable paths of Dharma, one can not follow Dharma to its core unless one understands it in its entirety. No one can understand all existing paths of Dharma completely. Nor can one practice all of them. Still, one should try to know the comprehensiveness of Dharma. If one succeeds in this, one will appreciate the utility of other paths and will naturally develop respect towards them. One will also be able to understand the limitations of each path. A person who has reached this level will not vehemently confine to a single path and claim that the path that he follows alone is the perfect path. Such vehemence is the indicator of extremist behaviour.

‘Everyone will have his own preferences and inclinations and obsessions. Who are we to object?’ some may argue. This is not correct. Such argument is bad for the entire society. If one develops mad obsession about one particular Dharma, that obsession will prevent one from appreciating the good aspects of another Dharma. It will also prevent the person from appreciating the comprehensive form of Dharma. Not being able to appreciate the comprehensive form of Dharma will push him down to such a level that he remains ignorant of the blunders taking place in the path that he is following. Such a situation has been described as ‘Dharma Moha’ in the above Sookti. It means, observing Adharma, thinking it to be Dharma. This paves way to extremism – says the first line of the Sookti.

‘Adharma is bad. Whether it is observed intentionally or unintentionally, it deserves punishment’ argue some people. The Sookti does not subscribe to this view. It says that those who have succumbed to Dharma Moha should not be meted out the same treatment as is meted out to other types of offenders. It says ‘Choraadivat te tu na garhaneeyaah’ – they should not be punished in the same way a thief is punished.

Thieves, murderers, cheats – all commit mistakes. Those who are under the influence of Dharma Moha also commit mistakes. Still, the Sookti opines that the first category of people deserve punishment while the second category of people do not. Why this discrimination?
There is a big difference between the two groups – says the Sookti. Thieves, murderers etc., do not have even an iota of Dharma in their hearts. They are aware that what they are doing is Adharma. Still they continue to do it. Therefore, they deserve punishment.

Extremists on the other hand do not have the intention of doing acts of Adharma. In fact, it is their intention to engage in Dharmic acts. When their intentions translate to acts, they cease to remain Dharmic. The fault that has crept in between their intent and action is ‘Dharmaika deshe rati’ – excessive inclination towards a part of Dharma. In fact, it is their virtue too. In other words, it is both their weakness and strength. Because of this peculiar situation, they can not be viewed as criminals and punished.

What else should one do? Should such people be honoured for their deeds? If they are neither punished nor rewarded and left alone, it will also amount to encouragement. This means that we are indirectly encouraging extremist view.

Even the judge had to ponder when he faced such a dilemma while hearing the case of the person who was charged with car theft. It is a tricky situation and even the best brains tend to remain indecisive in such circumstances. The police say that extremists should be punished. Social reform organizations maintain that they should not be punished. Even those who argue that they should not be punished do not subscribe to extremism. Those who prescribe punishment also do not see punishment as a permanent remedy. What is to be done? The fourth line of the Sookti has cleverly spelled out the remedy. It says – ‘te sneha saadhyaah pavanaamayaabhaah’ – they should be treated just like one treats Vata disorders – by making use of Sneha. (the word Sneha in Sanskrit has many meanings. One meaning is ‘friendship’. ‘Unctuous substance’ is another meaning)

According to Ayurveda, disorders caused by vitiated Vata should be treated with Sneha (unctuous substances like sesame oil medicated with various herbs). Similarly, extremists should be treated with Sneha (friendship). By the infusion of friendship in them, one can bring down their extremist and volatile behaviour. This alone is the permanent solution to this problem.
This Sookti appears to address the dilemma faced by those in charge of providing justice. Of what use is it to us Sadhakas?

No one drops from heaven with a label stating that they are judges, seekers, officers etc. They are from our own society. Some of them may even be from our own family. If we observe keenly, we will realize that we assume such roles ourselves in different situations of life.
When the children in the family do not listen to the elders, we should determine if they have become bad children or if they have become obsessed with something. When they reach adolescence, they tend to have funny assumptions and even act accordingly. In such circumstances, we may have to take the role of the police. We may also have to act as social reformers. This is one aspect.

Even within ourselves, some times our ideals pull us to one side and our desires pull us in the opposite direction. In such times of mental turmoil, our mind will commit mistakes knowingly. In such circumstances, we have to assume the role of judges ourselves. Even after arriving at the right decision, if the mind does not come under full control on account of past tendencies, we have to assume the role of the police too. When the desires remain unfulfilled and the ideals become unreachable, we have to assume the role of social reformers. This is the second aspect.
Thus, there is extremism in each one of us. It is there in the society. It is there in the family. It is there in the mind. The reasons may be different. The forms may be different. But the problem is one. The remedy is also one.

If a stubborn son has some valid point, it is wrong to punish him. His stubbornness should be softened by soothing instructions. If the stubborn mind is aspiring for Dharma, but is on the wrong path, it should be brought to the right path by using love and tact and not by inflexible means. Even here, soothing instructions of the guru act as the panacea.

Thus, it is clear that in the social level, in the family level and in the mental level, friendliness alone is the remedy for extremism. This is the message of the Sookti.

May the message of the Sookti reach your hearts. May you discover the innumerable ways of utilizing the path of love and affection in tiding over dilemmas in the family, society and most importantly, the mind.

Jaya Guru Datta.

Sri Swamiji