Those who are in power punish those who commit mistakes.

Those who give punishment should have three basic ingredients. 1. They should convince themselves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused has actually committed the crime. 2. The method of convincing themselves must be acceptable to the society at large. 3. They must be empowered and competent enough to punish the person.

If the first condition is not satisfied, their conscience will not permit them to convict a person. If the second condition is not met, the society will oppose him. If the third aspect is not satisfied, the accused will not accept the punishment.

In other words, the absence of these three aspects indicates the limitations of the person who punishes. The fist aspect points to his lack of ability. While the second aspect demonstrates his dependence, the third points to his powerlessness. We have seen that since ages those who have been in-charge of punishing have been doing so in spite of themselves not possessing the above-mentioned competence.

Let us confine our discussion to those who are competent. Let us assume that there is such a competent person who does not have any of the three above-mentioned shortcomings. That is, he is able to find out the culprit with the help of his diving knowledge. He is also all-independent and therefore, is not obliged to convince the society about the propriety of his decision. He is all-powerful and therefore, he is capable of punishing the culprit, however influential and powerful the accused may be. Let us assume that such a competent person exists. Now the question is, when should he punish? After the crime is committed or before?

Let us assume that a person, with the help of diving knowledge, will learn that a particular crime is going to take place. Let us assume that he will punish the person who would have (but has not yet) committed that crime. Now, does it not amount to punishing a non-existent crime? Even the Vedas and other scriptures have declared that it is not possible for even the greatest of the Yogis to make precise predictions all the time. Such being the case, is it proper for anyone – however enlightened he might be - to punish before the crime takes place?

All right. Let us agree that the punishment should be given after the crime is committed. What should be the time gap between the crime and punishment? In developed nations, judicial process is very quick. In developing countries, it is relatively slow. However, the intention of all the nations is to speed up their legal processes. This indicates that in the opinion of the intellectual and cultured societies, once the crime is established, the punishment should be employed as soon as possible.

This means that if a person has the three important ingredients namely, divine knowledge, freedom and competence, he should punish the erring person as soon as the crime takes place. For example, if the culprit has cut off the head of a person, the competent authority should act with lightening speed and should cut off the head of the murderer in the very next moment.

Does a civilized society accept this attitude? Does the society feel happy if such a rule were to be there? Does rejecting this theory mean that they (who reject) are weak-minded persons?

There are no simple answers to these questions. Some people may feel that once a crime is committed the punishment should be swift even if it means that a certain degree of harshness is there. There are others who take a somewhat softer path and say that the punishment should be quick, but it should not involve harshness or cruelty. They argue that cruelty might make the person biased. Which of the above is a good approach?

Long ago, there was a king called Kartaveerya. He was an ardent disciple of Lord Dattatreya. With the divine blessings of Dattatreya, he acquired divine powers. If any of his subjects even toyed with the idea of committing a crime, Kartaveerya would come to know about it with the help of his divine powers and would immediately appear in front of that person to warn him to desist from such intentions. Therefore, there were no crimes in his kingdom and therefore, no punishments were necessary. Is it not wonderful?

Ironically, Kartaveerya himself committed a heinous crime. He engaged in an insane argument with a sage and forcefully took the cow belonging to the hermitage. After Kartaveerya’s regime, his kingdom became totally lawless and Dharma perished. Can we not therefore conclude that there was some flaw in his method?

If his method was totally flawless, then why did not his Guru, Dattatreya implement it Himself to prevent the king from committing such a sin?

If we agree that there was flaw in Kartaveerya’s method, we should be able to tell what that flaw was. To know this, one should understand as to why a person should punish another person.

We had not taken cognizance of this question till now. We had simply assumed that there should be a person who will apply punishment with honesty and sincerity. Our entire discussion was based on this notion. Why should a person be empowered to punish another person? Why should men not be given independence to commit mistakes?

We say that all are God’s children. If one of his children feels like committing a mistake, why should anyone else deprive him of his independence? If such prevention is a symbol of physical power and the capacity of that person to garner consensus, what is the difference between such a person and a bandit leader?
As the discussion becomes more and more subtle, the chances of it faltering from the right path also increases. We accepted in the above example that all are the children of God and that every one had equal independence to do whatever one chose to. Here, what is meant by the expression ‘children of God’?

A true and competent father will show equal love to all his children without any selfish motive. If one of his children turns cruel and starts harming his brothers, what will be the father’s natural reaction? If the father does not act, it is not equal love. The natural tendency of the father would be to punish the cruel and erring son and to ensure that all his children live harmoniously with mutual love. Thus, in punishing the erring son, the father is serving a purpose. Establishing love and harmony is the purpose. The father will keep in mind this purpose while devising the method of punishment and will stick to that method. He will not have any feeling of hatred or grudge against the erring son. He will chose the right time to give the right kind of punishment so that it bears the desired result – namely bringing the erring son to the right path. In doing so, he will be displaying the right kind of responsibility, love and ability. He will then be able to see the fruition of his dreams – that his children live harmoniously with mutual love.

In the same way, even the Almighty Lord wants his children to thrive and achieve divinity. Therefore, he will treat all his children equally. This is the real meaning of the expression ‘all are God’s children’.

Just as a father does not tolerate cruelty in one of his children, so also the Almighty Lord does not tolerate cruelty in human beings.

Who decides what is cruelty and what is benignity? The feeling that all human beings should live a life of harmony and love is benignity. Any feeling that is antagonistic to this is cruelty. There can be no better definition than this. Also, no one has the right to alter this definition.

Because it is the vow of the Almighty that human beings should posses mutual love and harmony, the same feeling passes on to His children, namely the human beings. Therefore, the foremost feeling that a human being experiences is love! The just born baby displays pure and unselfish love towards its mother. After its eyes open, it sees the world with happiness coupled with love. The feeling of hatred does not enter its mind until it grows up.

This is the natural tendency of man. That is, it need not be taught to anyone. It comes on its own. Hence, the question "why should human beings be helpful to one another? Even if it is the wish of the Almighty Lord, why should I honour it?’ does not arise. Anyone who nurtures such thoughts will be isolated by the society.

Thus, because the vow of the Almighty and the natural tendency of man move in the same direction, whenever a person falters from this path, he needs to be corrected. Therefore, punishment becomes inevitable. Questions such as "Why should men not be given independence to commit mistakes?" do not have any meaning.

The conclusion is every crime should have a punishment. The question is when should the offender be punished.

In the above discussion, we learnt about the purpose served by the punishment given by God. We learnt that the purpose was to bring the erring persons back to the right path. Attempting to learn the methods of the Almighty and to imitate them by the respective countries have resulted in the framing of penal codes of those countries. However, the enforcing authorities are normal human beings, just like any other member of the society. Compared to God, these ‘competent’ persons are less knowledgeable and are merely trying to imitate God’s ways. It is but natural for a certain degree of inconsistency and deficiency to be there in their ways. We discussed about such deficiencies in the beginning of the discussion. When the crime goes unpunished at the hands of the incompetent, what will the Almighty God do? Will he or will he not give the punishment himself? Because welfare of all the beings is His wish, we can not assume that He will shirk His responsibility.

Very well. We all know that the Almighty does not have the deficiencies that we humans have. Therefore, which is the best time for him to hand out the punishment? Before the crime is committed? Immediately after the crime? Or after some time?
We are back to square one. The following Sookti has set out to give a convincing answer to this question.

Praagenasah phalamukhasya tava atra saadho
Shikshaa vibhussakarunopi vidhatta eva
Kim vaardhake dhritashamam krita youvanaagham
Nyaayaadhipah karunayaa kshamate vishuddhah

(O! Noble man! Although you are noble now and the Almighty is compassionate, because your sins of the past lives have come to a stage of fruition now, you must face the punishment now. If a person commits a heinous crime in his youth and remains pious in his old age (when his crime becomes established), will a judge pardon him?

Outwardly, the Sookti seems to say ‘if a crime is committed, it is not possible to get away unpunished’. However, observe the first line carefully. It says "praagenasah phalamukhasya tavaatra saadho". The phrase ‘atra saadho’ means ‘you, who have become pious now (in this birth). In saying so, it also implies (in saying ‘praagenasah phalamukhasya) that the sins committed in your previous lives are bearing fruits now.

This is indeed quizzical. Why should the omnipotent God wait for a birth to elapse before handing out the punishment? Moreover, when the being is leading a noble life in this birth, why should He re-open the old case to punish? Shall we assume that He has bias or grudge against us? But the expression "sakarunopi" is not consistent with such assumption. It means that He is handing out the punishment after much delay because He has compassion for you. How is this possible?

If the punishment is given immediately after the crime, one will easily understand that a particular offence carries a particular punishment. This will implant fear in the mind of the offender and will dissuade him from committing such crimes in future. Is this not the sort of transformation that the Almighty looking for? Why then does He wait for so long? Why should He not punish immediately?

Transformation brought about by fear can not eradicate bad Samskara (tendency) from the mind. A stray cattle chased away with a club (to prevent it from eating the standing crops) will return repeatedly to the same field. This is because fear of punishment is not capable of bringing about transformation. For true transformation to set in, the person should realise that what he is doing is wrong (such realisation is called Vijnaana). He should also feel ‘I should not do this, because it will harm others’ (such an attitude is called (Prema). Transformation brought about by such Vijnaana and Prema alone is capable of eradicating bad Samskara from the mind.

A person, who succumbs to intense selfishness in a weak moment will forget his Vijnaana and commits a mistake. If he is punished in that unfortunate moment itself, he will not take the punishment in the right spirit. Chances are that he will even revolt. His mind, which has lost discrimination in that unfortunate moment, will not be capable of reacting in any other manner. Also, the mind which is in a state of intense incitement will try to defend the mistake. This will lead to development of hatred towards the one who gives the punishment.

Why should not the Almighty warn the erring person well before hand just like Kartaveerya used to do? It is because, this method too comes under the category of trying to bring about transformation through fear. It can not bring about true transformation. Such an approach might bring about true transformation in beings with good Samskara (past tendencies). However, it can not bring about long lasting transformation in ordinary men.

Therefore, although God is omnipotent, He prefers to take His own time to hand out punishment. How long will he wait? Until the incitement has subsided and the person has become pious. Why should there be punishment when the person has turned pious? To ensure that such surges of selfishness do not occur again. The waves of piousness and wickedness keep coming continuously. In order to protect man from succumbing to every wave and make him solid like a rock, it is necessary to punish him while he is pious. Though this looks brutal, this is the most compassionate way of punishing a person.

"This is utterly bizarre. When a criminal is tormenting his fellow beings, you say that it not the time to punish. After all the harm has been done, you say that the person should be punished in the next life. Is it fair" – one may ask. It is not so. Preventing the crimes is one thing. Punishing the crimes is another. The process of preventing the crimes is an ongoing process. There have been many noble and valorous men who have achieved great success in such endeavors. During their times, the societies have been relatively peaceful.

What we are now discussing is something different. We are discussing about the punishment to be given to the erring person. The punishment should not be given when the offender is in an agitated state of mind. Therefore, God takes His own time.
But the offender will have totally forgotten his mistake by the time the punishment is meted out to him. He will not realise as to why he is suffering the punishment now. Of what use is such punishment?

This is where man’s Vijnaana should act. Here is where he should be careful about the demon called selfishness, which on account of his past tendencies will be ever ready to pounce on him. He who is pious now (in this birth) should remember that the Almighty, who is meting out punishment, is like a benevolent father and that he is all compassionate. Selfish tendencies of many births will be always trying to prevent man from thinking on these lines. At the same time, the Vijnaana that he has acquired in this life will try to remind him about it. When the past tendencies dominate, the person will think " I have never meant harm to anyone. Why is God giving me this punishment?" when the Vijnaana of the present birth dominates, he will think, "the Almighty, who is giving me this punishment is impartial. He is all-compassionate. I must have committed some sin in my past lives. What those sins were is not important now. What is important is, that I should undergo the punishment with determination. It is my duty to learn proper behaviour and to apply it in my future life."

Generally, the lives of all human beings keep swinging between these two extremities. Because of the unceasing efforts of God, man becomes eligible for better Samskaras in subsequent births and consequently, the degree of punishment will also reduce. Finally, man will attain divinity.

It is a long process. There are no short cuts. God therefore bundles punishment for the past wicked deeds and rewards for noble deeds and packages them as one life time of humans. In between two births, he gives a brief rest in the form of death.
To signify this, the above Sookti has given the example of a judge. A judge gives punishment in accordance to the offence. Excepting capital punishment, all others have a time limit. After serving the sentence, the offender is ‘washed’ of his crime. In God’s justice, even death is a punishment with time limit. Just as a criminal becomes ‘clean’ after serving the sentence, man too becomes pure by undergoing the punishment given by God.

When the sins are completely washed off, that stage is called divinity. This is the ultimate destination of man. To reach it, the best route is to accept the punishments given by God with an attitude of surrender. This is the message of this Sookti.

May this message always resonate in your hearts. May you all learn to accept the punishments as God’s blessings.

Jaya Guru Datta.

Sri Swamiji