There were two brothers. The elder brother did not have children. The younger brother had children, but did not have good earnings. The only property they jointly held was a house. The condition laid down for sharing the house was this: the elder brother should build the separating wall and the younger brother should build the compound wall surrounding the house. Because the younger brother was poor, he did not build the compound wall. This resulted in stray cattle entering the premises and eating away all the vegetables. The elder brother argued that the loss was on account the failure on the part of the younger brother and that he should therefore make good the loss.

The elder brother also failed on his part in not building the separation wall. He did not have the habit of switching on the lights in his house during night. On the other hand, the younger brother used to keep the lights on in his house because his children had to study. The light from his house used to illuminate the elder brother's house also. The younger brother argued that the elder brother had to share the cost of lighting as he was also making use of the light by deliberately not building the separation wall.

This was the dispute. Can any number of law experts solve this dispute?

The separation wall represents the division between brothers. The compound wall symbolizes the division between man and animals. Both humans and animals need food. But animals don't have feelings such as 'this is mine'; 'this is my property'. They eat whatever is fit for eating - i.e. whatever the Almighty has created as food. They do not even know that they should not trespass.

To illuminate is the nature of light rays. Light rays illuminate any thing that is fit for illumination.

Animals achieve a goal by eating - they feel contented by it. Therefore, they stop eating as soon as their goal is reached. But light rays do not have anything to gain by illuminating objects. Therefore light doesn't cease to shine even after illuminating an object.

What about man? His wish list is endless. He not only satisfies his hunger with food, but also hoards grains for the morrow. He not only fills his belly with food, but also wishes to buy happiness by trading food. Therefore, his hunger for food is insatiable.

It is because of this insatiable hunger that he erects a wall between himself and other beings. He also builds a separating wall in his own house. Even by deciding not to have a separating wall, he will achieve his selfish goal.

Man is independent. Animals are less independent than humans are. Rays of light are even less independent. Man is intelligent. He achieves many objectives by his actions. Animals are not so intelligent. Light rays do not have any intelligence at all! But, in spite of his intelligence, what is it that man eventually gets? Nothing but unhappiness. Is it not strange?

In the above story, the brothers are earning nothing but unhappiness in the form of mutual hatred. It is not their intention to earn unhappiness. They breed unhappiness because their intentions and actions are going in opposite directions. What causes such divergence?

Neither of them knows the reason. Any one who considers fortune as one's own property will never be able to apprehend the reason for such divergence. See what this Sookti has to offer in this regard.

Shriyamaarjaya nistulaam sakhe

Bhaja maa tatpatitaam tu maanase

Atha deepa shikhaamivojjwallam

Samabhogyaam kuru taam sameepagaih

"Friend! Make fortunes. But never claim that you are its absolute owner and that no one else should make use of it. Use the fortune just as one uses the lamp by sharing with the fellow beings"

'Never claim absolute ownership' - this is the central message in this Sookti.

Even animals earn their livelihood. But they do not hoard with selfish intentions. Perhaps hoarding is a quality unique to man. It is his nature. How can he overcome this nature? If ever man wishes that his own nature should not be the source of his unhappiness, he has to always remember this - 'never claim absolute ownership'.

What is meant by 'not claiming ownership'? Does it mean that one should not think that one can make fortunes? Or that one did not discover it? Or that one can not destroy it? No. By ordaining that one should not claim ownership, the Sookti urges us to refrain from aspiring for personal pleasures when others make use of that fortune. How can one get personal pleasure when someone else enjoys the fortune?

You have harvested a big quantity of grains. Obviously you can not consume it all. But, you can think that when others use this, you should earn money. In other words, when someone eats the grains grown by you, you should be able to feel the happiness of wearing a golden ornament! This is what ownership means. It is this attitude that is the root cause for unhappiness. You must eschew this attitude. If you can give up this attitude, everyone can enjoy the fortune just as everyone can make use of the single source of light. To ensure that everyone can make use of the light, we do not need to do anything. It is enough if we do not create any hindrance to the light rays.

Then, what is the use of preserving grains? The purpose of preserving is to use it - by sharing it with fellow beings - at the time of famine or during rainy season when it becomes scarce or unavailable. It is to stress this point that in the above Sookti the example of lamp is used. One uses a lamp in the night - when natural light is not available.

It is noteworthy that in the above Sookti, the word lamp is used. Only when the flame of the lamp is shared with others will it be useful. On the other hand, if one thinks that no one else should benefit from the flame of the lamp and tries to hide it with one's self, it does not give light. Instead, it will burn the person. Similar fate befalls anyone who wants to keep all the fortune for himself.

By the divine grace of Lord Dattatreya, may the above message - never claim ownership - always remain in your heart so that your fortune is not misused.

Sri Swamiji