The son was pitiful about his father because he thought that his father was a mild person and that he gave in easily. The father, of late, was thinking that his son had become egotistic because of his intelligence. Thus, arguments had become quite common lately. When the boy reached marriageable age, one such argument took a serious turn. The father was of the opinion that the son should marry a girl who fetched more dowry. The son however insisted, "I will not accept dowry. I will marry a girl who has a good paying job." When the argument gradually caught heat, the son was surprised to find that his father was not as mild as he thought. The argument went on something like this-

Father: Our forefathers always took dowries. Therefore, we should also take dowry. Also, the Manu Smriti (a treatise that lays down codes of conduct) says :

Yenaasya pitaro yaataa yena yaataah pitaamahaah
Tena yaayaat sataam maargam tena gachchan na rishyate

"We should tread the same path as did our forefathers. If we do so, our journey will be safe."
Son: Don’t we seen in the newspapers everyday that taking dowry is a crime? Why do you quote that verse when you know that taking dowry is unlawful? Also, if an earning girl comes to our house, it would be more beneficial than dowry. Why don’t you realize this?
Father: I am not talking about benefits. I am talking about Dharma. I am talking about the status of the bride’s family. I am trying to point out that the more the dowry they pay, higher will be their status.
Son: There you are! For you, what is important is status. Dharma is only a mask you are using. It is amply evident in your words.
Father: For me, Dharma itself is status.
Son: It is very pleasing to the ears. But, what is evident from your talk is that you are expecting status and not Dharma. Why do we need status which does not give us happiness? Once we accept dowry, the bride will start looking down upon us. She may even take us to court of law. Why invite such trouble? Wouldn’t it be a better idea to look for a girl who can match me in her paycheck?
Father: If such a girl indeed agrees to marry you, what makes you think that she will surrender all her earnings to you month after month?
Son: What else will she do? She may not want to give the money to me. Surely, she will use it for our children. Won’t she?
Father: It is a distant situation. Till then, where is the guarantee that she will hand over all her earnings to you? She may want to support her brothers and sisters. She may want to help her ailing parents. Can you say no?
Son: All questions will not have straightforward answers. In fact, even law can not answer all questions. It is up to us to use our intelligence and get what we want.
Father: Do you mean to say that you will take the money forcibly from your wife? Is it lawful? If this lawful, how come dowry is unlawful?
Son: Old time thinking like justice, dharma etc., may get us nowhere. We should think about our convenience too.
When the argument reached this stage, it caught more heat. Both were arguing in top of their voice. The situation had turned sour. It so happened that the boy’s uncle came there, as if sent by god. He could immediately sense the tension in the air. He was known to be witty and good humored. He wasted no time in consoling both of them. He even distilled the essence of the arguments of both the son and the father. This uncle was popular for his intelligence and ingenuity. But he found himself handicapped in this situation. He let out a long sigh and said,
Uncle: I have one more problem in my family. I don’t have a son. I have only one daughter. Whenever I tell her to study well, she says "why should I study well? I know what happens later. I will study well, get good grades, find a good job, and, after I get married, I should just surrender my paycheck to my husband, month after month."
Son: My dear uncle! Your situation is different. My father’s situation is different. My father has a son and a daughter as well.
Uncle: I am wondering if I should treat this problem as my personal problem or as a social problem.
Son: Why should we bother about the society?
Uncle: If that is how you feel, why then are you afraid that your wife may take you to court if you accept dowry? Why are you bothered about the public who might shun you? Why do you aspire for status and respect? Even you require the society. Your father too needs the society. Outwardly though, both of you say ‘why should we bother about others?’
Father: I don’t have double standards. I don’t speak one think outside and another inside. I have always maintained that we need the society. All I am saying is that we should protect the status that has been handed down to us by our forefathers. I maintain that it is Dharma.
Uncle: This is what I don’t understand. Is Dharma itself status? Or is status itself Dharma? I am lost.
Father: Is there any difference between the two? Why do you juggle up words unnecessarily?
Uncle: This is not juggling of words. Let us consider an example. Is there no difference between saying ‘his words are like a sword’ and ‘he speaks through his sword’? When we say his words are like a sword, we mean that he talks sharply and pierces the other person all the time. When we say ‘he speaks with his sword’, we mean that the only language known to him is violence. Similarly, when we say Dharma itself is status, we mean, come what may, sticking to Dharma is of paramount importance. On the other hand, when we say ‘status itself is Dharma’, we mean, maintaining the status at all costs, (even if it means that one takes recourse to bad methods), itself is important. Now, tell me, do both mean the same?
Son: Therefore I maintain that we should not bother about them. Instead, we should concentrate on our convenience.
Uncle: My point exactly. But my doubt is, whether convenience that is least bothered about the society can be realistic? Can it be practical? Can we achieve it? Even if we achieve it, will it not sooner or later, turn out to become an inconvenience and become counter-productive to us? This is my apprehension.
Son: My dear uncle, now you are really juggling words, twisting facts. You are making the situation even more complex. You seem to be playing with my emotions as well as my father’s emotions. What exactly is your standpoint?
Uncle: The deeper I think, the more convinced I become that what is good for the society is good for the individual. I also feel that even the great treatises echo the same opinion.
Father: Do you mean to say that we must discard the practice of our forefathers for the sake of the society’s convenience? You think our forefathers did not have such basic intelligence and understanding of what they practiced?
Son: Why should I respect a society that is conspiring to swallow my convenience?
Uncle: Alright! Don’t pull me from both sides. Although your questions appear different, they are, in reality, one and the same. ‘Should I sacrifice my family tradition for the sake of the society?’ is your father’s question. ‘Why should I sacrifice my convenience for the sake of the society?’ is your problem. Both of you consider the interest of the society secondary. In this aspect, you both seem to concur. Your father says tradition is more important and you say convenience is more important. I don’t see much difference between the two. In the name of sticking to tradition, your father is wishing that the bride should enter the house with a small fortune. You are, on the other hand, wishing that your would be wife should bring home money month after month. The difference is only this – should she bring the money in one lump or should she bring it month after month.
Father: You mean to say that there is no Dharma in my attitude?
Uncle: There is Dharma in your words.
Father: What do you mean?
Uncle: Listen carefully. Leave alone Dharma, neither of you considers society to be important. But, think for a minute. Can there be convenience without a society? Can there be tradition without a society? If so, why cant man live in the forest?
Son: If the society wants to swallow all my comfort and convenience, isn’t it worse than forest?
Uncle: The society will not swallow all your convenience. On the other hand, if it does not swallow some of them, it cannot be a society at all!
Son: Why should I allow the society to deprive me of even one comfort?
Uncle: To safeguard your selfishness.
Son: How is that?
Uncle: There is a fear in you – fear that mightier people in the society might annihilate you just as a lizard gulps flies. You have the selfishness of protecting yourself from mightier people. This selfishness prevents you from swallowing the interests of those who are weaker than you. Not only that, you subscribe to the view that stronger people should protect weaker people. You are eager to follow the rule yourself. By so following the rule, you are taking wider protection. If all those who follow this rule come together, it becomes a society. You are living in such a society, and at the same time screaming at the top of your voice that the society is swallowing your interests. You seem to have forgotten that you have sacrificed your lesser interests to safeguard your higher interests. You seem to suggest that the society is a wild beast, intent on tearing you apart! What should I call this? Should I call this cunningness or self-deceit?
Father: Perhaps it is both!
Uncle: Perhaps it is neither! We become so much used to social life and to the benefits of the society we have been drawing ever since we are born, that we tend to forget how much society is giving us!
Son: Why will we forget what we can see everyday?
Uncle: Consider this. A boy has never seen his parents telling a lie. Even he has never lied. Because of this, he was popularly known as Trueman. He feels that he earned this by his truthfulness. He never thinks that truthfulness was a practice that was instilled in him by his parents right from his early days. He seems to forget it even though his parents are very much alive and he is seeing them everyday. He firmly believes "I have earned that name out of my sheer merit".
Son: That does not answer my question.
Uncle: It has. There is more. Be patient. A particular person living in a society has become used to a particular lifestyle. His family has been enjoying a happy life from such a lifestyle from many generations. It is an undisputed fact that for him to enjoy such a happy life, the social system is the main reason. Such a system itself is Dharma. Everyone forgets that it is this Dharma that is responsible for one’s happy lifestyle. Why is it so? It is because, Dharma is like the foundation of a building. It is not visible. It lies below the ground. Based on its firm foundation, man achieves many a success in life with the help of his talent. Talent is like the wall, while success is like the roof. Everyone can see the walls and the roof. Although everybody knows that walls and roof can not exist without a foundation, they tend to easily forget about the foundation. Encouraged by their success, when they set out to build more floors on that building, the engineer comes to the picture. The engineer will first want to know how strong the foundation is. Till then, no one will have bothered about the foundation. Similarly, although we derive many benefits from the eternal tenets of Dharma that have held our societies since time immemorial, we tend to forget about it, just as one forgets about the foundation of a building. However, when one entertains an idea of having new comforts – hitherto unknown to the society, if the desire happens to be something that does not gel with the overall social system, there will arise a conflict between the society and the person enjoying such benefits. Then, engineers like me interfere and question about the strength of the foundation.
Son: I got the answer. But I am not convinced. For me, I am more important than the society. I do not believe that I should be bound to this society or to this town. If this town does not suit me, I will go to another town, or for that matter, to another country. I will live where I get my comforts.
Uncle: Will you live in the forest?
Son: Why should I?
Uncle: Even if you escape from this society, you have to live in another society. Every society will have its own set of rules – rules that might bind you. What are these rules? It is nothing but an individual earning a degree of independence and convenience by minor sacrifices. Social life is impossible without such a setup. If you run away from one society because there is some inconvenience, you may face some other kind of inconvenience in the other society as well. Even there, you will face friction one day or the other.
Son: I will seek out a society that is convenient to me in all respects. Then there is no question of friction at all!
Uncle: Just because this system expected a small sacrifice from you, you have started disliking it. No matter what the system is, no matter what the rules are, there is no society in this world which does not expect some sort of sacrifice from you. When you are told to make a minor sacrifice, you become angry and want to run away from that society. You will face similar fate wherever you go. Where will you run?
Son: Do you mean to say that there is no society that is not selfish?
Uncle: If there were men without selfishness, and if such men came together, an unselfish society would have come into being. Even if there exists such a society, you will have no place in it because you have selfishness! Of what use is that society that does not accommodate you?
Son: According to you, there is no society in this world that is not selfish. Why talk about something that doesn’t exist?
Uncle: Now, there you are! That’s what I am trying to tell exactly. We should talk about something that exists. In this world, wherever society exists, its people should inevitably make a little sacrifice unselfishly. They must do it.
Son: You yourself have said that there are no unselfish men. In the same breath you are talking about ‘unselfish sacrifice’.
Uncle: Sociologically speaking, a selfishness that is common to all in a society itself is called unselfishness.
Father: Very funny indeed.
Uncle: You will understand if I explain a little further. There is a town. Everyone in that town needs water to drink. It has been found that there is no ground water available in that town. There is no river nearby. The only source of water there is a small natural pond near the hill on the outskirts of that town. The wise of the town discuss the water problem in detail and come to a conclusion that no one should bathe or wash their clothes in that pond. They also arranged for security guards for that purpose. Although this rule is inconvenient to many people, they still accept it. Why? Because, it is a common selfishness. If anyone violates this rule and secretly washes clothes in the pond, they will call that person selfish. Summer came. The water level went down. Again the elders of the town meet and decide that each household will get only two buckets of water per day. However, the rich of the town protest to this and say, "we are prepared to pay more. We need more water". The elders do not agree. "If we agree to exchange water to more money, soon there will be no water left in that pond! Then there will not be any water even to drink" is the logic of the elders. One rich person goes a step ahead. He says ‘If I cant buy water, I will not pay my taxes’. The elders chide him as a selfish person. ‘If I take two buckets of water free of cost, I am not selfish. If I want to buy more water, why am I labeled as selfish?’ the rich person argues. Imagine that you are the elders of the town. What would you have said?
Father: I understand. I agree that a selfishness that is common to all is in fact unselfishness.
Son: Even I am tempted to agree. My only fear is, if I agree, this uncle of mine may want to distribute all my wealth among the people of this society!
Uncle: If I distribute the money in your pocket, it is robbery. No society upholds robbery. What the society expects is a small sacrifice from all its people and not daylight robbery. All the same, it always expects something.
Son: I guess you are right! But I am afraid we have deviated from our original argument.
Uncle: Not in the least! ‘How is our family problem related to the society?’ was your question. "Although both you and your father are inwardly thinking about the society, outwardly both of you are insisting that you are least bothered about the society" this was the conclusion I drew at that point. A long explanation was required to make you realize the truth in it.
Father: Our problem still remains.
Uncle: But we have understood more about the problem. We have also understood that the problem should not be viewed from an individual perspective alone.
Son: That is, we understood that it should be viewed from a social angle.
Father: It means, we must accept dowry.
Uncle: There! That is where I brought up my family situation. I cannot receive any dowry. As far as you are concerned, you will receive dowry, and, you will also have to give dowry. That’s because you have a son and a daughter. You may want to find a girl whose parents are prepared to give more dowry and, when it comes to your daughter, you may want to find a groom who demands less dowry. Or, you may want to use the dowry that you received during your son’s marriage for the marriage expenses of your daughter. That is your convenience.
That is your problem. Your son has nothing to do with it?
Father: How is it possible?
Uncle: You are asking ‘How is it possible?’ Your son asks ‘why should it be that way? If you are entitled to think about your convenience, why shouldn’t I think about mine?’ Well, he may not say so in as many words, but he certainly is thinking on those lines.
Son: Your logic is interesting indeed. But it is taking us nowhere.
Uncle: My logic is analyzing the situation in detail. Its role ends there. The decision is always made by the society.
Father: True. Society is nothing but the tradition that has been in vogue since many generations. The tradition followed by our forefathers is the tradition of the society. Yajnavakya Smriti says

Yasmin deshe ya aachaaro vyavahaarah kula sthitih
Tathaiva parikalpyosou yadaa vashamupaagatah

It means, "when an emperor wins a new kingdom, he should allow the traditions and practices prevailing in that country to continue. He should not enforce what is being practiced in his kingdom." My boy says, the present day social situations have changed and therefore, we also need to modify out practices. I maintain that we should not change the traditions laid down by our forefathers. Even in your opinion reflected the fact that the society always has the final say. When such is the case, why do you speak as though I am committing a heinous crime in accepting dowry?
Uncle: I have not finished yet. There is still a lot to say. Also, you too are not asking your questions properly.
Son: I agree. You said a group of people is a society. Which group are you talking about? Is it the present day group? Is it the group that is long gone? My father says that the group of the bygone era alone is society. For me, the present day group seems important.
Uncle: It is my misfortune that I am unable to strike concurrence with either of you. The groups of yesteryears may not be alive today. Still, we are progressing by making use of their experiences. In out ascent, we are using the experiences of our forefathers as stepping-stones. What I mean to say is, only when yesterday and today mix meaningfully a society can exist. I feel that it is our duty to bring about a better tomorrow by a healthy amalgamation of yesterday and today. Here, yesterday stands for all that we know till this moment. Tomorrow signifies the future.
Son: What if there is a conflict of views between yesterday and today?
Uncle: I have already told what to do. Let me say it again. We should do what is required to bring about a better tomorrow.
Son: How can we know that?
Uncle: By analyzing what the people of yesterday and before did.
Father: I could not phrase it so beautifully as you did. But I also said the same thing.
Uncle: There is however a small difference. You know what your forefathers did. What I am saying is, ‘analyze what they did’.
Father: What do you mean?
Uncle: It is not enough to know what our forefathers did. We must also understand the situations and the purpose behind their actions. That is, we must analyze.
Father: And what does your analysis reveal?
Uncle: It reveals that our forefathers, when faced with tough situations, made certain changes in the practices handed down from their previous generations.
Father: Do you mean to say that our fathers and their fathers did not follow the traditions of their ancestors and therefore, even we need not follow what our forefathers followed?
Uncle: No. I don’t say that. I am only saying that there are instances in the past, when in certain tough situations, when it was inevitable, they made suitable modifications.
Father: That means, among the various practices followed by our forefathers, there are some that have been in vogue from the very beginning and there are also some unsound practices that somehow crept in. Is that what you think?
Uncle: So it seems when we look at the history.
Son: If it is so, how can we distinguish between the timeless good practices and the unsound practices that crept in?
Uncle: It is to give some direction to those who are caught in such situation that our elders have given the following Sookti to us.

Vikateekritam aachaaram
Vamshaanugamapi tyajet
Vikata kramanam pindam
Maatru garbho dhareta kim

"Good practices that have somehow turned into repulsive ones over a period of time, should be rejected even though they have been in practice for many generations. Does the mother’s womb tolerate a monstrous and malformed fetus?"
Son: This Sookti is not saying anything new. It is just telling what you have been explaining.
Uncle: Sooktis of greatmen are like great rivers that appear peaceful but have great depth. They appear very simple. Yet, they are pregnant with a lot of meaning. You need certain techniques to get to the heart of such Sooktis. Listen carefully.
This Sookti is seriously discussing about noble practices and repulsive ones. The scriptures mention different kinds of Dharma. Among them, the practices relevant to particular provinces and particular periods of time will be handed down through generations. They are noble practices. The verse your father quoted – ‘yasmin deshe ya aachaaro vyavahaarah kulasthitih’ refers to such situations.

Just because it is mentioned in the treatises, we should not think that everything written there applies to everybody. For example, if one observed fasting on all days mentioned in the scriptures, one would soon die. To what extent one can observe is decided by the traditional practice. We should not overstep tradition here. This is what is cautioned by Manu in the famous verse "yenaasya pitaro yaataah". Your father did quote this verse also.

The present Sookti is enlightening us about another aspect. Sometimes, due to various reasons, it is possible for good practices to assume a repulsive form in the process of being handed down through generations.

In certain times of tribulation, our ancestors might have made mistakes knowingly. For example, foreigners ruled our country for few centuries. Life was miserable at that time. Our ancestors deliberately gave up certain age-old practices and embraced what is called Apaddharma (dharma that is practiced during distress). It continued for many generations and therefore, people of subsequent generations felt that it was a standard practice and continued it. We have now reached a stage when, we don’t listen to the words of wisdom of noble people who have painstakingly analyzed the present day practices and have separated grains from husk. We refuse to believe them when they say ‘this is not what was practiced by our great ancestors.’ It is very unfortunate. Thinking that taking dowry is a good tradition is a glaring example of distorting the practice of tradition.

There is another kind of situation also. Sometimes, some selfish people of one particular generation may come together and completely disagree with the tradition and may formulate their own tradition. If such people happen to be either rich or famous or great, their tradition will have substantial following and patronage and this will result in the subsequent generations embracing the new, untested tradition. This is another example as to how traditions are corrupted. Kanya Shulka (fees received by the father of the bride) is an excellent example of such distorted tradition. During the early part of the 20th century, this practice was in vogue in some villages in India. That is, just as the boy receives dowry today, the parents of the girl used to demand dowry.
Son: Receiving dowry in exchange of one’s daughter is nothing short of selling one’s daughter. I oppose it too. But what I am supporting is a situation when both the husband and the wife work for the family prosperity. You are trying to equate this with some vicious practice.
Uncle: Let me tell you why I am equating. Let us first understand the meaning of the real meaning of the Sookti. This Sookti is alerting us to the fact that it is possible for good practices to assume an ugly form due to vicissitudes of time.
Father: How to find out which practice has become contaminated?
Uncle: It is easy to recognize chaste practices. We can understand it from various scriptures on Dharma. But the catch is, there are hundreds of treatises and thousands of pronouncements. If we start testing each and every practice under the light of these scriptures, we will soon lose our way. We will never know where we are heading. To save us from such situations, Sage Vyasa has given the world two great verses. The first one is

Shlokaardhena pravakshyaami yaduktam grantha kotibhih
Paropakaarah punyaaya paapaaya para peedanam

"Let me tell you the gist of a million scriptures; helping others is Punya (meritorious act) and tormenting others is Paapa(sinful act). This is the litmus test to decide if a particular act is a meritorious one or a sinful one.
In spite of such lucid presentation, some people question what constitutes help and what constitutes tormenting. The second verse by Sage Vyasa clarifies it as follows;

Apreetim janayet chitte yadanyakrita maanase
Tad anyasmai na kurveeta dharmasyaitat paraayanam

You should refrain from doing those acts that cause discomfort to you when others do it to you. This is the ultimate dictum of Dharma.

These two verses are sufficient to decide if a particular practice – whether handed down the generations or initiated newly – has Dharma in it or not. Using this yardstick, we should decide if a practice is noble or corrupted.

Now, let us turn our attention to our problem. To demand dowry just to maintain our status definitely amounts to tormenting others. Don’t we feel tormented ourselves when someone else does it to us? Therefore, it is a corrupt practice.

Let us come to the subject of demanding a working girl. If the husband and wife both agree to it, work hard and make the family prosperous, it’s a different thing altogether. Let us not bring up questions such as ‘who will care for the children?’ ‘what will happen to the kids when they cannot spend enough time with their parents?’ etc. If we keep those questions aside, there is nothing wrong if both the husband and wife work. However, if a man insists that he will marry only a workingwoman, greed for money becomes very much evident. If the husband insists ‘my wife must bring home money’, it amounts to tormenting others. Therefore, it can be labeled as corrupt practice.

This Sookti is urging that all such corrupt practices must be given up. To make it clear, it uses a very good example.

If the fetus inside the mother’s womb starts causing problems, the womb will expel it and the result is a miscarriage. This does not amount to feticide. Similarly, if one discards a tradition after carefully examining it and proving its corrupt nature, it is not bad. This is what the Sookti is suggesting.

Not only that, if a fetus with anomaly remains in the womb, it may be dangerous for the mother. Therefore, doctors suggest termination of such a pregnancy. Similarly, if a corrupt practice is allowed to continue in the society for a long time, it may prove detrimental to the society itself. Therefore, once such a distortion is detected, it should be abandoned immediately. This is the message the Sookti wants to convey with the help of the simile.
Once an embryo is formed inside a mother’s womb, every mother will want to carry it full term and give birth to it. When the fetus becomes with some anomaly, the mother’s womb will try its best to resolve it and continue the pregnancy. However, if the anomaly is a major one, it will expel it and safeguards itself.

The simile in the Sookti indicates that just because a new thought comes to the mind, it should not immediately replace the old thought. Also, just because something is in our society for a long time, it does not mean that we should stick to it at all costs.
Accepting dowry, insisting that the wife should be an earning member – these are a few examples. Every society must have a body which meets from time to time and analyze the practices prevailing in that society. It must also analyze and modify age-old traditions in an unbiased manner. Such governing bodies were existing in ancient eras.

Did the quarrel between the father and son end at all is not important to us. What is important is, we must imbibe the message of the Sookti that delves into the core of the problem brought about by such arguments. May Adi Guru Dattatreya bless everyone so that Dharmic tendency triumphs in the society.

Jaya Guru Datta.

Sri Swamiji