How can we determine an act as a sinful one or a meritorious one? ‘Depending on what the scriptures say’- may be a simple answer. But is it not necessary to try to understand the basis on which the scriptures have made such classification?

A person with heart disease is fighting for life. A person living in the neighbouring house gets a good news and yells with joy. The heart patient becomes frightened by the sound and collapses. Men of wisdom have ordained that shouting so loudly is a sin.

Once a pregnant woman dies when a thunder strikes nearby. Peacocks in the nearby forest dance with joy when they hear the thunder. A plant gives out fresh leaves. How shall we classify the thunder? Shall we brand it as a sinful act or a meritorious act? When it is not possible to brand the thunder as a sinful act or a meritorious act, how is it possible to attribute sin to the shouting?

We will face this problem whenever we try to affix the label of either Paapa (sin) or Punya (meritorious act) on an action. As a matter of fact, an action does not descend from the sky all of a sudden. For an action to take place, there must be an effort behind it. Behind the effort, there must be desire which prompts one to make that effort. The knowledge that a particular effort will yield a particular fruit will be behind the desire. Behind the knowledge, there will be a doer. Thus, between the action and the doer, there are three steps - knowledge, desire and effort.

For example, a person sees a beautiful necklace in a forest. Because he found it in a place where people do not live, does he think that the necklace sprouted out of the ground just like the forest trees? No. Because there is a lot of workmanship involved in it, the person will naturally understand that there is some effort. He will also realise that in order to make such a beautiful piece of jewellery, there must be a desire to do it. It can not be created unintentionally. He will also realise that behind the desire, there must be the necessary knowledge. It is not enough if the knowledge is in the books. It must be present in the doer. Only then an ornament can be created.

Therefore, action is the culmination of the four steps viz., doer, knowledge, desire and effort. Because we tried to label an action - which is the outcome of the four steps - as either Paapa or Punya, we had to face a situation such as above. In order to escape from such a situation, if we try to paste the label of sin on any one of the four steps, we will face similar situation.

Effort and desire - these two aspects claim that they are not independent and therefore they should not be labelled at all. Knowledge says ‘because I always illuminate, I am always pure’. The doer argues that because his actions depend on knowledge and because knowledge is always pure, he is also always pure.

While effort and desire say that they should not be labelled at all, knowledge and doer argue that they are always pure and therefore, only the label of merit should be pasted on them. If it is so, where then can we paste the other label?

The same old problem has reappeared in a different colour.

Knowledge is always pure. There is no doubt or debate about it. Also, no one complains as long as knowledge is helping others. Only when one’s knowledge causes harm to another person, the affected person will want to affix the label of sin on the doer or the knowledge itself. It is not possible to paste one label on two things. Now, where should the label be pasted - on the knowledge or on the doer?

If knowledge only presents the matter of fact and the doer is as innocent as he claims to be, how come the doer has used knowledge as a weapon?

This is where the concept of Ichchaa (desire, intention) comes in to picture. Because of Ichchaa, the Jeevi (being) develops the tendency to use the knowledge and thus becomes a Karta (doer). The Jeevi (being), who has become a Karta (doer), performs either a sin or a meritorious act depending upon the desire. Therefore, the label of sin should be pasted on the doer.

But the Jeevi (being) does not accept so easily. He argues that the label should be stuck to Ichchaa (desire or intention). This is acceptable only if he is able to keep Ichchaa at a safe distance and himself remains as a witness. But he invariably experiences Ichchaa and thus, in order to fulfil it, takes the help of Jnaana (knowledge) and makes some Prayatna (effort). Because of this effort, the Jeevi (being)becomes a Karta (doer). Therefore, the Jeevi who has made an effort to fulfil his desire can not escape the label of sin.

By this it is clear that although the Jeevi (being) and Jnaana (knowledge) are pure by nature, because of the influence of Ichchaa (desire), the Jeevi is forced to make efforts and thereby becomes a sinner. Knowledge helps him in this.

Even after so much of exercise, the label of sin is being stuck to effort, desire and doer, while knowledge and action escape. Because there is no effort, desire or doer, it was not possible to label the thunder.

The Jeevi who has transformed himself as a doer, in other words, one who uses knowledge as a weapon, will also be eager to use the instrument of knowledge to acquire wealth. In fulfilling his desires, it is Jnaana which helps him either in the form of wealth or weapon. Therefore, we see that those who possess wealth or weapon are rewarded high position in the society.

The doer, who has become accustomed to using wealth and weapon in excess will gradually forget that these two instruments have in fact come from knowledge. Therefore, they start treating knowledge as something which has no value.

This is the state of the present day society. The following Sookti not only reflects it, but also cautions us about the repercussions.

The first part of the Sookti compares Janna (knowledge) with gem and money with glass pieces. If someone is trading off his gem for the sake of glass pieces, can we call him a knowledgeable person? When the knowledgeable person himself engages in trading off his knowledge for money, how then can we call this knowledgeable person as knowledgeable?

It is like asking ‘how to call fire as fire’! The question itself is contradictory. But when such a situation is quite clearly visible, how can we ignore it? It appears like a cinder, but it does not burn the hands. What should we call it? Shall we call it a special type of stone? But when it is thrown on a heap of straw, it gives off smoke. How can we say that it is not cinder? This is the state of the present day man. He is becoming an Ajnaani (ignorant) even though he possesses knowledge.

What is the reason for this?

For an object to retain its nature, it should be used in a way it ought to be used. If one argues ‘ it is not fit to be used in its original form’ and tries to uses in a different way, one will tend to forget the original nature of the object and will start attaching more importance to its modified appearance.

For example, assume that a king asks his minister to dress up as a soldier and stand as a guard outside the fort. By doing so, the king is not only merely using the physical strength of an intelligent person, but is also losing person who can advise him at the time of need. Such an act may even ruin the king in due course of time.

Similarly, if a man of knowledge uses it by converting it in to the form of wealth, it amounts to removing the real value of knowledge and converting it in to Ajnaana. Therefore, although he appears as a man of knowledge, he is only as good as a person who sells precious gems and accumulates pieces of worthless glass!

This is the state of the so called knowledgeable persons in the society today. The first part of the Sookti reflects this situation. The second part cautions us about its effects.

Today’s intelligent man is exchanging peace with violence. If he wishes to progress in that path even further, he must aim at total destruction of life itself! If today’s ‘intelligent’ persons move in the same direction with the same speed, that day may not be far off.

In order to caution us about such persons who have become wealthy (rich as well as powerful) by selling their knowledge, the Sookti has used the phrase "Yojnaavaan". In Sanskrit, this term can be split in two different ways to give two different meanings. ‘Yah Jnaanavaan’ (one who is endowed with Jnaana) and ‘Yah Ajnaanavaan’(one who is ignorant). By such classification, the Sookti stresses that one who appears as though he has knowledge (but indulges in selling it for lowly purposes) is in fact an ignorant person. The question "with what shall we weigh such a person …" indirectly implies that there is no act more heinous than that.

This is a warning. What is the remedy?

The remedy is hidden in the last part of the last line. Tam tulayaama kena - means ‘with what shall we weigh them’? If the same line is read as Tam Tu Layaama Kena, it gives a different meaning altogether. It means, in order to revive the person who has fallen from knowledge to ignorance, he must be made to experience divine knowledge, which alone is capable of transforming the heart.

Only a Sadguru can show us the path to acquire divine knowledge. Only Divine love can transform the heart. Therefore, the guidance of the Sadguru and True Love are the only remedies for today’s ailing world.