It was prince’s first day in the royal court. It so happened that on that very day the case of a notorious bandit had come up for judgment. The case was already heard in the lower courts and had now finally come to the king for judgment. The bandit was so notorious that his very name brought shivers of fear among people of that country. Even the chief commanders were afraid to punish him because, the bandit’s son was known to be even more ruthless. If his father were punished, the son would certainly take revenge. This was the reason why they were reluctant to convict the bandit. Therefore, his case had finally arrived to the king’s court. The king conducted an enquiry and immediately handed out death sentence. The bandit gave out a contemptuous laughter. In a flash the king jumped from his throne, drew out the sword and beheaded the bandit.

The citizens of that country became terrified. The king however remained calm and initiated steps to preserve law and order in his kingdom.

The bandit’s son, whom everyone anticipated to get provoked, silently disappeared from the kingdom. He escaped to a distant town and started to give financial support to the people of backward classes of that town.

Several years passed by. The king passed away. The prince took over the responsibility of the kingdom. The bandit’s son reappeared in his kingdom and started looting people mercilessly. However, he was immediately caught. As with his bandit father, his case also was brought to the king for hearing.

The erstwhile king was famous for his righteous judgments. The present king wanted to earn similar fame and he thought that an opportunity had come to prove his wisdom. He was about to deliver death penalty to this thief. The minister intervened and said. "Your Highness! There are certain things that I want to bring to your kind notice. Therefore, please reserve your judgment till later."

The king became angry. Out of respect for his elderly minister, he declared that the judgment would be delivered later. Later, in privacy a heated exchange of words took place between the king and the minister.

King: You asked me to postpone my verdict because you were afraid that we may not be able to handle the law and order situation if we hanged the thief. Is it not so?
Minister: Certainly not!
King: What then was your purpose?
Minister: All that I wanted to ensure was that the verdict was righteous.
King: Minister! You seem to suggest that my verdicts are not just and righteous. I was about to deliver the verdict on the lines of my father’s judgment. Does it not mean that you were not so happy about my father’s verdicts also?
Minister: Certainly not! Your father was unparalleled when it came to delivering just verdicts. I was one of his great admirers.
King: This is rather strange. If my father gives the verdict, it is just. If I give the same judgment, it is unrighteous. What then according to you is righteousness?
Minister: That which holds together and supports is Dharma.
King: What does it hold and support?
Minister: The whole world.
King: In this vast universe, there are innumerable stars, planets and other heavenly bodies. It is the gravitational force and not your quotations from scriptures that ensures that they do not scatter away haphazardly, or collide with one another. If you take the trouble of going to scientific literature, you will realize it.
Minister: Be that as it may. Recently, there were floods in the nearby river. Our informers told us that many villages were washed away due to floods. You may recall that we went to the place to make a survey of the situation. Houses, trees, temples were still there. How foolish of our informers! They had told us that there was nothing left.
King: I don’t know what to say. I do not know why you are talking like this. The entire village is deserted. There is no sign of a human being. Not even an animal. If there are no people and cattle, how can we call it a village? Because all the people and animals of the village were washed away, our informers told us that the entire village was gone. What is wrong with it?
Minister: When our informers told that the village was washed away, you understood it to mean that the people and animals of the village were washed away. Similarly, when I said that Dharma holds the world, I meant that it holds the mankind living on earth. I am not trying to discard science. I am only trying to say that it is Dharma alone that holds the human race to ensure that it (mankind) does not become annihilated.
King: Even then you are wrong. It is the food that people eat that nourishes and sustains them. No amount of words of wisdom can satiate hunger. Nor can they add a few years to one’s lifespan.
Minister: Your Highness! People can eat food only if it is there! They can eat if they are allowed to! Many a time, in spite of a good harvest, poor people will have nothing to eat.
King: Therefore, you must realize that the policies formulated by rulers such as food policy, economic policy, defense policy etc., are responsible for sustaining mankind on earth.
Minister: May be it is so! But all these policies are useful if there is a decent harvest. Have we not seen many times clouds thundering only to pour into the sea? There are occasions when it does not rain where it is really needed. Many times the fully-grown crops are destroyed by cyclones. Sometimes, when everything seems to be going well, pests infest the fields and eat away all the crops. Are you saying that all these happen as per the policies laid down by the rulers?
King: Who can prevent natural calamities?
Minister: If one tries to think as to why they come, perhaps one can find out if it is possible to prevent them.
King: Have you thought about it?
Minister: Not me, but the immortal sages have thought about it. These sages, who have mastered the power of living forever have made a well documented observation about different times – hard times, good times, times when mankind faced natural calamities, times when there was social and political upheaval, so on and so forth. They also observed as to how men behaved in good times and what their behaviour was in bad times. After repeated and continuous observation, they came to the following conclusion: Whenever people lead their lives based on noble values such as truth, purity, compassion, non-violence etc., they were living happily and peacefully. On the other hand, when people lead their lives based on the opposite values, they succumbed to natural calamities, terrorism, and political turmoil. Not only that, such societies were heading towards absolute destruction. On the other hand, when people treaded the path of truth, non-violence, compassion etc., they lead a long life devoid of hardships. This is the observation made by those great sages. Therefore, they concluded that values such as truth and non-violence were conducive to mankind in ensuring its longevity. Therefore, they called those values as ‘Dharma’ – that which sustains mankind. Your Highness! This is what I meant when I said that Dharma sustains the world.
King: Minister! Your analysis is indeed sublime. But is it appropriate for us to stick to some value system advocated by somebody long long ago? Do you mean to say that we do not need to think afresh? Is it a sin to make our own analysis and decision?
Minister: Your Highness! You say that my analysis is superlative. At the same time, you are saying ‘I would like to make my own analysis and decision’. Very well. It is not my nature to deprive anybody of his right. Instead, it is my desire that every person should think well. But it must be borne in mind that the analysis made by those immortal sages who have lived down the ages and our analysis based on the observation of a few generations will not be much different. If there appears some difference, what should we take it to be? Should we say that the immortal sages are wrong? Or should we say that we have erred somewhere?
King: May be our observation is not wrong! May be their analysis is also correct! Their observation may have been appropriate for their times. Our analysis may be right for our circumstances. If you closely observe life, what is Dharma for one person may be Adharma for another person. What was Dharma yesterday may be Adharma tomorrow.
Minister: I would have agreed with you if those immortal sages had laid down tenets of Dharma for particular period of time. But it is not so. They analyzed carefully the behaviour of people when they (people) were happy and prosperous and observed that in all such times, their life style followed a particular pattern. They concluded that this life style was conducive to mankind’s overall well being and called such life style as Dharmic life. How can we say that it applies only to a particular era?
King: It appears that you do not want me to analyze or think. You even seem to reject the fact that Dharma will change according to time, place and those who follow it.
Minister: Definitely not! Man is different, human body is different. The body may grow strong or weak. Man does not change. Similarly, the body of Dharma may change. As rightly pointed out by you, it keeps changing depending on place and time. Therefore, one should keep making analyses from time to time. From this stand point, it is imperative that we need to think about it constantly.
King: If the body of Dharma were to be different from Dharma itself, how can we know if the Dharma living in its body is alive or dead? Can we ever recognize a person who has no body at all? Similarly, can anyone recognize Dharma which has nothing to do with Dharma Shareera (body of Dharma)?
Minister: Your Highness! We can not recognize a person who has no body. But we can recognize a body that has no man in it. We call it a corpse. Similarly, if we understand what constitutes Dharma as envisaged by the Rishis, we will be able to tell if Dharma is still alive in the Dharma Shareera.
King: Let us try to be more specific. The judgment I was about to pronounce is a Dharma Shareera. It is your feeling that Dharma is not living in it, or there is no Dharma in that verdict. Is it not because of this feeling that you wanted me to keep the judgment in abeyance? You are elder to me both in age and wisdom. I do not doubt your judgment. May I know as to how you recognized that there was no Dharma in my verdict?
Minister: Your Highness! I really want you to know it. In fact, I am yearning for that to happen. My apprehension is, whether I will be able to tell you about in a way you can understand.
King: Why do you say that?
Minister: I am trying to enter your heart through your own statements and remarks. Only you know with certainty as to what is there in your heart. If you do not reveal it, it is useless even if I enter your heart. This is my apprehension.
King: How wonderfully you speak! I may not be humble and polite. But I certainly am honest.
Minister: Very good. You seem to be eager to deliver judgments as boldly and righteously as your father did.
King: What is wrong in it?
Minister: Think patiently and objectively. Can we say that desire for fame is in the back of your mind?
King: It may not be there! O.K. it may be there! Is it wrong?
Minister: Your Highness! This is exactly where the life of Dharma dwells. The Rishis have discussed about this at great length. Finally, they have concluded that Dharma or Adharma does not lie in the acts men perform, but in the intentions behind the acts. Your Highness! Even though there is desire for fame, sometimes your decisions may turn out to be correct. They may be righteous. Sometimes they may not be. Therefore, it is better to ponder before taking any decision. It is because of this reason that I begged you to postpone the pronouncement.
King: How on earth could you think that there may be flaw in my judgment?
Minister: The father of the person you were about to punish spent his entire life in wicked deeds. But this person had, for sometime, performed a few good deeds. Only now, he has become wicked. There is difference between the two. Still, you were about to pass the same judgment. If you study the lifestyle of his father, you will notice that there was not even an iota of Dharma in his life. Therefore, there was no hope that he could be transformed for better. Therefore, the sentence was also radical in nature. It is not so in this present case. We can see some inkling of Dharma in this person’s life. There may be scope for transformation. It is the duty of any ruler to bring about transformation in his erring citizens. This should be the real aim of any government. Only when there is no hope of any transformation, the ruler should punish the offender with death sentence to safeguard the society. Because the punishment is pronounced for social welfare with a hatred-free heart, the judge in question does not get any sin. On the contrary, the judge will get merit (punya) for having provided proper atonement to the offender. At the same time, the judge will be preventing that person from tormenting the society once and for all. In the present case, what has to be decided first is, whether there is any scope for positive transformation in this criminal. Unless this is done, one cannot decide if death sentence is appropriate or not.
King: You are being too optimistic.
Minister: May be. May be your desire for fame is too intense. All that I am trying to say is, ponder over it before passing the judgment.
King: I have no proof to establish that you are being too optimistic. Therefore, I would like to honour your view and change my verdict to life imprisonment.
The attitude of the king in the above conversation is much similar to the way of thinking of the youth of today. The king changed the verdict in the end. But at that time, the swaying of indecisiveness in his mind had not stopped. The following Sookti is targeted at those who are in such dilemma.

Yastvatra dharmo na tathaa sa tatra
Kohyatra hetussamayotha deshah
No bhou sakhe yat shubha bhaava nunnam
Tatkarma dharmokhila deshakaale

"What is Dharma here may not be Dharma there. What is the reason for this? Is it the place or is it the time? Dear friend, it is neither the place nor the time. Those acts which are done upon the motivation of noble thoughts are acts of Dharma".
Try to understand this short definition of Dharma in the light of the above discussion.

This Sookti is conveying the same attitude, as did the minister in the above discussion. If there is noble thought behind the act that men do, then the act becomes a Dharmic one. In saying so, it is revealing an important point. In the above discussion, it was said that the body of Dharma was different from Dharma. This Sookti now says that the acts that men do constitute Dharma Shareera. The intent behind the acts is the Prana (life) of Dharma.

Sage Vyasa has reflected similar opinion at the end of the Sangrahadhyaya of Mahabharata. He says:

Tapo na kalkodhyayanam na kalkah
Svaabhaaviko vedavidhir na kalkah
Prasahya vittaaharanam na kalkah
Taanyeva bhaavopahataani kalkah

In this verse, the term ‘Kalka’ means sin. Vyasa says ‘penance is not a sin; studying scriptures is not a sin; performing deeds in accordance with the Vedas is not a sin; taking away one’s wealth by force is also not a sin. The attitude behind these acts decides if they are acts of sin (or merit).

Who said penance etc., are sinful acts? Even though no one has said so, why did Vyasa need to affirm that they are not acts of sin? Also, why does Vyasa say that taking away one’s wealth by force is not a sin! What is this? The answer to this question lies in the last line – ‘if one does these acts with bad intentions in mind, each of the above acts becomes a sinful act’. This is Vyasa’s verdict.

To make it clear, if there is bad intention in the mind, even penance becomes a sinful act. So is the study of scriptures. So is performing Vedic rituals. On the other hand, if there is noble intent in the mind, even taking away others’ wealth by force becomes a meritorious act.

This diktat of Sage Vyasa is like a double-edged sword. If this is not properly understood, it will behead the holder himself. To understand it properly, let us consider two examples.
In mythology we come across characters such as Ravana, who performed intense Tapas as ordained in the Vedas. But with what intention? Their intent was to torment the world. Therefore, even though it is penance, it is not a meritorious act. It is certainly a sinful act.
A ruler extorts money from the rich in the form of taxes. The rich do not like it. Still, the ruler goes ahead and extracts taxes form them. What is the intent behind collecting taxes by force? It is not selfishness. In order to provide basic amenities to the citizens (even to those poor citizens who do not pay taxes), the ruler collects taxes within the framework of law. Therefore it is not a sin.

In the light of these two examples, if we try to understand the above verse given by Sage Vyasa, we will understand what constitutes life of Dharma.

In the conversation between the king and the minister, the king had asked "should we not make a fresh analysis?"

Alexander, a Russian writer who flourished in the beginning of the twentieth century has written a book named Sane Sex Order, based on his observations of the history of mankind, with special reference to morals and conduct of people. He has dealt in detail, the behaviour and lifestyle of people of different civilizations when those respective civilizations were at their zenith. His has based his observations on different aspects of life, namely art, literature, dress code of men and women etc. etc.. What he observed was, whenever people followed the lifestyle and codes of conduct laid down by ancient Indian Rishis, those civilizations flourished well. They had reached the zenith. On the other hand, the civilizations collapsed when they discarded such value systems. It was the same irrespective of whether the civilization was oriental or occidental. This is not an observation made by an Indian writer. It is by a Russian writer, that too a Nobel Laureate. This book is a good example to show that if we make an unbiased analysis even today, we will arrive at the same conclusion. Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan (Mumbai), an organization committed to propagation of ancient Indian culture, has published this book.

Thus, because the observations of modern day thinkers and the analyses of ancient sages are similar, this Sookti has stated that Dharma does not depend on and vary from time to time and country to country. Irrespective of what country it is and what era it is, noble thoughts constitute Dharma and actions performed with noble thoughts constitute the body of Dharma (Dharma Shareera). The Sookti also urges us to appreciate the difference between Dharma Shareera and Dharma. There is an air of caution in this Sookti when it says that noble thoughts constitute the life of Dharma. If one thinks that the Dharma Shareera is more important and neglects the Prana (life) dwelling in it, it becomes Adharma. This is the caution.

With the passage of time, new situations crop up from time to time. They assume the form of Dharmic dilemmas. One may also be tempted to think that the age old proclamations of Dharma are not suitable for the present age. At such times, it may become necessary to make slight modifications in the Dharma Shareera (body of Dharma). When such a situation arises, one should not take decisions according to one’s whims and fancies. The decisions should not be taken impulsively. The learned should form an assembly and the issue should be discussed in that forum and new resolutions should be taken. The object of this Sookti is to give a brief description of the ageless tenets of Dharma so that proper decisions can be taken in such forums.

May this hidden message enlighten your hearts so that Dhrama shines brightly in your lives.

Jaya Guru Datta.

Sri Swamiji