crdibility - leading ethical life

[Govind Rengarajan]

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> Now, if we consider what we call members on the "low end of the society"
> [e.g. robbers, people who commit crimes etc], although the society
> condemns them, they are not doomed from the viewpoint of the supreme
> Truth.

Yes. We cannot discount the people who commit "crimes" straight
away. Indeed, history tells us that some great sages have been
robbers/hunters before the *transformation*. However, imo, the rules
of the society have nothing to do with the quest for the supreme
truth. The society is a great big machine, and for it to function
smoothly with all its *diversity*, certain "ethical" rules have to
apply. And judgements based on these rules might be necessary in
interactions with the members of the society. So for an average
person, some great sage when he was a robber is hard to distinguish
from a truly condemned robber. As for as the society is concerned,
both are to be condemned because of their (then) negative iinfluence
on the society. On the other hand, the philanthropist, while might
be fully catering to his/her ego, is (probably) not causing any
harm to the society. So he is welcome. In anycase, one cannot make a
statement about another's spiritual maturity just based on his
station/profession/actions. I guess this is where an AcAryA comes
into picture. He can and he will know.

Regards,
govindarajan