beings that will revolt, because a wrong does not mean wrong done against a human
being merely. It is not the violation of a social principle; that is not what is meant by
‘wrong’. A wrong is that which is contrary to the law of Truth itself. So, the natural
order of things will be set against us, the consequences of which are obvious. We
have a false notion that we can do a wrong very secretly so that others may not know
it and so the consequences will not follow, but this is not true. This is a wrong notion
that people entertain.
The wrong is not done privately, though it may be behind a screen and not observed
by other human beings. If a wrong is really a wrong, against the law of nature, there
is no such thing as doing it behind a screen, because nature is within and without. It
is all-pervading, and so it will set up a reaction in its own way at a particular time.
The consequences of a wrong deed are what are known as the nemesis of karma; the
retribution law begins to operate. It can operate in our own personality, it can
operate in society, or it can operate in a future birth. It can be in any place, at any
time, and in any manner whatsoever.
If it is a purely physical violence that we have committed against our own body due to
overeating or overindulgence of any type, the retribution will be in the form of a
physical illness and a diminution of physical vitality, and such other things. If it is
something connected with other people, which is social in principle, it will have a
reaction from society. But if it is a subtle thing which cannot be observed easily, and
a secret wrongdoing has been projected by the mind against what we call natural
justice and law, the retribution may follow in a future birth, or it may be even in this
very birth if the wrong is very intense.
Kṛta kārita anumoditāḥ (II.34). Here, a very cautious definition is given in regard to
wrongdoing. A wrong is not necessarily what we directly do with our hands. Even if
we cause it to be done, it is a wrong, and a share of it will come to us. “You go and do
it,” we tell somebody. Somebody else has done it, but we have caused it to be done.
We have been the incentive behind it; we have instigated that action. The instigator
will certainly be bound by the nemesis of the action, because the cause is not the
actual doer; the instigator is equally a cause since he has pushed the person as an
instrument of action. Therefore, one who does it deliberately is the cause, one who
causes it to be done also is a cause, and one who approves of it also is a cause—
anumodita. “Well done. Very good.” If we say that, we will get some share of it.
We cannot simply go scot-free like that saying, “I have not done anything.” We have
approved of it. We may approve of it verbally, or even mentally. “Oh, very good; it
should be like that. The fellow deserved it.” If mentally, we think like that, we will get
some share because we had that thought. Even if a rat is being killed by a cat, we
should not feel satisfied: “This wretched thing has gone. It was troubling me
yesterday.” We may not say it, but we feel that it is very good. This kind of feeling is
atrocious. Somebody’s pain cannot cause us pleasure.
Kṛta kārita anumoditāḥ (II.34). The doing, the causing to be done, and the approval—
all three are equally culpable. The consequences will be equal, and one cannot be
exempted from the consequences of those deeds. Here, the psychological aspect is
more important than the verbal and the physical. Even a thought in this direction is
subject to this law. As a matter of fact, thought is real action. The physical deed is not
as important. What the mind thinks, feels and affirms—that is the real action.