by greed, anger or delusion, whether present in mild, medium or intense degree, result
in endless pain and ignorance; so there is the necessity of pondering over the oppo-
sites.
In this Sutra Patanjali has given a brilliant analysis of the factors which are in-
volved in this gradual transformation of undesirable into desirable tendencies and
modern psychology should incorporate the many valuable ideas given in this Sutra in
its system of ethics. This Sutra is a typical example of the vast and varied information
which can be condensed in the few words of a Sutra and made readily available to the
practical student. The first factor we have to deal with in relation to the evil tendencies
which are sought to be overcome by Yama-Niyama, is the question of instrumentality.
Instrumentality: Evil action may be (a) done directly, (b) caused to be done
through the agency of another, (c) be connived at or approved. Common law takes
cognizance of and recognizes responsibility in case of (a) and (b) but not in(c). But
according to the ethics of Yoga, blame attaches to all three types of evil actions, there
being only a question of degree. The man who sees a thief breaking into a house but
does not do anything to prevent the crime is partly responsible for the crime and will
to that extent have to bear the Karmic result and degradation of character.
It is desirable to have clear ideas with regard to this question because a very
large number of people—good, honest people— manage to deceive themselves and
ease their conscience by supposing that if they have not taken a direct part in an evil
action they are quite free from blame. Thus, for example, in India many people would
shrink with horror if they were asked to slaughter a goat and yet they allow themselves
to believe that they incur no Karmic responsibility in taking meat because it is the
butcher Who kills the goat. This illustrates incidentally the enormous capacity for self-
deception in the case of human beings where their prejudices come in or where their
self-indulgences are at stake.
But more noteworthy than this doing of evil action indirectly is perhaps the
third way of participating in it. We some times witness a crime but owing to callous-
ness or desire to avoid getting into trouble do nothing about it or may even silently
approve of it. We assume that because we have not taken any part—direct or indi-
rect—in the crime we are quite free from blame. But it is not so according to the Yogic
ethics embodied in Yama-Niyama. According to the more stringent rules of Yogic mo-
rality a man who connives at or is indifferent to a crime being done in his presence in