One can be unhappy while being good

THE Tibetan Buddhist teacher Dudjom Rinpoche narrates the story of a fear¬some bandit from India, who, after a lifetime devoted to looting and pillaging began to repent for all the terrible suffering he had been causing. He began to yearn for atonement, for some way of absolving himself from what he had done. He lay down his arms and went up to the ashram of a renowned rishi and said to him: “All my adult life I've been a killer and I am now in torment. Is there a way of making amends, some way of offering expiation (prayashchitta) for all my past sins?”

The rishi looked the bandit up and down and then asked him what he was good at. After a prolonged silence, the bandit sheepishly admitted that if there was one thing he seemed to have talent for it was for stealing. The rishi replied with a smile that the repenting dacoit's honest answer was perfectly in order, that the skill of the light-fingered fraternity was exactly the sort of expertise he'd need now to save his soul. “Please go to a quiet glade in the Himalaya and try to rob yourself of all your perceptions. While you are at it, steal off all the stars and planets in the sky, “the rishi exhorted: “Steal the mountains and silver-topped forests and the rivers and streams too and" dissolve them all into the belly of emptiness, the all-encompassing space of the nature of mind.

With great humility and one-pointedness of purpose, the bandit did exactly as he was advised and soon realised the true nature of his mind, and eventually came to be regarded as one of the great saints of India. What this means is, like the cat, a bandit too can have many lives and not all of them have to be bad. In fact, we shouldn't also be equating happiness with goodness as many hedonists or utilitarians tend to do. One could be happy being bad as Duryodhana the evil Kaurava prince was. Indeed, for all the 'latter's villainous ways, for the Mahabharata hero Karna, the egotistic prince was a friend worth dying for.

Similarly, one could be unhappy even while being good, as Yudhistira, the Pandava prince was after the Great War. His victory was haunted by the colossal loss of lives and the many compromises the Pandavas had to make with truth and fair play to get back their kingdom. However, as Sri Krishna teaches Arjuna in the Bhagvad Gita, being liberated really goes beyond good and evil, to the root of skilful or enlightened action which stands for righteousness.

Difference between deception lying

When you think of human communication it is rife with deception, says Stephen Nowicki, a biologist at Duke University in the United States. According to him the reason is not far to see. Since the point of communication is to get information across, it presents a great opportunity for liars who may wish to get such information across as would benefit them most. Yet there are some people who attempt to downgrade lying to the level of deception by claiming that a whole lot of animals do it all the time too.Not only does this give it a convenient biological basis but also helps them to shirk a bit of moral responsibility in the bargain.

Yes, there's sham in the animal world. For instance, there are some caterpillars which look exactly like dangerous snakes.It's an example of weaker animal copying a stronger one in order to protect itself. That's hardly dishonesty. But what can be make of the male green frog whose croaks are more like real deception? These animals croak in order to attract females, the lower the pitch of the croak the bigger -- and thus healthier -- the frog. It also serves to drive other male frogs away from the competition. However, it's been observed that some smaller frogs frequently lower the pitch of their croaks too to indicate the same thing.

If that seems a little more deceitful, consider the shrike. These small sparrow - like birds routinely use alarm communication calls to warn others of the presence of predator so that they can fly away. Sometimes though, a shrike uses a false alarm to scare other shrikes away from food which it can then get more of. Now that seems like an outright lie which actually appears to harm others by depriving them of a decent meal.

But is it? Human beings, of course, would like to think so because then they can blame deceit on an animal ancestry. The difference is, a frog that alters its vice does not choose to lower its pitch knowing that doing so will fool other frogs. It's merely an evolved behavioural adaptation.Nor is the shrike deliberately out to starve its companions. Over time, natural selection will ultimately favour those shrikes which are not fooled by the false alarm as they will get enough to eat in the end.

With us that's not the case. Instead it's a well thought out and reasoned deception which fully understands -- and, more importantly, often anticipates -- the consequences such action will have . And then still goes ahead and does it. And damn the consequences. That's the difference.