Good to have you among us, Vriju! We have missed storytime.
This story illustrates how adherence to an injuction, law, or principle may be selfishly stretched to rather far extremes.
But what about when the situation when the principle or law for the sake of others, for the 'good cause', for survival, civil disobedix...? A swami once advised me that sometimes we do need to act on a higher principle, but in chosing to do this, we should be prepared to accept the consequences of breaking the law if caught.
Another swami was quoted as saying we should tell the truth, but not a harsh truth. Again, I think motive is the key. I don't think I the intent was tell us never to say anything bad or negative; but rather not to willfully or unthinking use "truth"as an excuse for hurting others.
Jayanti, you have raised two very pertinent points:
(1) Civil disobedience or what Gandhiji called "Sattyagraha" is a non-violent and peaceful disobedience of the man made laws when they are believed to be unjust. Here one is prepared to take the consequences without retaliation or resentment.
(2) Yes, Holy Mother also asked devotees not to hurt others even by a harsh word. "One must not speak unpleasant truths unnecessarily. By indulging in rude words one's nature becomes rude. One loses sensitivity without control over one's words."
In the story, however, Mullah Nasrudddin did not follow the true 'spirit' or the 'purpose' of the law. Had he announced loudly his 'find' in the market place, when there were people around, on three separate occassions (as the true spirit of the law demanded) then most probably the news would have got to the rightful owner of the diamond. Since his intention was to keep the diamond for himself he did what he did thereby deceiving himself in believing that he obeyed the law. Here the law is just -- it is saying " Make every effort to find the owner"
