You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    How do you justify this ending? You decide.

    Once upon a time there was a sage who was lost in his prayer with his eyes closed. In a moment of time he suddenly awakened to some disturbances around & noticed that a deer had just passed him & lost in the darkness followed by the hunter but by the time hunter reached to the saint he lost of the direction to where the deer might have gone. In order to seek help, he asked the saint about where the deer ran away & the saint told the hunter with the right information as a result of which the hunter caught the deer & killed him. What I have been told of after this is that although the saint was a religious person throughout his life but he was sent to hell for some time with the reason being that his one action led to the death of the deer.

    Do you justify this ending or the saint should have misled the hunter in order to save the deer but then the saint would have assisted by a lie & possibly he would have destined for accordingly?
  • #658241
    Nobody can justify such an ending. But the moral of the story is: Telling truth is not always good.
    Come on, have a fight. Don't shoot and scoot.

  • #658242
    Instead of telling the truth and getting into hell after death, knowing that the hunter would kill the deer, the saint should have asked the hunter to stop hunting for the night, take rest, and continue in the morning. By this, the deer would have escaped from the hunter.

    @ Don't tell truth or lie but try to manipulate and save the lives.

    No life without Sun

  • #658244
    Life of anyone is more important than telling lie. In my opinion, the saint should not have told the right direction in which the deer went or he should have asked the hunter not to kill this innocent animal. Telling lie might not have sent this saint to the hell.

    " It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not" ... Andre Gide

  • #658247
    The saint told the truth without bothering for the safety of deer. It means saint knew that whatever he tells does not matter if something is already fixed in the destiny of the deer. So the saint chose the normal path of telling truth.

    The saint did as per his belief without bothering for hell or heaven.

    Thoughts exchanged is knowledge gained.

  • #658252
    We all have heard the saying that "we have the right to work, but never to the fruit of the work". Hunter asked for the direction and sage helped him. Sage offered help and did not think of the fruits that he had to bear. One should not long for inaction and that is what sage did. Thus, he couldn't have afforded to not help the hunter. It is up to the hunter whether to kill or save the life of deer.

    Sage was punished by sending to hell and that is because an innocent deer was killed. Sometimes we tend to harm others in our innocence or ignorance. Even if sage had not given the right direction to the hunter or misled him or lied to him, he would have been sent to hell. These are all wrong deeds. A wrong deed is going to get punished. I don't feel that anything is unjustifiable in the story. If I had to change the story a bit, I would have recommended that sage would have tried to stop hunter by helping him understand the difference between right and wrong deeds.

  • #658255
    I think the sage did the right thing telling the truth to the hunter. If you feel saving the life of a deer was an obligation for sage then I think It was the obligation of a hunter to spare the deer in the first place. If sage was sent to hell, then hunter should also get the same treatment.

  • #658257
    # Umar I guess the hunter too had the same fate or worse than the sage as he killed the innocent creature. He could have saved the deer if he wanted too but maybe as he was sainy so he had to speak the truth only.

    " It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not" ... Andre Gide

  • #658259
    Jungle law is a thing that our vedas acknowledge. Vedas don't claim that predators go to hell for all their meat eating. Its the law of jungle. So the hunter who needed the deer for a living was doing his job. The sage only assisted the hunter following the jungle law. I love Sun's answer. Its brilliant but I am not convinced that a hungry hunter would listen to any advice.
    I don't think the sage should have gone to hell solely because he told hunter the truth. He should have gone to hell if he sought revenge of the deer because it disturbed his penance.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #658260
    When there are two paths, we have to choose the best path which we feel is the best. I feel that the Saint is correct. Even though he says the root, going in that direction and catching the deer is not certain. It depends on the skill and the talent of the hunter. So the sage is not completely at fault. If he says some lie,, it is sure that he will save the deer. But his les will be to his account. So he played safe. Even though he directed the hunter correctly even then there is a chance for the deer to escape if it is having still some time is there for it on the earth. This is the destiny and the God has decided the death of the deer in his hands. So it happened like that. This is my thought in this particular incident.
    always confident

  • #658261
    It's a nice story. What I got from the narration is the saint was in hell for some time because of telling the truth to the hunter which ultimately was the cause of death to the deer. After spending some time in hell I am sure he went to heaven, at least from the term 'some time' this is the indication. So, telling two or more lies will make the stay in hell for some more time and after that, there is a chance to go back to heaven.

    Since childhood, we are hearing numerous stories like this that one's good actions throughout the life will land him in heaven and for misdeeds, he will be sent to hell. Unfortunately, people are not fearful these days, otherwise, there wouldn't be corruption in such a large scale. The other day there was a thread regarding the less fear of God among people these days where the examples of theft in famous temples were given. It's always best, to tell the truth, otherwise, you would have to remember every time what you have said earlier.

    In this case, there is a justification in the saint's action. But how could he know there will be an animal rights activist in the judiciary that sent him to hell for a while?


    "Life is easier when you enjoy what you do"

  • #658284
    The on spot decisions & the aftermath outcomes are not as simple as it seems to be from the outside but those remain the most complex phenomenon still which is not easy to figure out through our simplest mind but above all the nature has its own course of allowing & shaping the things & undeniably that will happen for sure.

    In here, we are considering the actions but missed out their intentions which could be a major factor for any of the character in deciding their final fate. The hunter was forced to kill the deer for his family & their living and the saint was forced to tell the truth as he was afraid of his religion or "tapasya" may get broken & therefore both were moved with the selfish motives & not with the welfare from any part. The saint may definitely get with more punishment because he ignored the major aspect of humanity & as the hunting was his livelihood for the hunter but still he led to the killing, both will liable to get punished.

  • Sign In to post your comments