Sage Mandavya was sitting in deep meditation at the entrance of his hermitage at the foot of a tree in the forest, with his arms upraised. He had been in this state for years together. But tumultuous things started happening around him of which he was totally oblivious of. A few robbers with their loot had strayed in that direction on being pursued by the king’s soldiers. The robbers found the ascetic’s hermitage and took refuge there. The soldiers tracked down the robbers to the hermitage and questioned the sage about them. But the rishi was still in his trance and hence gave no response. But they eventually caught the robbers concealed in his hut. Under those circumstances, they mistook the rishi as an accomplice of the thieves (thieves masquerading as sages and godmen was prevalent even during the days of Mahabharata, perhaps!)

The thieves along with the rishi were taken and arraigned before the king who sentenced all of them to be executed by impaling. Punishing the convicts by impaling with a stake was prevalent in those days in Bharathavarsha, similar to crucifixion in Roman Empire.

The virtuous sage, though impaled on the stake, did not die. Since he was in yoga when he was impaled he remained alive by the power of yoga. Besides, he had summoned a few other rishis also to the scene, who were aghast at the development. The king got to know of the miraculous survival of the sage and came to him and rushing to Mandavya, the king begged forgiveness for his grave error in his dispensation of justice. Mandavya generously forgave him without the customary curse, as is the wont of the rishis in general!

The king then tried to get the stake out of the torso of the sage but in vain since it got entrenched in his body. so as a compromise the part of the stake that was protruding from the body was sawed off. Thus the sage Mandavya had a stake sticking out of his back from then on. Hence he came to be known in all the three worlds by the name of “Ani-Mandavya” (Mandavya with the stake within). Some chronicles say that he used to hang his flower basket on that “ani”!

The sage went on with his penance and ultimately went to the abode of the god of justice (dharma). He confronted the dharmaraj with the question as to why such a severe punishment was meted out to him for no fault of his, in spite of his high level asceticism. His pointed query was what sin he had committed to deserve such a grave torture with a stake. The god of justice replied that a little insect was once pierced by Mandavya with a blade of grass when he was a child. He also appraised him of the rule that a sinful act multiplieth in respect of the woe it bringeth in its train.

On hearing this, Mandavya replied with indignation that the scriptures shall not recognise any wrongful act committed by a child up to the TWELFTH YEAR of his age from birth as sinful. And hence the god of justice had erred terribly. The punishment thou hast inflicted on me for such a venial offence hath been disproportionate in severity and unjustified as well. He then cursed the dharmaraj to be born on earth in a lower social order (Dharma Devata came to be born as Vidura later on account of this curse, as the story goes). Th sage also established a dictum that an act shall not be sinful when committed by one below the AGE OF FOURTEEN. But when committed by one above that age, it shall be regarded as sin.

Hindu Sanatana Dharma of our motherland (Hindu Law) was based on Hindu scriptures. These are Vedas, Upanishads, Dharma Sastras, Itihasas and Puranas. When Indian Penal Code and various other laws was drafted, many of the elements of code enshrined in the sastras and scriptures were incorporated in them.

In the same vein, the aspect of juvenile delinquency was also considered and codified in accordance with the Mandavya’s dictum, as illustrated below:

1. Section 82 of Indian Penal Code exonerates a child under ‘seven years’ of age from criminal liability.
2. Section 83 of IPC extends this benefit of immunity to those who are above seven years but under twelve years of age, if they have not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (successor to the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986) defines a “juvenile” for the purpose of this act as “a minor (below 18 years) who has supposedly violated the provisions of Indian law”.
4. The Act aims to promote child friendly juvenile justice in the country. Some important points highlighted in the Act are:
   • A child who has allegedly executed a crime is known as ‘child in conflict with law’ and not a criminal or accused.
   • A juvenile can be detained, but cannot be arrested.
   • A juvenile cannot be put under trial, but only under inquiry.
   • A juvenile who is kept in police custody shall be presented before the Juvenile Justice Board and shall not be produced before any regular Court of Magistrate.

The fundamental postulate for the exemption given to a juvenile is the he is not equipped with the knowledge of right and wrong and that he will be incapable of fully understanding the seriousness and consequences of his own actions and hence he should be exempted from any punishment for such acts.

If that is true, what about your actions in the previous birth? Why our scriptures have held that you can’t escape from the effects of the sins committed by us in our previous birth, of which we have knowledge and on which we have no control?

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Ramana Maharishi languished from cancer and Swami Vivekananda suffered from acute asthma and various other ailments before dying prematurely at 39. Why such suffering to these men of high level of dharma? The answer given is that it is their destiny dictated by their “prarabdha karma”, from the effect of which no mortal (or even immortals) can escape. It is akin to an arrow shot from a bow, according to our upanishads.

When the mind or soul of one is unaware of what happened in his previous birth is it fair to make him suffer for the sins supposedly committed by him in those previous births?

Is it not downright ridiculous?

————–
A sidenote:

Mandavya is believed to have visited Bangalore and there is a deity of the sage in the Someswara Temple (Mandavya Pratishtha) at Ulsoor, Bangalore. More information can be got from this site.

But the role of “acharya” (teacher) comes in only when you want to attain a godly status and reach the god’s abode – they call it “moksha”. Yes, Hinduism underscores the role of “Guru”, the most flogged term in cyberworld! (Gurus galore! You have html guru’s, management guru’s, itguru’s and you name it!). A guru is one who guides you through the process of do penance and attaining the kingdom of god (nirvana). There is no “dooms day” or “Quyamat” in hinduism. You don’t wait for the judgment after death.

The hindu monks do penance or “Thapas” in seclusion for their own attainment of “moksha” or liberation of self from the clutches of birth and death cycle and take the soul towards the sublime status of eternity. That is the ultimate goal of the humans as preached by hinduism. So the monks have no role otherwise in the practice of hinduism. Hence it is not fully monastic nor idealistic. Vedas are in fact comprehensive books of practical wisdom – every act of day to day life is discussed and a socially acceptable code of conduct and rituals specified.

Apart from that of monks, hinduism enunciates the role of “Acharya” or the teacher who need not be a monk or an ascetic or a “rishi”. The teacher helps you to perform the rituals at your home for the various “karmas” or the duties – viz: religious rites for birth, schooling, marriage, rites for the departed souls etc. The teacher is only hired for a fee – for cash and/or kind. There are mantras for even for offering the fee. It is all enshrined in the hindu religious tenet. Beyond that the teacher has no influential role in the practice of the religion. But people in general, prompted by a sence of insecurity and of guilt, go and voluntarily and commit abject surrender before monks and “sadhus’ and “swamiji’s” and give them a role which has no religious sanction. This gives a wrong notion that hinduism needs a monastic to practice and is very idealistic. No, far from it. You can be a devout hindu without becoming a desciple of Maharishis, Oshos, Babas, His Holinesses and their ilk!

In case you want to perform a religious rite, all you need to do is engage a priest who has learnt vedas and other texts of hinduism and get his professional service for a fee and be with it . This has full sanction of vedas. In Hinduism, the temple priests’ role is confined to the temple and they can’t meddle with the individual’s life.

To sum up, hinduism is far from being monastic and is not based primarily on idealism but on pragmatism!

“karmanyeva adhikaraste` maa phaleshu kadhaachana” (You are entitled to do your karma (duty) unmindful of the result of your action since you have no control over that part)

But in the same vein the Gita stresses on the performing action or Karma in the following line of the same verse – maa they sanghotsva karmanee

So, Gita doesn’t advocate direction of your duty! Though it is not earthly possible to perform any act without focusing on corresponding fruits of your labor, you can still take a detached attitude so that you’ll not end up greatly disappointed when failure strikes!