Various Occupations

Vrtti [occupation] is that which keeps something alive.

The physical food on which the mind depends for its existence and development, or the objects on which the mind ideates, are one’s mental occupation.

The subtlest feeling a person can experience, which fills the mind with bliss, can be said to be one’s spiritual occupation.

In the same way, there are various physical occupations which preserve one’s physical existence and maintain the body.

A means which one adopts to stay alive in the physical sphere is called an occupation; for example, one may be a doctor, a teacher, a businessman, etc.

The different occupations create divisions between human beings.

As a result, people who lack high ideals usually form groups.

This is because the people’s feelings are shaped by the nature of their occupation.

• These feelings together with the identical nature of the people’s mental occupations encourage the formation of groups.

No matter how intense their professional jealousy or rivalry:

• a lawyer will seek the company of another lawyer
• a soldier that of another soldier
• a doctor that of another doctor
• a renunciant that of another renunciant.

A detailed analysis of human psychology will clearly reveal that because psychic food are connected to matter due to the need to preserve physical existence. They are strongly influenced by matter.

However, if a person has high ideals, his or her materialistic ideation will be transformed into psychic ideation which in turn will develop a spiritual quality.

One will thus acquire the capacity to rise above group [groupist] psychology. But due to an absence of spiritual idealism and universal outlook, some of those engaged in different occupations become exploiters instead of assets to society.

They completely ignore the fact that their individual or group interests are not separate from, but are a part of, the collective interest.

Lawyers

The popular allegation that lawyers earn their living by deceiving others and by encouraging litigation is, according to my understanding, not totally correct.

But is this frequently-made allegation totally false? Most lawyers would like disputes in society to continue.

After the abolition of the zamindary system in a certain state of India, a lawyer complained to me that before the abolition of the zamindary system, there were constant lawsuits:

• between one zamindar and another
• between a zamindar and the people

The lawyers used to earn money from this.

But now, the people do not have to come to court. The number of civil and criminal cases has declined.

That good lawyer who told me this was concerned about his livelihood. He was extremely honest and peace-loving. But the nature of his profession encouraged him to support disturbances, feuds and murder.

Though they understand the magnitude of their clients’ crimes, competent lawyers, due solely to financial greed, use their intelligence and clever arguments to get criminals honourably acquitted.

Such actions certainly do not help to preserve the purity of society. Are not those who lead society into the quagmire of sin in order to further their individual interest and for financial gain as guilty as criminals?

If, in the eyes of the law, associating with evil people is regarded as an evil, the attempt to help criminals avoid corrective measures (I do not like to use the term “penal system” because I am not ready to accept at all that one human being has the right to penalize another) is most certainly an antisocial action.

There is yet another and more serious consideration in regard to this sort of conduct. The process of passing a judgement does not end when a criminal is released from the corrective system. Sometimes criminal leaders derive sadistic satisfaction from seeing innocent people victimized. Cunning lawyers, when they become directly responsible for the victimization of innocent people, definitely commit a greater crime than criminals.

I believe that lawyers are necessary and have an extremely important role to play in society.

Common people often cannot express themselves coherently. During a trial a frightened, nervous person sometimes behaves in such a way that his or her facial expressions arouse suspicion in the mind of the judge, which in turn influences the judgement. It is indisputable that lawyers are needed to protect common people from such dangerous situations. Apart from saving the innocent, lawyers can and do help to save criminals from unjustifiably harsh sentences which stem from prejudice or strong bias.

If supporting the guilty is an antisocial activity, is it not antisocial to appeal for leniency on behalf of the guilty? In my opinion, no. It is a lawyer’s duty to see that a person is not severely punished for a small crime. It is the lawyer, and not the public, who should clearly explain to the judge the sort of circumstantial pressure that forced a criminal to commit a crime and the extent to which the criminal was responsible (or not responsible) for the creation of these circumstances. Considering that criminals are human beings and helpless during their trials, it is certainly not a crime to provide them with proper representation. That is why I do consider it an injustice to call lawyers social parasites. They are an indispensable group of intellectuals in society.

Although I do not doubt their intentions, I do feel that those who advocate the arbitration and panchayat [village council] systems in order to reduce the cost of lawyers, should not entrust the functioning of the judicial system to the whims of an individual or a particular group. The subtle intelligence that is required in judicial procedures cannot generally be found among the majority of members of arbitral bodies or the leaders of village councils. If the selection of those on arbitral bodies and village councils is entrusted to experienced judges, it may be possible to hope for good judgements from them, but it may also turn out that those selected, despite their integrity and sincerity, pass a wrong judgement at any moment due to insufficient or incorrect knowledge of the law. Such mistakes are not normally expected from lawyers. If somebody wants to extensively implement the arbitration and village council systems in order to teach the members of the legal profession a lesson, he or she will have to agree that, for the sake of public welfare, the members of such bodies should be selected, not elected. Of course only lawyers should be eligible for selection. Such an approach is not bad.

There was a time when lawyers had both prestige and money, but today they are on the verge of losing both. Many lawyers who have little work start giving fiery lectures from political platforms. I am not suggesting that none of them are dedicated to social service. Still, most of them do not aim to serve their country but simply to solve their personal problems. They think, “It would be good if I could further my political ambition. One day I may be elected a member of parliament or even become a minister. If this does not happen it does not matter, because my work situation will still improve due to the political support of my party.” Today educated people can easily understand the motives behind their fiery lectures. Very little investigation is required to reveal that in democratic countries politics is full of lawyers who were unable to secure briefs. No other profession than this has so much scope to exploit people in the name of public service. But why is this so? Are they alone responsible for their deceitfulness and mental degradation? Certainly not. I do not blame them in the slightest. In order to obtain their basic necessities, poor intellectuals use these kinds of psychic means instead of stealing or committing armed robbery.

The implementation of various economic-development projects should be increased, and the number of lawyers should be reduced. In the field of education, students should give most importance to the study of science and technology, followed by commerce and then the arts. Only talented arts students should be given the opportunity to pursue higher studies in the arts. A small percentage of these students should be encouraged to study law, provided they can demonstrate proficiency in sociology, civics, political science and logic. It is not at all desirable to encourage immorality by providing unlimited opportunities for students to study law, thus overcrowding the profession.