There was once a farmer in a village at the foot of a mountain — known by all as a good man. He shared his harvest, mended his neighbors’ roofs, and never spoke an unkind word.
One autumn morning, he burned dry leaves at the edge of his field, as his father and grandfather had done. The wind shifted. The fire leapt across the path and scorched the edge of the village commons. No one was hurt, but the village elder came to him and said: “You have broken the law of the commons.”
The farmer wept. “But I meant no harm.”
The elder sat beside him and told him a story.
Arjuna, the noblest warrior in the Mahabharata, wept on the battlefield of Kurukshetra — not because he wished to do evil, but because every path before him led through some form of harm. Krishna did not tell him he was innocent. He told him that action itself is entangled — that no one who moves through the world can avoid the threads of consequence.
This is the heart of karma as the old rishis understood it: not punishment, but the simple truth that every act ripples outward beyond our sight.
The Confucian tradition understood this too. Confucius taught that a junzi — a person of noble character — is not someone who never errs, but someone who, upon erring, corrects themselves without shame. As the Analerta says: “To make a mistake and not correct it — that is the real mistake.”
The goodness of a person is not measured by the absence of transgression, but by the quality of their response to it.
And Laozi, in the Tao Te Ching, reminds us that law is itself a sign of something already lost:
When the great Tao is forgotten, goodness and morality appear. When wisdom and cleverness arise, great hypocrisy follows.
Law is the fence built where trust has frayed. Even the most sincere walker will sometimes brush against a fence they did not see — because the fence was built for someone else’s failure, and the path was never designed for the perfectly good.
The Sufis saw this with clear eyes. Rumi wrote that even the saint carries dust on their shoes from the road. The Persian mystics knew that to be human is to be incomplete — and that this incompleteness is not a flaw but the very door through which mercy enters.
In Islamic jurisprudence, there is a principle: la hukma li-af’al al-‘uqala’ qabla wurud al-shar’ — there is no judgment on the acts of the rational before the law reaches them. And even when the law is known, intention (niyyah) shapes the moral weight of the act. The Hadith records: “Actions are judged by intentions.”
A good person who breaks the law unintentionally has committed a legal act — but not necessarily a moral failure.
Socrates, too, lived this paradox. He obeyed the laws of Athens even when they condemned him to death, because he believed in the covenant between citizen and city. Yet he also taught that no one does wrong willingly — that all error arises from ignorance, not malice. If even Socrates could be condemned under law while being the most examined soul in Athens, then the law and goodness are not the same river.
The village elder finished his story. He looked at the farmer and said:
“The law says you must repair the commons. This is just. But your goodness is not in question — it is confirmed by the tears you shed before I even asked.”
The farmer repaired the commons. And that winter, when a young man in the village carelessly broke a neighbor’s wall, it was the farmer — not the elder — who sat beside him and said:
“Let me tell you a story.”
So, gentlemen — yes. Even a good person breaks the law, sometimes without knowing. The traditions agree: goodness is not perfection, but the willingness to face what we have caused and mend it. The law measures the act. The soul is measured by what comes after.
As Zhuangzi might say — the fish does not intend to muddy the water. It simply swims. But the water is muddied all the same. What matters is whether the fish stops to notice.
Bhyllabus l'énigme 
Tinggalkan komentar