Tempering temper

When it comes to anger, almost everyone who dispenses advice seems to be against it. I mean, yeah, some are quite fine with it, provided you do not act on it in haste - the 'Vengeance is a dish best served cold' gang. There is the other extreme - the 'Hate the sin, not the sinner' types, who would have you understand the person you are angry with rather than think up ways to do him in. Very few are happy with the idea of blowing your top and continuing to do the Vesuvius act in the vicinity of the man who set off your wrath. Most are against the very idea of your wrath being set off at all, no matter the provocation.

Sellidatthu kaappaan sinam kaappaan; allidatthu kaakkil en kaavaakkaal en - Thirukkural

He, who restrains his anger where he has power to hurt, has restraint; where he has no power, what does it matter whether or not he reins in his temper? - Loose Translation

Assuming that one does see a controlled temper as a desirable thing, it makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, like, if my subordinate pisses me off and I let loose at him, he has no choice but to take it, right? (Unless, he is in the unionised cadre, where I need to be wary of the Union ripping a hole in me where already have one and do not need a spare. OR, of course, if he is a key and irreplaceable element of MY performance). So, if I refuse to get angry and I am all sweetness and light with him, I CAN put in for a halo. If, on the other hand, I boast that I got angry with my boss and manfully restrained my temper, are you likely to circulate an appeal to sanctify me?

Though Tiru is being rather dismissive of the after-effects of NOT showing restraint where I do not have power. I mean, yeah, if I get angry with Xi Jinping and let loose in the canteen with my friends, it is no skin off either my nose or Xi's and the net result would be the same as if I had NOT let loose. THAT way, yes, it matters little what I choose to do.

BUT...and THAT is the BUT which bothers me...if it is my boss I am angry with and I scream at him, I'm afraid it is not the same as if I had NOT screamed at him. Unless he is totally hearing impaired AND not reading my face. So what does Tiru mean when he says that it is all the same?

Tiru seems to be taking the point of view that your control over your anger there only shows that you are being pragmatic; not that you have improved your character to the point where you have started to get rid of your inclination to getting angry. Therefore, it is no different from having showed your anger as far as any change in your character goes. And THAT tells you that Tiru sees anger as, in and of itself, a sin which you need to avoid.

It is the problem with all philosophers, really. They tend to get so concerned with what your actions and behaviour are doing to your CHARACTER that they totally ignore what it can do to your physical well-being.

Therefore, do NOT assume that screaming at your boss OR the traffic cop or whoever will lead to the same consequences as NOT screaming. There is no point in blaming Tiru while clutching that pink slip or traffic ticket or whatever. Tiru will only tell you to avoid getting angry with him as well!