Desiring suffering

You know, I am not aware that, anywhere else in the world, philosophers were so down on desire. A stray chap, here and there, may have sort of moaned about desire being the root of all evil but he generally got drowned out by the cacophony of others shouting the opposite. In India, though...I mean go to Hinduism, Buddhism, whatever and, sooner or later, up pops a diatribe about desire.

Can Tiru, then, be far behind on this issue? And so...

Avaa Illaarkku Illagum thunbam aqdhundael thavaa adhu menmel varum - Tirukkural

Those without desire are without suffering, If there be desire sufferings shall follow endlessly - Loose Translation.

So there. Tiru may not talk about desire leading to expectations which in turn leads to disappointment etc etc. He just takes the shortcut and directly says that desire causes suffering endlessly and lack of desire equates to lack of suffering.

The problem, generally, is in understanding desire. When these chaps talk of desire, it is normally desire of the senses OR desire that arises out of comparison with others. It is THAT desire which they are all so down on. Because it is that sort of desire that leads to the negatives arising out of desire - greed, envy etc. Which, as anyone will readily agree, are the root of suffering.

There are desires relating to character. To excel, to become a better person, whatever. Those are not the desires which Tiru is against nor are those the desires which he think leads to endless suffering.

Especially if you follow the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita. You set your course by the goal of your desire. But you travel without any specific expectations about your progress towards your goal.

Effort is in your hands; have no expectations about the fruits thereof.

The limits of fortune

This question of Fate and Fortune is a never-ending thing with none giving a satisfactory answer. I mean, if you are fated to lead a certain life and achieve a certain level of success, then why bother to put in effort? On the other hand, if everything is dependent on your own efforts, how do you explain the role of luck in it - the chap in a bad mood who denies you a bulk order which leads to your bankruptcy OR that accidental meeting with a friend who helps you get financing when all seems lost?

Tiru does not provide you a clear and convincing answer to the conundrum either.

Pariyinum Aagaavaam Paalalla Uytthuch choriyinum pokaa thama - Tirukural

No matter how you safeguard, that which is not fated for you will be lost. No matter how you scatter it away that which is fated for you will stick to you - Loose Translation.

And THAT is all he has to say. That you will have no more than you are fated to have. And, thankfully, no less.

This leaves no real role for your own effort. As in, if he had at least prescribed a range for what you are fated to have, you could assume that your efforts would push you to the upper end of the range. But this kural, at least, does not mention anything that makes you think of a range.

There is an alternative interpretation to this same kural. That what is not yours will leave you and what is yours cannot be lost. Wherein it is more about whether you can retain what is not legitimately yours and whether you can lose what IS yours. That explanation does not really suit because this set of 10 kurals is supposed to be about 'Fate' and this alternative interpretation will not suit the subject matter.

I'd rather assume that there IS a range for your success, implicit in the kural. That the lower limit and upper limit cannot be breached but your effort can determine where you reach within that range.

Or, of course, it could just be the Tamil version of 'Waqt se pehle aur kismat se zyaadaa kisiko kuch nahin milta' i.e 'What you get shall come only WHEN it is due and to the extent it is due'.

Your choice!

True charity

No matter how little you think you have, there is always someone who has less. This is especially true of anyone who reads my blog, I'd say. If you can truly spare the time to read patiently through my verbosity, I'm sure that you cannot be a starving morsel of humanity.

So, when Tiru talks of charity, you are not likely to approach it from the point of view of the recipient of charity. Which is all to the good since this Kural is all about he who gives and not he who receives.

Innadhu irakkappadudhal irandhavar inmugam kaanum alavu - Tirukkural

To suffer when a suppliant seeks help, till your help makes him smile with relief, is the hallmark of a true man of charity - Loose Translation.

Well, you know I do suffer the moment someone asks me for help. I mean, not being gifted with the ability to say 'No' in a convincing enough manner for the chap to let me off, it is a real pain till I see the back of the chap. THEN I am happy...provided I have managed to send him off without causing serious damage to my wallet.

THAT, though, is not what Tiru is talking about. Nor is he talking about the dozen calls a day you get asking you for money and how that causes you pain. I mean, yes, you suffer alright, but you do not satisfy the second condition - suffering till your help makes the other chap smile with relief.

Tiru is talking of a level of empathy where you feel the suffering of the other person as your own; feel hurt that the other person has been pushed to the extreme of having to seek help elsewhere; and feel that pain till you actually help him and make his problems go away, causing him to smile.

Now THAT is his idea of a true man of charity. Not someone who feels pride in the fact that someone is seeking help from him but someone who feels the pain of the other person till he causes the pain to go away.

Those must have been truly different days. I mean, really, if I cannot take a selfie with that chap and post it all over social media about how I helped someone, what is even the point of my charity?

Not stupid even when wrong?

To be wrong is to be stupid, isn't it? That is if you are not actually villainous. I mean, come on, you are either lacking in knowledge and/or understanding OR you belong to the others who are in opposition. What can be clearer than that?

Yet, Tiru actually thinks that some people can be wrong and, yet, not stupid. AND, in his time, they were not enlightened enough to consider anyone who differed from you as outright villainous, so he does not even bother to express an opinion about the villainy of those chaps.

Pizhaitthunardhum pedhamai solla rizhaitthunarn theendiya kelvi avar - Tirukkural

Even when they misunderstand an issue, those who listen with a discerning mind will not speak foolishly - Loose Translation

So, apparently, there exist this class of people who are accustomed to listening with discernment, appreciating the nuances of issues etc. And these paragons, even if they do happen to misunderstand something, they will still not say anything stupid.

Which, of course, is sort of easier in Tiru's times since people of his era had no pressing need to troll on social media just to keep yourself relevant. When a chap has a discerning mind and is used to applying it to anything he hears, it is but natural that he is used to thinking that the same subject can appear in a different light to different people. Thus, even if he has misunderstood the issue but thinks he is right, he is also used to thinking that there are more than one way of assessing any matter.

Such a person, then, will talk of his understanding of the issue in terms of questions, rather than as incontrovertible statements of fact. You know, like, "People say that this will cause damage. Is it true?" rather than, "This is the worst thing that can happen to us..." So, even though he IS saying the same thing, he does not appear stupid even when he is totally wrong.

But, then, THAT is a luxury available only to those times. Such wishy-washy statements cannot go viral on social media. So...

Better stupid than irrelevant!