Vile pride

Philosophers somehow tend to be down on pride. They seldom count it a virtue and tend to look down on pride as an undesirable characteristic. Ordinary chappies like you and me find it difficult to see how one cannot be proud of one's own achievements, say, or some such. It does not help that, mostly, people seem to think that there is no difference between pride and arrogance. You can keep telling them that pride comes from seeing yourself as better compared to who you were yesterday, whereas arrogance comes from comparing yourself to other people and seeing them as inferior. But it does not help. If you mention 'pride' they will scrunch up their faces in disgust and turn away.

But, in this instance, Tiru is not talking of pride as being vile; he is talking of what causes a vile person to feel pride.

Agappatti aavaaraik kaanin avarin migappattuch chemmakkum keezh - Tirukkural

The vile feel pride when they see someone viler than themselves - Loose Translation

In this, Tiru talks primarily of character. Of people of vile character who compare themselves to those whose character is worse than themselves and, thus, feel pride in their own relative virtue. Which is, probably, the root of all whataboutery. You know, like, "So what if I have taken a bribe. You will allow all those chaps who take bribes in crores go scot-free and show all your efficiency on me." OR, "Yeah, big deal if I bought that land from my aunt at a throw-away price because she trusted me. There are people worse than me, who forcibly occupy and take over other people's plots." (Yeah, I know that nobody really vocalises that they 'took a bribe' or 'betrayed a trust' even in their minds. But the way they justify themselves IS somewhat like that AND the need to justify themselves arises from a sub-vocal acknowledgement that they are doing wrong.)

The point, though, is that you replace the 'vile' with 'failures' and the thing works very well with them as well. AND, when I say 'failures', I do not mean those who are trying but have not succeeded yet OR those who tried an failed. I call people failure only when they do not dare to try at all.

AND such failures also have this habit of feeling happy at others who have failed worse than them. The 'I am at least pulling this much salary; look at him' being more common. They also have a habit of exulting at the failures of those who are trying. The "You keep blaming me for not trying. So, that chap there who has been trying according to you. What had he achieved?" brigade.

AND, as you can see, ALL of this pride IS an outcome of trying to look down on others in one form or the other. AND thus, it is not merely the pride OF the vile; it IS vile pride!

Penance?

There is a lot of problem translating some words from Indian languages to English. More often than not, it is because the word encapsulates a nuanced meaning for which there is no direct equivalent word and, thus, you need a phrase to get across the meaning. (AND before you start the war of which language is superior, I hasten to add that such an issue can arise the other way round as well.) I tend to get peeved when translations take the easy way out and drop the nuances in favor of a single word translation.

There are also times when this problem of translation occurs because the CONCEPT itself is alien to the culture to which the other language belongs. OR the concept is not totally alien but is rare enough for an exact word to have not been invented to identify it. To go so far as to say that the word I am slowly working my way around to IS a word for which the concept does not exist in English-speaking cultures requires the sort of chutzpah on my part that I do not have, given that I cannot claim to be any sort of expert on the culture. If I did, I'd be a shining star of the WhatsApp university, no?

So, getting around to what Tiru said which set me off on that meandering prologue...

Utra noi nondral uyirkkurukan seyyaamai atre thavatthir kuru - Tirukkural

To stoically endure your own suffering and to cause no pain to others is the nature of penance - Loose Translation

Now, that word 'penance' is where I get into translation trouble. Rightly or wrongly, penance always gives me the nuance of atonement for some sin. Whereas 'Thavam' is more a religious meditation, a state of being where your devotion to the Divine excludes everything else.

AND Tiru explains in what shape 'Thavam' manifests itself. That such a person endures stoically whatever sufferings are thrown his way AND the thought of causing pain to others does not cross his mind. It is not merely that the chap does not seek revenge; most of the sufferings in life do not have a villainous face against whom you can vent your ire. It is that he does not even think of merely passing on his pain to others like most of us are wont to do.

I mean, look, how often have you said, "Must have had a fight at home", when your boss spews venom at everyone who crosses his path? How often have YOU spewed venom - either at office or at home - merely because someone hurt you somewhere? THAT thing, this 'Saab ka mood karaab hai' issue does not happen with this sort of person.

Nor, indeed, does this sort of person destroy people in the path of achieving his own ambition. Well, in one form, he HAS no ambition since his mind is focused exclusively on the Divine. But, even where he sees it as his DUTY to do his best, his best does not automatically include riding rough-shod over others. If you ARE focused on the Divine, the idea of causing gratuitous hurt is anathema to you.

One keeps talking of the Divine here because the idea of Thavam automatically includes the idea of focusing on a larger power; else you talk of 'Dhyanam' for meditation and use the more 'secular' words like that.

Whether or not such people really exist is moot. Tiru, however, gives you one yardstick to assess people who claim to be such a person. Not that we are going to use it, of course. As usual, we will assess based on whether our circles endorse that person or revile him!

The right experts?

The funny thing about advice is that you really respect only that advice which vibes with what you yourself want to do especially when the results of following the advice are either long term or indeterminate. You know, like you have the choice of becoming either an engineer or a doctor...choosing one negates the possibility of the other and you can never be certain that choosing the other would have led to a better outcome. So he who tells you to do what you want to do is the better adviser as far as you are concerned. (As opposed to your wanting to become a musician instead of an engineer when you are tone deaf...now THERE it is tough to convince yourself that you would have starved equally as much if you had chosen to become an engineer.)

When it comes to determinate and relatively short-term issues, though, you tend to think that the better adviser is the guy who helps you to successfully fight fires. In other words, he who sorts out a current problem is that best adviser for you. Tiru sort of agrees but...

UtraNoi neekkki uraa amai murkaakkum petriyaarp penikkolal - Tirukkural

Cherish those who help sort out current problems and protect against their recurrence - Loose Translation

Now, yup, Tiru does feel that it is important to have advisers who will help you to sort out your existing problem. But he sets a higher bar for cherishing them. They not only have to sort out current ills but also help you to put in place systems to avoid recurrence of the same problem.

You know, that's a huge ask. It is easy enough for you to see how someone has helped you put out a fire. It is much tougher to see how he is helping you when he has you install fire extinguishers here and sprinklers there. All you can see is that he is increasing your costs, taking advantage of the fact that you have had a fire. You probably have a sneaking suspicion that he is taking a cut from the chaps selling you all those devices.

Even if you do avoid all those dark suspicions, it is difficult to look on with respect at a person, who is busily running hither and yon, doing things that are not relevant to any current problem. The chap who is helping you put out the next fire is the guy who has your respect currently. The chaps who are with you helping you put out fire after fire...now THOSE are the ones worthy of respect; worthy of cherishing.

I mean, like, the firefighter is a hero! Whoever gave medals to the guy who put up the firefighting systems?

Charity

Charity, for most of us, begins AND ends at home. Which is a pity, really, because the world is increasingly becoming a place where wealth concentrates and disparity widens between the haves and the have-nots. Wealth redistribution by diktat generally tends to have more negative consequences than positive - after all, if I cannot hold on to my wealth for myself and my progeny, I might as well not bother to earn it, no? The only other means of redistribution is of the voluntary kind. Which is where charity kicks in.

Tiru, though, is very particular about what he accepts as charity.

Variyaarkku ondru eevadhe eegai matrellaam kuriyedhirppai neera thudaitthu - Tirukkural

To give to the poor is the only charity; all else is given expecting recompense - Loose Translation

Well, for one, we all expect that 80G thingy (IF it is still there under the new dispensation) where your donation gets you a tax exemption. THAT actually makes it more attractive to give your charity to an 80G registered NGO than the local beggar; the latter, after all, cannot give you an 80G certificate!

The point is that Tiru is into what goes on in your mind. The determinant of your character is your motive in giving the 'charity'. When you give it to the truly poor, who can give you no recompense at all except their gratitude, you can only be guided by a charitable impulse without any admixture of any other selfish emotion (UNLESS, of course, your spouse is clicking you giving the charity so that you can post it on Instagram, which is an option that Tiru could not have thought of in his day). You give to NGOs with multiple motives, including perhaps getting into the good books of the chap seeking you to donate.

Be that as it may, we cannot turn snooty and refuse anything except 'true charity'. I mean, even if you do manage to get the rich to donate merely in order to preen about it, it is all good. The money can still come in handy to feed the poor, no?

So, there! It is all well to WANT people to be truly charitable. BUT it is good enough for Society to ensure that people want to masquerade, at least, as being truly charitable!