Raining Help?

There is this peculiarity about yesteryear philosophers that runs totally counter to modern culture. Whatever they suggest seems to be an indictment of current practices so much so that you could almost accuse them of being trolls. Except that it is tough to categorize them as such without also explaining how they could have had the prescience to KNOW modern practices.

Tiru, all said and done, IS a yesteryear philosopher. So, how could he be any different? Take this one for example.

Kaimmaaru vendaa kadappaadu maarimaattu enAtraankollo ulagu - Tirukkural

True benevolence seeks no recompense; what can you give the clouds in return for the life-giving rain? - Loose Translation

So, there you go. In Tiru's view, a benevolent person helps others because it is his nature to do so much like it is the nature of clouds to rain. The thought that there should be ANYTHING can be expected in return for the benevolence does not even cross the mind of such a person.

I know, I know, the cynical generally say that the benevolent person does his thing because it makes him happy to do so, therefore he is also selfish and, thus, no different from anyone else pursuing his own ideas of happiness. That's an interesting but singularly idiotic concept. I mean, yeah, the sadist gets his kicks from causing others suffering and, thus, is no different from the altruist who gets his kicks from helping others? Really?

AND are all decisions bereft of choices? I mean, like I have some money, are there not multiple things that make me happy on which I can spend it? The CHOICE of helping someone else with it is but one of them and my making THAT choice leaves me the same as the other guy who blows it up on Cocaine? What do these guys smoke really?

So, yeah, true benevolence IS laudable and seeks not to make much of its own acts. AND why is it that I say that this is against today's cultural norms?

I mean, come on, Tiru wants you to be as altruistic as rain clouds. When is the last time you saw a rain cloud posting a selfie about how it was going to rain down and save the parched land?

Exactly!

Troll Strength

There is a quote that I vaguely remember from the mists of my past. 'Never argue with fools; they drag you down to their level and beat you by experience." After all they have spent all their lives at their level whereas you are a total amateur there. (It is quite a different affair that ANYONE who has fought an inconclusive or losing argument tends to feel that HE has been dragged 'down'!)

Tiru probably had to deal with his share of trolls too. AND, just to clarify, a troll is not anyone who opposes you but someone who opposes you without bothering to (OR being unable to) understand your point of view. Opposing for the sake of opposing, so to speak, knowing only WHO they are opposing, if that, and not WHAT.

So, Tiru has this to say...

Inmaiul inmai virundhoraal vanmaiyul vanmai madavaar porai - Tirukkural

The worst poverty is inability to extend hospitality to a guest; the best of strengths is to bear the gibes of foolish men - Loose Translation

One does get a sidelight about what hospitality meant to ancient Indian culture. To not be able to feed a guest is seen as worse than to not be able to feed your family. THAT is the priority of hospitality!

But, in this case, it is just a comparator. It is used to say something like 'Just as THAT is the worst of poverty THIS is the best of strength'. THIS, in the instant case, being the ability to handle the gibes of the foolish with equanimity.

Quite the right advice for today. You start getting all heated up under the collar about a troll and reacting to him in like measure and, soon, people find it tough to differentiate between the two of you. THAT is the problem with descending into an argument with a fool - you end up getting taken for one as well.

IF, on the other hand, you have the strength to be trolled without letting it affect you, you will be able to react with grace. You may not rise to the heights of being cool enough to hear, "You will either die of syphilis or be hanged" and reply, "THAT depends on whether I embrace your mistress or your principles". No, you may not rise to those heights but even silence is a far more graceful reply to a troll than mudslinging.

But, then, Tiru does not think it is an easy thing to do. Which is why he says it is the 'best of strengths'.

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!