It never pays to assume that you have mastered something in the practice of philosophy. Never. It, perhaps, is fine as long as you are hugging the thought to yourself and feeling chuffed about it. But if, by chance, you feel the need to express your happiness...or, as the uncharitable are likely to say, boast about it...
As I made the mistake of doing. You see, Hinduism talks of three gunas - Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Three character-types in a simplistic translation and, if this blog does not count as simplistic, I'd like to know what can be. Sattva is considered the best of the three and a Sattvik person is one who is peace-loving (among other things, yes, but those other things are not what I wanted to boast of, since I am too truthful, and of course too afraid of getting called on a lie, to boast of what I am not.)
Peace-loving should mean non-confrontational, surely. Now, as everyone knows, if I am running in one direction, you can rest assured that there is some confrontation going on in the other. Otherwise why would I, the model based on which the tortoise was designed, be RUNNING? Now if that does not count as being non-confrontational, what would, pray?
So, there I was, basking mentally in the glow of being that rarest of rare beings - a Sattvik person - and up pops a friend, needle in hand, to burst the balloon of my happiness.
He was not really opposed to my avoiding ALL confrontations. I mean, he very kindly agreed that when two people were fighting about who should get the first chance to bat - based on the eminently logical grounds of the one being the owner of the bat and the other being the owner of the ball - it was perfectly alright for me to avoid that confrontation. Where we differed was on my running away from ALL confrontations.
You know, like when people are ganging up on someone and pulling him down for being dark/fair or stammering or some such. I mean, really, to ask those guys not to do it is to enter a confrontation right? And to not enter confrontation is totally Sattvik behavior, right? Not so, according to this unsettling friend of mine.
According to him, that sort of avoidance is Tamasik behavior. And, when someone is inclined to do things like this avoidance, he has to first learn at least the Rajasik option to fighting against that sort of injustice. Only when he DOES oppose that sort of action AND does it in a peaceful manner can he consider himself Sattvik.
Obviously, I'd have given him the horse's laugh, as anyone does to someone who tells them unpalatable truths. But then he threw in my face the name of Swami Vivekananda who, according to him, had espoused that view-point. That sealed my mouth and he started giving me a lecture on it.
Well, the gist of it was that I needed to first learn to hate the sin AND to oppose it. THEN, if I could learn to fight the sin without hating the sinner, I could call myself Sattvik.
Ye Gods! I mean, come on, that's putting the cart before the horse, right? The way you identify a sin is exactly the opposite, isn't it? You first hate someone, ergo he has to be a sinner. Therefore, whatever he does is a sin. THEN you hate THAT sin. How the hell, then, can you hate a sin, without hating the sinner, when the very identification of the sin depends on hating the sinner?
If THAT is what philosophy expects you to do, I give up. It requires performing six miracles a day before breakfast and then continuing it all day. No wonder, people have lost all interest in being Sattvik these days.
