In school, we had a poem by Rabindranath Tagore in English, entitled ‘The Least Little Grain of Gold’. It told the story of how a poor beggar, while walking down a deserted road hears the galloping of several horses behind him.

Surprised, he turns around to find that a grandiose chariot was coming his way. Perhaps even more surprising is the fact that the chariot actually pulls to a stop beside him.

From a chariot steps out a glorious king arrayed in the most exquisite garments, and covered in precious jewels.

However, even before the elated beggar can extend a hand; the king says, “Will you not give me alms, father?”

The extremely chagrined beggar unwillingly gives the king the smallest piece of corn that he has from the bag which holds the day’s worth of alms.

Angry and bitter, he returns to his hut and empties his bag on the floor.

But, behold! Amongst the corn and fruits, lies a tiny piece of gold, as small as the grain he’d given to the king.

It was then that he realizes that the king was no ordinary mortal, but a God descended from above to test him.

The poem ends with the beggar’s lament, “I wish I had the heart to give thee my all.”

Our teacher told us, that Tagore wanted to say through this poem, that the beggar realizes his mistake, and wishes he was more selfless. Moral of the story: one should never be selfish.

Well, all due respect to the said teacher; but I would beg to differ.

For starters, let’s examine the thought behind the beggars lament, “I wish I had the heart to give thee my all.”

Surely, he doesn’t say so because he particularly regrets the fact that the ‘king’ doesn’t have too many alms on philanthropic grounds.

Hardly so.

He laments because he knows if he’d given up everything he had, he’d have ended up with a bag full of gold at the end of the day.

What the mystical king benefits from the entire ‘transaction’ (if I may be allowed the use of that word) is irrelevant to the beggar. His regret stems solely from his own interests.

And I think that is precisely the message Tagore wished to convey: in the strictest sense of the word, there is no such thing as a selfless act.

Allow me to further elucidate that point.

To be ‘selfless’ is to concern yourself only with the needs of other people, regardless of the ramifications (good or bad) to yourself.

Taking this definition into consideration, I re-iterate: there are no selfless acts.

Everything that we do, everything, advances our interests-or fulfills us-in some form or the other.

The operative words in that sentence are: in some form or the other.

Gain is still gain: regardless of whether it is financial, material, emotional or spiritual.

When we give things up to charity, we say that we do it in order to help the needy. And I don’t dispute that at all. But at the same time, when we do it, don’t we feel good?

And isn’t that ‘feeling good inside’ gain? Maybe we don’t get anything tangible from it, but we still do benefit from it, don’t we?

When parents raise their kids, investing years of work, time and energy- they surely don’t do it purely for the child’s benefit. Of course, the child’s interests does factor into the equation, but that’s hardly the only factor behind it. They also expect the same love and attention when they need it- and it’s perfectly normal and acceptable to do so.

To fully appreciate my views, reader, I think that you will have to let go of all hard-wired connotations of the words ‘selfish’ and ‘selfless’. Forget for the moment what we’ve been taught since Day One that selfishness is evil and selflessness is good and ideal.

I’m afraid that ‘selfish deeds’ and ‘selfless deeds’ are misnomers, at best. I’ve already illustrated the fact that you can do absolutely nothing which only helps other people.

So, when I’m doing something, the fact that it’ll help me is a given, an axiom; if you will. Now that act may or may not help others. And that is where my morality comes in.

I do a ‘good deed’ if, in addition to helping myself, I help someone else while I am at it. Symmetrically, I do a ‘bad deed’ if I help myself by hurting someone else.

Deeds which don’t affect others in any way are above and beyond morality for me: I didn’t give anything, and I expect nothing in return.

You may of course, chalk down this entire ramble to the dodderings of a nonsensical soul spouting gibberish; and desecrating Tagore while he’s at it.

You can think so, of course, it is your choice, of course.

But, from what I gather, Tagore was no simpleton. And he knew what he was writing about. He wouldn’t have put in any connotations in his poems without being aware of it.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Pavalamani Pragasam, October 17, 2009

'gibberish'? Not at all. The arguments are absolutely correct and sensible! And Tagore was, perhaps, simply implying the proportion of returns/effects of a person's acts!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by umbrella, October 18, 2009

Nice analysis. When i first read this story in my school days..i thought..TAGORE or not.. it's the most ridiculous one! Firstly....what kind of God w'd choose a poor beggar to test his generosity? secondly..in my view..even after the poor beggar shown his generosity by giving away a little piece of his grain without a murmur, the God in return gave him only a little piece exactly in the same size in return! So..who is meaner here? Where is the moral?

Either...our syllabus needs a change or teachers better find acceptable and reasonable morals in such stories to help in preaching!

Regarding selfless acts..Well i beg to differ ur words >>>"there are no selfless acts". There are. ex..Every year some kid gets bravery award for his/her brave selfless act. we hear stories like a small kid saving another smaller kid in a life-threatening situation without thinking about his/her own safety! That's what i call a pure selfless act! what say?

Interesting write up. Enjoyed reading it.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Administrator, October 18, 2009

Absolutely Correct

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Louis Vuitton
written by Louis Vuitton, October 22, 2011

Louis Vuitton is a name never to underestimate. Its creations are among the wholesale designer Louis Vuitton to shop for. Among the designs that you may love are the Louis Vuitton Outlet Stresa PM bag in Damier canvas, LV Alma Tote in epi leather, LV Elegie Purse, and LV Tote.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Beautiful article~~
written by replica breitling bentley watches, November 21, 2011

I like this website, and I can benefit a lot from it!
replica breitling bentley watches

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Coach Outlet Online
written by Coach Outlet Online, November 24, 2011

As a fashionista,Coach Outlet Online you should deeply
know how important Coach Factory Outletto collect a set of outfits in summer.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

replica handbags
written by hermes birkin 30cm, February 10, 2012

I very much like your work.I hope you can also see your share.Duplicate handbags really are a great choice for presents too. You may locate plenty of benefits of buying replica totes. Move your eyes, click here, here you will find your Chloe replica Handbags and fake Miu Miu handbags.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment Preview