Faultless critic?

Have you seen this thing with people? If there is some meme about the characteristics of a good friend, everyone rushes to apply it to their friends to find out if they are fit to be called friends. If there is a WhatsApp forward about how to test whether a partner is right for you, they'll happily try it out. (AND come out sad at the end of it. Fie you pessimist, this is an optimistic blog.) In whatever circumstance, you'll always see people put themselves in the seat of the critic.

Tiru, though, seems to think that it is not the way to do things. He says...

Thankutram neekkip pirarkutrank kaangirppin enkutra maagum iraikku - Tirukkural

You cannot fault the leader who first cleanses his faults before scanning for faults in others - Loose Translation

So, this leader who Tiru lauds...if he comes across a meme, he will first apply it to himself. He sees a meme about characteristics of a good friend, he applies it to himself to see whether HE fits description of a good friend; if not, he changes himself to suit the description; THEN he applies it to his friends. IF he comes across a forward that is about testing a partner, he...well, he will first see if HE likes the idea of his partner testing him like that before he rushes to test the partner. I mean, yeah, you want your partner to care for you if you are ill; but to act ill and make your partner do your errands...THAT can be seen as manipulative behavior. Tiru, therefore, wants you to sit on the other side first and only then become the critic.

Why only 'leader'? Well, it applies to all people actually. But the one who seeks to lead needs to be better than the rest. To REACH a position of leadership includes making others willing to accept criticism from you. I mean, a leader sets the path for others to follow which, automatically, includes explicit or implicit criticism of whatever paths that they are already on.  A leader has to change thoughts and behavior. If HE fails to correct his own faults, then he lays himself open to serious criticism. (Oh, yeah, you can ALSO become a leader by loudly espousing what people want to do. But THAT would only mean that you are walking ahead of the crowd, not leading them.)

The problem with this is that you need to become faultless first before you become a critic, else you'll be faulted. Big deal! I cannot live without trolling others. So what if I also get trolled?

Hidden desires?

As long as there are societal rules that seek to ensure a moral behavior that does not vibe with human desires, there will always be some desires that remain hidden. This, alas, is NOT an exploration of such desires. For that you will need to look elsewhere in the web. There are, however, times when it is best to hide even your legitimate desires. That is what we seek to explore here. ('When did I seek to explore it?', you ask? IF you have no interest why are you still here? Just for the pleasure of heckling?)

Tiru says this about hiding desires...

Kaadhala kaadhal ariyaamai uykkirpin yedhila yedhilaar nool - Tirukkural

No foe can harm he who does not publicise the desires that he seeks/enjoys - Loose Translation

This was a toughie to translate really. I mean, it is quite easy to say 'hide your desires' but that is not exactly what Tiru means here. You know of people who are private, right? Ask them if they liked the food and, from their reaction, you cannot make out exactly how they felt. Enigmatic...that's the word. 'Hiding' comes from a position of weakness. It indicates a fear of being found out. The enigmatic guy...you just cannot read his mind. Not even to find out whether he intends hiding his emotions or whether it is just you who are failing at interpreting them.

Tiru feels that it does not pay to be too open about what you desire. I mean, yeah, in a negotiation it is very easy to understand, no? If you are sitting across the table with all your cards face up, you are bound to end up with an agreement with measures up to the barest minimum that you are willing to accept. Knowing your desires strengthens the hands of your opponent for then he knows how far he can push the negotiations.

But, it is as much of a problem in other areas. Almost all of life seems to be made up of small and big negotiations. 'Get an 'A' and I'll buy you this gaming device' and the likes are open negotiations. Subtler ones involve non-explicit reward systems i.e satisfying your desires if your actions meet with the other person's approval without any explicit stated linkage between the two. All of social life works on such interactions whether it is intended as manipulation OR it is a natural reaction to the happiness caused by your actions.

The bottomline is that a knowledge of your desires makes it possible for you to be manipulated. The enigmatic man is better positioned to avoid manipulation and, in fact, will prove the better manipulator. Thus, it actually IS best to be enigmatic with enemies/antagonists.

Should you then apply the same across the board? Depends on whether you want to treat the whole world as antagonistic to you. IF you do, if even those around you never know your desires, how can you ever expect them to voluntarity satisfy them? If you keep your desires to yourself and, yet, seek to get them satisfied, you'll need to manipulate everyone to satisfy your desires, thus becoming the toxin in all your relationships. Tiru, here, is only talking of keeping your desires a secret from enemies/antagonists, not that there should be no openness and trust with those close to you.

In short, being an enigma to antagonists is the way to succeed. Being an enigma to EVERYONE is the way to convert everyone into antagonists. Whether that's the life you want to live is your choice.

What remains?

Philosophers will be philosophers. They may have their practical side but, when it comes to the goals of life, they are unlikely to accept what you and I aim for as worthwhile goals. (Yeah, yeah, even you do not accept lolling around in my sofa surfing OTT channels as a worthwhile goal. So?) Even when they ARE being practical, they tend to mix in ideals so that you do not feel too complacent about the life you are leading.

So, Tiru says this...

Echchamendru enennung kollo oruvaraal nachchap padaa dhavan - Tirukkural

What does a person think that he leaves behind when he has helped nobody and thus leaves behind none who love him? - Loose Translation

All that you own ceases to be yours when you die. And, thus, none of it will be associated with you after you have passed. Anyway, THAT association - his house, his land etc - has to be done by people. Once you leave behind no people who want to remember you, all the marks you left on the world will be wiped out.

Tiru is making exactly that point. The only mark you make on the world is the memories that you leave with the people around you. If you have been a miser, hoarding your wealth to yourself and not parting with it to help those around you, there will be nobody who will WANT to remember you. Which means that your memories will be wiped out very soon indeed.

I told you. Tiru WILL get you sooner or later. I mean, yes, if you had spent the money reveling by yourself, you may count as being alive but...

Once you are dead, as far as Society is concerned, you will be dead and gone and...forgotten!

Wealth guardians

There is always this thing about wealth. People want to safeguard it. AND, yes, there is some element of truth in it. That if you fail to care for your wealth, it will drain away, leaving you with nothing. But, as with everything in the world, there is such a thing as going too far...with anything. I mean, yup, you got to safeguard your wealth but if all you do with wealth is to safeguard it...

Tiru pops up with this on the issue

Porulaanaam ellaamendru eeyaadhu ivarum marulaanaam maanaap pirappu - Tirukkural

He who, assuming that wealth shall give rise to all joys, refuses to part with it shall only be a demon - Loose Translation

You see, in Indian myth, there is this concept of treasures guarded by demons. In Tamil, such beings are called 'Puthaiyal kaaththa bhootham' i.e Treasure guarding demons, literally. And then there is this belief that a soul which has a strong attachment will linger around as a ghost in the vicinity of the object of its attachment. Now, whether Tiru was intending to say that the chap will be reborn as a treasure guarding demon OR whether he said that the chap's ghost will linger on around his wealth even after his death or, even, that he was metaphorically calling that chap akin to either...who knows? The point is that Tiru had no great opinion of misers.

But, note that 'eeyaadhu'. THAT means that our chap was not GIVING to anyone. In other words, his wealth is not being deployed to HELP anyone else. So, yes, Tiru has become a more conventional philosopher here. What he has to say is that you need to sort of 'spread your wealth around'. In other words, you need to not only spend on yourself but to spend on others as well.

Which, come to think of it, stands to reason when you are thinking of the 'joys' that wealth can bring you. I mean, how many joys can you think of that you can get without other people getting involved in the mix. I mean, yeah, let us agree with you that counting your pennies is great fun but really? Can you enjoy doing it 24x7? Enjoy OTT series and trolling on Social Media 24x7? Yes? THEN you are ALREADY that demon/ghost!

No? Then you have got into the area where you need to spend on others. Try surrounding yourself with people as a rich man and never spend a penny on them...even in the times of their need. See how many stick around you thereafter. Wealth CAN be the source of joys but the joys will come via people. (Yeah, yeah! Comes the time that AI fulfils all those needs, this kural may become redundant but ONLY because ALL people would have ended up as ghosts in the machine!)

Until AI's kingdom come, you need to be willing to part with some of your wealth to other people in order to get the joys that wealth can give you.