Burden seeks the strong?

You often hear that God does does not burden you more than you can bear; when life keeps throwing curveballs at someone it is because he has the ability to hit them for home runs. (Hmm! WHY do you do this? No clue about baseball and you want to use baseball metaphors?) It is not only God, apparently, who does this to you. Even Society behaves in like fashion apparently.

Tiru has this to say about it.

Amaragaththu Vankannar Polath Thamaragaththum Aatruvaar Metre Porai - Tirukkural

Like the soldier who takes the responsibilty in the battlefield, the man with the strength to handle responsibility is handed the burden - Loose Translation

In any social circumstance, have you seen most people jump up to handle responsibility? Especially when they do not have the legal or moral obligation to take it on themselves? (Like, you cannot really skedaddle when the problem relates to your job or your child, no? Unless you can shove it off on a colleague or your spouse, respectively.) More often than not, even people who claim to take on the responsibility only want the authority. Other people are content with the right to criticize. Most people, though, are happy to not be noticed when the problem crops up or when it is getting solved.

AND, thus, the chap who volunteers for it OR has proven his ability in sorting problems in the past IS the chap who the community shoves the job on. Much like you push that soldier into the van of the army to take the brunt of the attack. In a way, the reward for handling responsibility well is, almost invariably, more responsibility.

This, then, means that Tiru is not exactly enthusing people who do the hard yards. It seems more like a warning about being the strong pillar of society. Except, yes, if you want to become a leader, and have the misfortune of not being born in the right family, the way to get noticed is to be the man who seeks responsibility.

Otherwise, you can see this Kural as merely a warning. THAT a display of strength could end up as an invitation to be burdened!

The greatest honor

Philosophers, as I have had reason to say before, have the habit of using 'greatest' lavishly. Not just philosophers, these days. After all, one sees 'Greatest Of All Times' scattered around like confetti these days. Virat Kohli is GOAT, simultaneously Suryavanshi is GOAT and so on and so forth. So, yeah, I think that we have no real cause to laugh at philosophers for calling one character trait great today and another tomorrow, do we?

So, Tiru says this and I will not listen to anyone talking of what he said yesterday or day before...

Karumam Seyaoruvan Kaidhooven Ennum Perumaiyin Peedudaiyadhu IL- Tirukkural

Nobody deserves the highest honors more than he who unceasingly persists in his duty to his family and community - Loose Translation

Well, Bhagavad Gita probably has something to say on similar lines. Though, the Gita inclines more to telling a person how to achieve spiritual heights than honors on Earth. This 'doing his duty to his family and community' would translate to doing his dharma in the Gita.

The 'unceasingly persists' part requires some understanding. When would you want to 'cease'  the most? Is it not when you despair of succeeding in goals? I mean, when you cease to see it as your duty - your dharma - and start looking to measuring the goals...THAT's when the thought of ceasing enters your mind, no? Do you, for example, think about 'ceasing' eating; get bored with breathing? When dharma is a part of your being, an instinctive set of actions that you do not think about exercising a choice about...IS that not what the Gita says in 'Karmanyeva adhikaraste...'? So, to persist in doing something regardless of obstacles...THAT is extremely laudable, no? (AND do not start off on stupidly doing things over and over without considering if it is workable. Your 'duty to family and soceity' does not mean stubbornly doing unproductive things. You'd see your duty as 'logistics', say, and not as driving a bullock cart.)

Tiru, in a way, is indicating that what works for Nirvana would as well work for honors in the mundane world. Who am I to oppose him when he is backed by the Lord of the Universe?

Restraint and Virtue

When philosophers get to talking about the prerequisites for virtue, you can expect one of two reactions. The 'So what else is new?' reaction is more common. Because, you have heard it from childhood and from people who, in their actions, seem well versed in ignoring that advice. The other one, more polite perhaps, is where the person says 'Oh! THAT may have been true in your times. The world has changed now' where you are actually being given the credit for not exactly being wrong. Only out of step with the times.

Tiru says this...

Kadhamkaaththu katradangal aatruvaan sevvi arampaarkkum aatrin nuzhaindhu - Tirukkural

Virtue enters the life of the man who controls his anger, possesses learning and practises restraint - Loose Translation

Actually, this is where the modern chappies pop in and asks, "Who really wants virtue? It's success we want and, if virtue happens to come in, fine. Otherwise..." The problem, though, is that people forget that 'success', in any time, happens to involve social recognition.  And THAT, it so happens, is a function of how people view you. Of course, it is also true that even other forms of success - money, power, what have you - will require people helping you along the way and for that to happen you need to be looked upon as...err...virtuous, though they will not exactly use that term. 'Good team man', 'has leadership qualities' and so on...what's all that but people seeing you as possessing the necessary virtues?

So, yeah, you do need to possess learning, that's almost a given. (Call it skill-set or whatever, if it makes you feel all modern). But you need also to ensure that the learning does not give you a swollen head. Restraint, in this sense, also means that you should keep a rein on your tendency to go all 'I know more than you do'. In a sense, restraint is a leash on your ego. Being confident is one thing, being arrogant is another. So, alongside the learning, you also need to practise humility.

Now, actually, if you succeed in controlling your ego, controlling anger is almost redundant. Most of anger arises out of hurt ego and, well, that's exactly what is less likely to happen if your ego is controlled. But since the whole thing is a process and you ought not to allow your anger free rein till such time as you control your ego....

AND, really, controlling your ego till such time as you end up losing it altogether is what Indian spirituality is all about. So, of course, virtue walks in if you succeed.

Equanimity

Freedom from the pair of opposites is a phrase that resonates specifically through Indian philosophy. The most common opposites that are mentioned are Pleasure-Pain, Comfort-Discomfort, Victory-Defeat, Honor-Disgrace, Attachment-Aversion etc. AND, yes, to those who would contend that happiness IS a goal for humans, and to be indifferent to Joy and Sorrow is ceasing to really live, the reply is that the goal is Bliss in the form of Nirvana. Sort of like, if you had to give up the pleasure of drinking today in order to become the CEO tomorrow, what would you choose? (YOU could choose to drink. The point, as I have mentioned before, is that Philosophers guide you to what THEY think is the desirable goal.)

Try to understand what Tiru says, given this context...

Atremendru allaR padubavo petraemendru ombudhal thaetraa dhavar - Tirukkural

Would he who clung not to his wealth grieve if he lost it? - Loose Translation

Yeah, yeah, I can hear that jeering laugh. If you fail to cling to your wealth, obviously you are going to lose it to some Nigerian millionaire or digital arrest or some such. (These days, nobody considers the possibility that you may lose it because of your generosity. If I suggested it, I'd end up becoming the subject matter of memes.) Then what would be the point in grieving it?

Tiru, though, has other meanings for that 'clung not to his wealth'. What he means is that you have not made your wealth your identity; not made it the core of your self-respect; not surrounded yourself with only those who respect you for your wealth. In other words, if you had considered your wealth as merely a possession and not the core of your personality OR your social position, you'd not grieve the loss of your wealth.

Think of, say, an author or a composer or a painter or a sculptor...their art is their identity, not their wealth. AND, if such a person, embraced the act of creation as his identity and not the successes that come out of it...would losing wealth cause him grief?

Think, then, of wealth as a metaphor for anything external that earns you social position. Your official position, your professional popularity, whatever. As long as you keep that at arms length from your own sense of identity; as long as you can understand the difference between people who like and respect YOU and those who respect your POSITION and treat the latter as unimportant...THEN you can retire without feeling a vacuum; lose that popularity and still be happy.

THAT, then, is what Tiru means. True happiness lies within. To cling to what you get from the world leaves you open to the grief that inevitably follows when the world denies it to you.