Know the unstable

I have always wondered about poetry. I mean, when your English teacher tells you what the poet meant in his poetry, will the poet recognise his own thought process? Or does he, like the rest of us, wonder at the various ways in which your communication can be misunderstood by the listener? Does he, wonderstruck, rejoice in all that wisdom that he has, without knowing, put into his poetry? In other words, how much of the stated meaning of a poem owe itself to the poet and how much to the interpreter?

Tiru, for all that he writes what amounts to two line haikus, is as likely to be open-mouthed at the ways in which his Kurals can and have been interpreted. Like this one, which possible lends itself to interpretations other than what Tiru is likely to have intended...

Nillaadhavatrai nilaiyina endrunarum pullarivaanmai kadai - Tirukkural

To consider the transient as permanent dishonours the wise - Loose Translation

The importance of knowing the difference between unstable pleasures and stable happiness cannot be understated. To learn when you have the opportunity to learn leads to more stable happiness and, yet, the child is easily attracted to the temporary joys of play. Not that play has no place in life; just that play at the cost of learning is...unwise.

Take almost ANY intoxicant. The joy is temporary and, in a lot of cases, you end up with suffering in the absence and not much joy when the craving is satisfied. The consequences on health, on relationships, on happiness - permanent. Pursuing it is, to put it mildly, unwise.

There are any number of lesser example one can quote in daily life which highlight the rank idiocy of chasing the unstable. What would you say to the chap who screams,"I did it" when your boss is being praised for the team's work? Or the chap who stops his car and gets down to scream that the chap behind him who's persistently honking...only to be late to a key office meeting and losing his promotion?

And then that other thing...'Prioritising the urgent over the important'. Anything that falls under that umbrella for you is all a case of chasing the unstable and ending up forgoing the stable. Unwise!

But, yeah, Tiru probably did not mean all these things in life. What he probably was trying to tell you is that LIFE is unstable, transient and, thus, instead of chasing the 'good life', you ought to be chasing the 'good afterlife'!!

Foundations of success

You tend to find that philosophers talk of things that seem too airy-fairy. I mean, like, here we are trying to make a living on earth, trying to get your family and friends to not scoff at you and...well, you know, ordinary mundane things like that. AND you go to a philosopher for advice and he ends up scoffing at what you want and preaches to you about what you SHOULD want. But, then, there ARE times when a philosopher does surprise you by talking your own lingo leaving you open-mouthed in amazement.

So, Tiru says

Mudhalilaarka oodhiyamilla madhalaiyanj saarbilaark killai nilai - Tirukkural

Those who lack capital gain no profits; those who lack supporters lack stability of position - Loose Translation

Tiru seems to be well-rooted in Capitalism. He is very clear that if you seek to profit from your operations you need to have capital to invest in them. Like it or lump it, that is the way the world works. As I have had occassion to say earlier in these annals, 'Those who have get more of it' IS a law as much in the rest of life as it is in organic chemistry. (You can check  Markownikoff's Rule for human behavior for other applications of the law than for wealth.) Life, as has now become a cliche, IS unfair!

Tiru's point in this Kural, though, is about the second half of it. He is essentially saying that 'Just as lack of capital deprives you of profits, lack of supporters renders your position unstable'. Your social position, your status in your place of work, your ability to command respect...ALL of that depends on supporters. Unless you have people who trust you and are willing to support you in your endeavours, you are unlikely to hold on to any of that. Or, so Tiru says.

AND he is probably right. It is a rare case where you can achieve anything by dint of your own efforts. Achieve anything that gets you widespread approbation in society, that is. Almost always, you need to carry along people in your efforts. To do that, you need a few who will be unstinting in supporting your viewpoint and helping you convince others. If you do not earn such support among enough other people for you to make your mark, you'll lose your position sooner or later.

Support, trust, friendship, networks...call it what you will. With that you can become AND stay a leader. Without that...

Renounce to get?

There are these times when philosophers seem to take an almost sadistic pleasure in saying oxymoronic things. Not moronic things which merely do not make sense but oxymoronic things which ask you to see sense in self-contradictory statements. You know, things like 'organised chaos' which allow them to give you superior smiles when you screw up your face in puzzlement as you try to figure out how something can still be chaotic after it is organised.

So, Tiru does his thing when he says

VendinUn dagath thurakka thurandhapin EenduIyar paala pala - Tirukkural

Renounce your pleasures while you still have them to renounce if you seek a life of peace; having renounced you will find a lot more joys to savor - Loose Translation

So there! Give up your joys in order to be joyous, in short! Talk about contradiction!

That 'when you still have them to renounce' makes sense. I mean, like, you can only give up what you currently have, right? It's not like I can say, "OK! I renounce my private jet and my yacht and my designer clothing..." and feel that nice glow of renunciation. When it comes to what you do not yet have, all you feel is resentment. As I have said before in these annals, to be the monk who gave up his Ferrari, you first need to have HAD the Ferrari. If you wait till your digestive system goes on strike at the thought of fried food, you do not feel like you have renounced fried food...you feel DEPRIVED of fried food. So, THAT part is absolutely sensible.

To give up your pleasures leads to a life of peace? Most likely, yes. You see, the thing about pleasures is that, over time, you tend to MISS them when you do NOT get them. Not so much enjoy them when you DO get them. Except when the pleasures are unaffordable and rare. In which case the pleasure you get WHEN you have them is far outweighed by the deprivation you feel when you cannot afford to have them. Either way your mind is unquiet. Renouncing pleasures reduces your desires. AND, like the Buddha says, desires are the root cause of all misery.

But what's this about more joys to come after you renounce your pleasures? The absence of desires knocks expectations on the head. And expectations are what keeps you focused on the future...waiting for the day that you will get what you crave. Once they are gone, you start living in the moment - open to the unexpected joys that every moment of life can bring you.

And THAT without even the benefits that philosophers attribute to the state of Nirvana that renunciation is reputed to raise you to. So there you have it. You give up in order to get!

Envy and Progress

There are things that philosophers will never agree on with their arguments splitting hairs that you cannot even see. Largely, though, these things are issues that the mango person hardly ever bothers his head about. You know, like whether plants have a soul or whether there is  multiverse and things like that. Comes to the things that we guys are interested in, they seem to show a surprising unanimity of opinion. Which can be reduced to 'Whatever the common man thinks is ok is not.'

Take envy for example. Who among us thinks it is...well, not exactly good, but....Ah! What I mean is that we all think it is sort of normal to feel it and, thus, it cannot be sinful. Well, just think of that other thing that we all find normal to feel - lust - and think what the philosophers have to say about it. So, here goes Tiru

Azhukkatru agandraarum illai aqdhu illaar perukkaththu theerndhaarum il - Tirukkural

No envious man achieves greatness; nor does lacking envy cause you to fail in achieving it - Loose Translation

There you go! Tiru strongly holds that envy destroys you chances of achieving greatness. Which, in a way, seems logical. I mean, if you are in a race, it hardly helps you win to concentrate on the way the other guy runs, does it? Envy keeps you concentrating on what the other guy is doing/has achieved AND feeling that, somehow, the universe has conspired to give him success. Instead, you ought to be concentrating on what YOU need to do to win. BUT...if you assume that winning or losing is the conspiracy of the universe, then you do not plan to work on winning; you only plan to either steal the win from the other guy OR, perhaps, strive to make him lose.

You see, envy shifts your attention from the race to the competitor; ergo, your future actions will be centered on how to make the competitor lose than on how to run a better race. Why, when you generally envy a person's success - in terms of his money or fame - you may even end up entering the wrong race. End up entering the sprint, because the other guy made his success by sprinting, when you have the makings of a great marathoner.

The point is that greatness is achieved by knowing who you are - what your strengths and weaknesses are. THEN you enter the proper race for yourself, learn the training you need to succeed in that race and acquire it. Envy keeps your focus on others; on the things that could, perhaps, help you disrupt THEIR success; not to succeed yourself.

AND Tiru also says that a lack of envy has not been a reason for anyone to fail. Now, yes, ambition is a consequence of not being satisfied with who you are and where you are. True, but that dissatisfaction need not arise out of comparing yourself with the next guy. Even if it does, it is not necessary to envy the other guy; just use him as a role model for what is possible for you.

But, then, all that is tough. It is easiest to just lie back and say, "If only luck favored me like it did him..."