Society's foundation?

There is this general opinion that India has been the society of mystics and monks; a place where renunciation has been set at such a pinnacle that there is no respect for work. In a way it is true, since the ultimate goal of life is seen to be to renunciation. But that is not the whole truth, is it?

After all, this IS the society that splits life into four parts - Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha and Sanyasa i.e Bachelorhood/ a period of learning, Family Life, Withdrawal from Society and Renunciation in THAT order. So, one was not pushed into renouncing right at the start. At least (and alas, in my opinion) you  were not given the license to renounce work.

So, yes, when Tiru says this it is not surprising...

Thurandhaarkkum thuvvaadhavarkkum irandhaarkkum ilvaazhvaan enbaan thunai - Tirukkural

The family man is the sole support of the monks, the mendicants and the helpless - Loose Translation

This Grihastha/ilvaazhvaan is not exactly just a family man. As in, I used to say I need all those around me to marry so that I can be a bachelor and still get good home-cooked food. THAT is neither the sense of Brahmacharya or Grishastha, really - that the former is a bachelor and the latter is married. A Brahmachari is one who is a learner and has not started contributing to society in any meaningful manner. A Grihastha is not just a married man; he is a productive member of society. He is indulging in some activity - like agriculture, commerce, whatever - that adds value to Society.

So, essentially, what Tiru is saying is that those who  do economic activity are the mainstay of everyone else in Society. And THAT is probably the basic lesson of economics (What do you think this demographic dividend is? The increasing number of infants and super-senior citizens?) Which also teaches you that if all of Society become renunciates, THAT Society will probably starve to death.

Does that mean, that Indian philosophers preach one thing and practice another? Not really. This wholesale attitude - that, if something is good, it is good for all people at all times - is idiocy. You do not expect the child to work in the fields; why then should the youth necessarily become a renunciate? There is a time to work and a time to withdraw from society. (I mean, after retirement, it is graceful for you to not haunt the office every day, no? Vanaprastha!) And THEN there is a time to renounce your attachment to everything and everyone, and set your mind on the divine. Sanyasa! You are being taught to mature and change with age and not cling on to the attitudes that you ought to out-grow.

So, there! While Tiru is giving credit to the householder for HIS invaluable contribution to Society, he is also setting the yardstick for what constitutes a good householder...that he be someone who succours the monks, the mendicants and the helpless and not someone who pillages the weak and hoards his wealth.

C'est la Tiru! He can never even praise without laying a burden on you! But then is that not the very rationale for praise?

Happy forgetfulness

One tends to think of joy as an undiluted benefit. And, yes, when you are happily celebrating the last thing you want is someone disturbing the mood with cautions. But, then, is it not the nature of philosophers to keep disturbing you? Have you not felt that they exist for the sole purpose of raining over your parade? Can Tiru, then, be an exception?

So, yup. Tiru goes...

Irandha veguliyin theedhe sirandha uvagai magizhchiyir sorvu - Tirukkural

More destructive than excessive anger is the forgetfulness arising out of intoxicating joy - Loose Translation

So there! Excessive joy is more dangerous than excessive anger. Because of the forgetfulness that it can cause. And what forgetfulness, pray?

You know, when a major achievement is done, there are a lot of small things that still remain to be done, just to tie it off. The achievement itself may be the tough task, the thing that you may even have despaired of doing when you are engaged in the project. The smaller tasks may be dead easy; but they could well be very necessary and, if you forget to do them, it may cost you the whole project. (Like, say, finding a new drug molecule and forgetting to patent it.)

You may forget to appreciate the people who helped you to achieve the success that you are so joyous about now. THAT may not yield instant karma but it will come back to bite you. AND, if you make a habit of it, you will eventually be a much lesser success than you could have been. If not an outright failure.

You may forget the lessons you learned while you worked on it. Forget the missteps which would mean that you may repeat them the next time. Forget the areas where you stubbornly pushed your own views over others and were proved wrong, which means that you will not LEARN from your mistakes. Forget the fact that your success leaned on other people's expertise which could well lead to you ignoring their advice the next time. (The 'I am the success, so I'm always right' syndrome.) So, yes, there is a lot that you could forget.

Joy is a good thing and one needs to give in to it every now and then. But when joy intoxicates, when it wipes out of memory the things that you ought to remember...

A drunk is ONLY a drunk, be it alcohol or joy, when he refuses to recover his sobriety.

Useless eyes?

No, no, this is not a diatribe about how eyes are useless if used only to binge-watch OTT series. Nor, indeed, is it a push for the latest online tutorial class on AI which will push your marketability so high that Trump will have to set a special tariff rate to ensure that American companies do not queue up for your services. Nor, indeed, is this a push to ensure that you work 120 hours a week instead of wasting your eyes on looking at your wife.

So, then, what exactly is it? Well, it is certainly not going to tell you what you want to hear. Tiru is not made like that, you see.

Pannennaam paadarku iyaibindrael kanennaam kannottam illadha kan - Tirukkural

As useless as a tune that fails to fit the song is the eye that lacks empathy - Loose Translation

So, Tiru feels that to look on the world without empathy in your heart is as good as being blind. Yeah, he does tend to go overboard while pushing his point but then THAT is the prerogative of poets, isn't it? Hyperbole is one of the best ways for a poet to drill his point in the hearts of the readers.

But, in a way, it IS true that you may as well be blind. If you use your eyes as a means of navigating through the world physically, empathy may not be a necessity. But to navigate your way socially, you NEED empathy, failing which you may as well be blind.

I mean, if you cannot see the man in front of you and understand that he is in distress; if you cannot see a group in front of you yawning their heads off and realise that your speech is not exactly being appreciated...well, to really SEE the world, you need to put yourself in THEIR shoes and understand why they could be frowning or distracted or whatever. THEN you can navigate your way socially. Failing which you will only be stumbling and colliding with people and wondering what went wrong. What do they say these days? Lacking in EQ.

Empathy is the art of looking at the world from the other person's point of view. The first prerequisite is to shed judgmentalism. If you can truly be empathetic, then you can really see the world around you. Otherwise, your view of the world will be myopic because it will be warped by your own beliefs and prejudices. Your eyes will see only what they want to see and not what really IS.

AND Tiru calls such eyes useless.

Your money is my money?

There are these times when a philosopher's advice seems so attractive to you merely because it allows you to interpret it to suit yourself. The true meaning of what he said may actually be unpalatable to you but who cares about true meanings? It is enough that you can quote the guy to support your own point.

Thus, when Tiru says this...

Vaanigam seyvaarkku vaanigam penip piravum thamapol seyin - Tirukkural

To deal with other people's things/money with the same care as for your own is the mark of a good merchant - Loose Translation

You see, as usual, some things are only implicit in the Kural. Like, this can be translated as  'To deal with other people's things like your own..' which seems like an open invitation to treat the things or money entrusted to you as your own. Whereas, what Tiru actually wants you to do is to live up to the trust by expending the same effort to safeguard and grow it as you would with your own.

Like, if you are entrusted with the job of selling a friend's house, you are not expected to sell it and keep the proceeds. Nor are you supposed to sell at less than market and split the difference with the buyer to line your pockets. Nor are you expected to sell it at rockbottom prices just to be rid of the job. This, then, is what he means by 'treating as your own' which is a far cry from the meanings that will have you cartwheeling down the streets in joy. But, then, to be considered a 'good' merchant is tough, no? 

Oh, the whole problem is that the definition of a 'good merchant' has changed radically. I mean, just think of a guy who actually does not maximise his profits! Could he be a good merchant? But you will probably align with Tiru if you think of who is a 'good merchant' to whom you can entrust the sale of YOUR house; not whether you'd consider someone a good merchant by assessing how he has dealt with some third party's house.

The thing, though, is that treating other's things with the same care as you treat yours is still no guarantee of earning a good name. I mean, I may actually NOT actually be good enough a negotiator to get the best possible price and would actually settle for a lower price even if I am selling my own house. I may be a risk taker when investing my own money whereas the other guys may prefer not to lose his money in a stock market crash.

There are these things which Tiru probably assumes that 'merchant' will cover. The competence and inclination to get the best possible deal; the understanding of the risk averseness of the other guy so that you either refuse to take on the job OR work on it differently than your own money. (As in, the CARE you take will be the same in trying to fulfill the goals of the investment. The GOALS of the investment, though, will align with the other guy's mindset and not yours.) So, if I am a merchant, I am supposed to have these de minimis qualifications; and to be a 'good' merchant, I must take as much care as I would do with my own.

All this really does not lead to happy acceptance among us guys. But, who really thinks of all of that. You simply use this kural to mean 'Your money is my money' and happily move on. C'est la vie.