The key to all good?

You tend to get put off by philosophy, sometimes, simply because it tells you what you already know but are unable or unwilling to do. I mean, like, when you get told that hard work leads to prosperity, you get angry. Not because it is wrong but because you know it already but do not want to do it. If there was a philosopher who told you that prosperity will come to you as you loll around in your bed watching a web series, you'd embrace him with all your heart. The philosopher who tells you that politeness yields friendships will face rude ire from you; the one who says that being rude is the way to go, since it denotes frankness, is your bosom pal. The philosopher...WHAT? You got the point already? Alright!

Tiru cannot always be finding out and telling things that you do not already know. (Though, to be sure, since I do NOT know what you already know, it could well be that you do not know this.) Sometimes, he too will tell you what you know already. Like this one...

Thunai nalam aakkam tharum vinai nalam vendiya ellaam tharum - Tirukkural

Having good supporters yields wealth; doing good and progressive work will yield all desirable results - Loose Translation

You know, sometimes, it is difficult to get these philosophers. I mean, you got wealth, right? When you have people around you who are good and capable? What other desirable results could you possibly want that you cannot buy with wealth? Well, Tiru probably means things like popularity, fame etc. Maybe even health if you take 'work' to mean everything you do - including eating, drinking etc - and that they should all be 'good' and 'progressive'.

That phrase - 'vinai nalam' - is tough to translate. It does mean 'good' as in you are not to steal, murder, defraud etc; it also connotes that what you do should be progressive for Society. Yes, you could honestly run an existing business and be 'good'. You could do socially relevant business OR you could expand business to provide more employment OR make available a rare drug OR...You get the point like you did the last time? Business that leaves a mark on Society, leaves Society better off than before - THAT's what that 'progressive' means. That is what gets you all that you may legitimately desire out of life according to Tiru.

NOW you see why advice makes you angry. You know it already but it is hard yards to do it. So...

To prefer violence?

You tend to think of philosophers as peaceful souls. I don't really think anyone thought of a philosopher who prioritises violence. I mean, like, the chappie is most likely to say that 'War indicates a failure of diplomacy' or 'There is nothing that cannot be sorted by sitting down to discuss' and things like that. In fact, the first advice that you expect a philosopher to give in times of conflict is to sit together and discuss. Perhaps, the idea is that you can kill a conflict by boring people to death.

Not so Tiru. At least, as it seems, not in this kural:

Ollumvaa yellaam vinai nandrae ollaakkaal sellumvai nokkich cheyal - Tirukkural

It is best to overcome by fighting if possible; if not, opt for any other workable method - Loose Translation

It needs be clarified that, in India, four methods of overcoming an enemy were outlined - sama, daana, bheda and danda. Sama is the art of discussion and, possibly, compromise; daana is attempting to bribe the enemy to concede; bheda is to try to divide the enemy by creating divisiveness in their ranks; danda is to attack and overcome the enemy.

So, Tiru prefers the violent option of attacking and overcoming the enemy as the first choice, if it is at all possible to win that battle. In the event that such a victory is seen as impossible, he advises that you should seek an alternative solution which is workable from out of the other three options.

On the face of it, this seems like war-mongering. Even if one takes it literally, and not metaphorically, the point is that Tiru probably sees the other options as only postponing the problem and not solving it. All compromises leave some on either side feeling that the compromise was treachery and, thus, leads to a conflict further down the road; bribery works only for a time as the natives of England had reason to find when they bribed the Norsemen to go away - they only come back for more; divisions are also a temporary ruse. If what was together can be split, what splits can come back together.

Tiru assumes that when the base cause of the conflict remains, the war will remain to be fought. You can only buy time to strengthen yourself but the war will still come back to you. THAT, then, IS the point. That Tiru is not really talking of battles that are fought on minor matters of dispute but on fundamental differences that really cannot be reconciled. (No such thing? Well, what about a cannibalistic tribe preying on your citizens? OR a tribe thriving on robbing travellers and merchants to your country? There ARE value systems that you will need to fight for.) Essentially, deciding the goal of a conflict can be open to discussion. Tiru is talking about how you go about ACHIEVING that goal having decided on the desirability of the goal - whether you go all out to achieve it or whether you compromise on achieving the goal.

THAT is, if it is to be taken literally. Metaphorically, a battle is anything that needs to be changed or implemented. Anywhere where there is a conflict, even if it is of opinions or habits, Tiru would call it a battle. AND in any battle, he prefers that you charge ahead and complete the job if you can see the possibility of victory, instead of dilly-dallying. ONLY if such victory is seen as impossible does he suggest the other options which are, indeed, varying forms of compromise.

Just so you can see the applicability, consider gender equality or changing over the indirect tax system to GST or adoption of automation/AI or whatever. Tiru says that if you can at all bull through to making the change-over, go ahead and do it, instead of discussing it to death. IF you find that impossible, THEN go in for a path that is workable on the day - compromise, bribe the opposition (Like, say, a VRS while adopting automation), divide the opposition etc. 

Tiru is more a pragmatist than a philosopher in that sense. 'Do what works, don't keep splitting moral hairs' is probably what he'd say. Even idealism, in his world view, needs to be tempered by practicality. AND who is to say he is wrong? A world moved an inch towards the ideal world is probably better than a completely ideal world that only stays in the mind!

A time for procrastination?

About the one thing that I was sure of was that no philosopher would support procrastination. You know how these chaps are - if you truly like a certain behavior, the whole lot of them will come down on you like a ton of bricks and call you all sorts of names. AND, bar a very few, the whole world sort of likes procrastination though, yes, they may claim otherwise. Much like they all claim to be...well...honest, hardworking, monogamous, yada yada.

So, yeah, I was sure that no philosopher would support procrastination and, yet...well, when Tiru says this...

Thoonguga thoongi seyarpaala thoongarkka thoongaadhu seyyum vinai - Tirukkural

Leisurely do those jobs which should be done at ease; never be slow on those that ought not be delayed - Loose Translation

So, yes, Tiru is not giving you a free pass on procrastinating on all jobs. He clearly insists that there ARE jobs that ought not to be delayed and, thus, need to be done immediately and as soon as possible. I mean, like, if your dress is on fire, you are unlikely to appreciate the chap who wants to sleep over the idea of putting the fire out. (Oh, by the way, if you literally translated this kural it would come out as 'Sleep over such jobs as can be slept over; never sleep over those jobs that cannot'. Here, though, that 'sleep' does not actually stands for stretching out and snoring. It is a euphemism for taking it easy.) But Tiru DOES actually instruct you to take it easy on some jobs.

So such jobs actually exist? I mean jobs that actually INVITE procrastination? Hmmm. Maybe Tiru is NOT talking of procrastination at all. Like, I have heard of dishes that have to marinade for hours; of dishes that have to be cooked for long over a low flame...things like that. (Yeah, yeah, cannot get my mind off food. So?) Doing those dishes urgently by reducing the time of the marinading or cooking on a high flame to get done faster...Would that make for a satifactory dish?

There ARE jobs that have to be done slowly and steadily. Whether it be at the level of actually doing work with your hands OR whether it is things that you do in an organisation, you will always find some things that work better when done slowly.

Implementing change can be like that. I mean, yeah, it may be a necessary thing but...Well, unless your employees buy into the change, unless they completely understand what is expected of them in the new way of doing things, will that change get implemented properly and yield the results that you expect to get?

So, yes, there ARE jobs that cannot be rushed. For THOSE jobs, Tiru is only saying that 'Haste makes Waste'. And there ARE jobs which need to be done urgently - the 'stitch in time saves nine' sort of jobs. So, in one pithy kural, Tiru encompasses both and says that unnecessary haste AND undue delay will both cause damage.

Now to figure out what jobs can be done leisurely and what need doing right now! THAT's the challenge in which Tiru is no help. You need to do it yourself.

Pick your advisers

There is this idea, fostered at our schools and colleges, that the more you learn the more successful you will be. And, almost inevitably, you end up with some people thinking that they are bound to fail if they do not know everything. As in, you got to be good at coding, at finance, at HR...you get the picture. Why, if they had a garden, they will feel a pressing need to be good at digging (AND not just holes for their competitors!)

Then there is this thing called 'Delegation'. Delegation is basically the idea that you do not need to do everything yourself. It is alright if you can shove it off on other people. But if you delve into people's ideas of delegation, you will get to a core belief that delegation means that you CAN do it yourself if you want to BUT you allow other people to do it while you concentrate on other things. In other words, if you tell them that it is alright not to KNOW how to do those things they'll probably balk. To not KNOW translates to not being in control of that area. When it comes to key areas, the feeling of not being in control is anathema.

Tiru, like a lot of philosophers (AND management experts, yes), does not think that this DIY style is a great idea. Here he says...

Aranarindhu mooththa arivudaiyaar kaenmai thiranarindhu thaerndhu kolal -  Tirukkural

A good leader picks people of virtue and requisite wisdom and does what is needed to surround himself with them - Loose Translation

In the normal course, this idea of picking 'virtuous' people is taken as a sort of 'has to be said' thing which is not to be considered as binding. Not in this case. I mean, look, you are getting people to advice you on areas where you are not yourself knowledgeable. It is primarily their own integrity that will keep them from misguiding you. So, yes, here their virtue is an important prerequisite. (Read 'people of virtue' as 'trustworthy people' and you'll know what I mean.)

There is no need to belabor 'requisite wisdom'. Since Tiru was advising kings, he would be asking them to surround themselves with wise people to advise them. But, what would be the point in having people deeply versed in the knowledge of the naval matters in a completely landlocked kingdom? So, yes, the leader/king would pick people with 'requisite' wisdom only, unless he has need to accomodate the Queen's brother or his own nephews...in which case Tiru would pooh-pooh him as a bad king, anyway!

AND picking these people is not enough. You need to get them to work for you with a will. So, the leader has to get them to stay with him by understanding THEIR own needs and satisfying them. In other words, in HR parlance, the King/leader needs to understand the needs of these potential advisers and align them with the needs of his own kingdom/organisation.

Of course, Tiru's was not the time of management consultants who could be hired on a project specific basis. But whether you can rely exclusively on them or you need your own set of advisers to vet their recommendations...THAT is for you to decide!