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.

Useless Wealth

The moment you see 'useless wealth' and I say it is something told by a philosopher you burst out with, 'So, what else is new? If you read philosophers they would have you believe that they would turn down the chance to be Jeff Bezos and choose to be Mother Teresa. Easy to say when the choice is not really available.' That, though, is not what this is all about.

Tiru IS a philosopher but he was not really into only telling you to live for the next world. He had quite a lot to say about how to live well in this world. (And 'well' meant not only good conduct but a happy life as we guys understand it.)

In fact, THAT is the thing about a lot of Indian philosophy. It is practical. I mean, where else in the world will you find a philosopher saying that the householder (i.e the man of the world) IS the mainstay of the ascetic, like Tiru has done somewhere. After all, the ascetic gets his food from the householder and is not being fed by passing birds, is he? So, yes, Tiru's advice is not all about ideal living which is impractical in the real world.

So it is not surprising to hear Tiru say,

Vaiththaanmai saandra perumporul aqdhunnaan seththaan seyakkidandhadhu il - Tirukkural

He who has heaped riches in his house but enjoys none of it, is as good as a dead man - Loose Translation

See what I mean. Tiru is not saying that you should be giving the wealth away. He says that You ought to enjoy the wealth; merely accumulating it without using it is the act of a man who does not really LIVE.

A person who is really ALIVE will be using the wealth, not merely accumulating it. Whether it is spent in revelry, in bettering the lives of others around him or to grow his enterprises...it will mean that the person is actively living his life. To merely take in the money and store it in his house...that's the act of a person who lives like a hog which knows nothing but to eat and become fat.

Now, Tiru is not really saying that you are a great person if you 'eat, drink and be merry'. Just that you are a better person than the guy whose idea of fun is to sit in his home and count his pennies. You may die tomorrow but you count as being alive today and the guy who merely accumulated counts as being as good as dead, that's all.

You see, not all that lives is good. Tiru will get you in some other Kural, make no mistake about it. Why do you think I am OFF all philosophers?