The true possession?

Even when it comes to possessions, you cannot rest certain that your ideas will find a philosopher nod in agreement. I mean, yeah, one understands that they will not agree with you on virtues. After all, if you and they share the same ideas on virtues then exactly why are THEY philosophers and YOU just a mango person? But...possessions?

And, yet, here is Tiru out to tell you what is a true possession and what is not.

Udaiyavar enappaduvadhu ookkam aqdhilaar udaiyadhu udaiyaro matru - Titukkural

You possess only if you possess zeal; else do you truly possess what you possess? - Loose Translation

Ah! Actually, Tiru is more into defining whether you are a true possessor rather than whether what you have is a true possession. It is more like saying that what you think you possess is not really your possession because to possess anything at all you first need to possess zeal. Sounds sort of like Nityananda in his full glory, doesn't it? Quite unlike Tiru who really does not go in for these Zen type of statements that sound very profound but convey no meaning to you.

But, yeah, glimmers of light pierce that shroud. A simple understanding would be that if you have no zeal, you would take no active interest in your possessions. If you do not take interest in your possessions, do you even KNOW that you possess them? If you do not, does it even matter that some legal document says that you do?

To possess something is not merely to hold onto it. It is also to make use of it. If you own land and take no interest in it and someone else has encroached on it and is putting it to use, who really possesses that land? YOU or that chap who is currently in...err...possession? End of the day, he who is deriving benefit from something IS the guy who truly possesses it, not someone who just has a legal claim to it.

And, yes, that's just another way you will end up truly not possessing what you possessed. I mean, if you fail to take interest in what you possess, sooner or later someone else is going to take it off you without your consent or even, possibly, knowledge.

One can even go so far as to say that the man without zeal does not even possess his own life. I mean, unless YOU have a zeal for life, you are never going to seize the moment and do something with it; never going to live the day. So, then, have you truly lived?

Zeal, ardour, enthusiasm...call it what you will. You get the joy of your possessions only with it; without it all possessions are dross!

Covetousness repels wealth?

The thing about philosophers is that they assume that virtue is a magnet for all good things - including wealth. Quite contrary to the most common lament among us mango people - that it is our virtue that is keeping us poor while the wicked flourish like a green bay tree. But then, come on, do you honestly expect to be taught in your childhood that the path to success is to rob your uncle blind? Of course, they will tell you the virtues of hard work etc. including the benefits of not coveting other people's wealth.

As Tiru does here:

Aranarindhu vekkha arivudaiyaar serum tiranarindhu thaane tiru - Tirukkural

The goddess of wealth comes voluntarily to he who righteously covets not the wealth of others - Loose Translation

Well, so there. If you covet someone else's wealth, you need to do all the hard yards yourself - of finding a way to lining your pockets with his wealth. If, on the other hand, you stay righteous, wealth automatically flows to you. Really? Seems more like the sort of thing you say to keep men righteous.

And yet...maybe it is not like the wealth will just flow your way. Generally, you tend to apply your abilities in the direction of your wishes. So, if you covet someone else's wealth, you will tend to apply your mind to finding ways and means to try to get some, if not all of it, for yourself. That, obviously, means that you'll succeed only when the other guy is more stupid than you and also has no wise advisers.

Whereas, instead of looking around to see whose wealth you can covet, you concentrate on how YOU can make wealth for yourself...then your abilities are applied in that direction. Quite naturally, you could make your success happen for yourself without necessarily picking someone else's pocket for it.

Oh, yes, you are right! Success is not certain and wealth may not automatically flow to you. Poets and, yes, philosophers do tend to hyperbole. But then, do you really know what the success rate is when you try the covetousness route...AND the success rate of evading capture thereafter which you do not need to worry about? Except, of course, if you evaded taxes on that wealth that you earned!

Covetousness may not necessarily REPEL wealth, repulsive though the character of the covetous man IS. But it certainly ensures that you lose your chance of succeeding legitimately.

The temporary and the permanent

It is a tough world to live in, especially when you not only have to live a good life but should also be SEEN to live a good life. It is not enough that you BE happy, you have to be ACKNOWLEDGED to be happy. Otherwise, your happiness is...err...temporary, isn't it? Like, you put up a Insta reel showing how happy you are and nobody reacts to it at all. Are you even sure that you WERE happy when you put it up?

So, then, Tiru has this to say about the temporary and the permanent

Nilladhavatrai nilaiyina endrunarum pullarivaanmai kadai - Tirukkural

To see as permanent that which is ephemeral is the worst of ignorance - Loose Translation

So there. To not even realise something is ephemeral and shall not last is the worst thing for you according to Tiru. Think of it and it does seem logical, doesn't it? I mean, most people tend to work towards their own goals. When you fix those goals without even realizing whether they are worth pursuing is a sure-shot way to becoming a failure without even failing, if you get what I mean. Like, as a kid, if you chase being the best gilli-danda player in your area over doing well at school (OR even cricket) even if you succeed in your goal, you end up becoming a failure in life, no?

To know what is lasting and what is not IS of utmost importance. Like, in the above case, realising that being the best gilli-danda player in your area is not something you can continue to boast of in your twenties OR use to get into college on the sports quota...THAT also falls under this 'what is temporary and what is permanent' thingy. Easy as it is for parents to tell that to their children, it is tougher to recognize for themselves whether something is gilli-danda or cricket/academics when it comes to their own lives. I mean, say, the pleasure of telling off your boss vs your career etc (Where is it something temporary as just letting off steam OR as permanent as maintaining your self-respect?) OR getting a moderate raise vs spending time with your family OR...I mean, really, people find it tough to KNOW whether one more party with their friends is worth losing your spouse so what to talk of tougher choices?

The point IS that one should have a clear idea of what IS temporary to THEM and what IS permanent. I mean, I may feel that a career is worth more than the pleasure of an annual trip to the Himalayas; you may feel that life is short and it is far less likely that you will toil up the Himalayas in your sixties so it is now or never...ALL of that is individual taste and interests. BUT...you DO need to prioritize what IS permanent to you over what is temporary.

Of course, Tiru WILL go on to say 'Life is ephemeral and the soul flits from body to body so you need to seek the permanence of nirvana'. Which also has its kernel of truth if you do believe in the soul but, yeah, unless you ARE pushing my age you'd probably yawn and say, "Yeah, fine, see you later!" and that would be that.

If you fail, however, to properly assess the temporary and permanent in life...Most of those with talent who are unhappy about not having succeeded can look back on decisions where THEY failed to do this.

Regret tastes VERY bitter!

Oratorial abilities?

This human interest in speechifying has always mystified me. The one thing that puts me readily to sleep is to have someone climb up on a stage and start off with, 'Ladies and Gentlemen...' OR 'Respected/Honorable so-and-so...' or some such variant that indicates that he is teeing off to unleash a flood of words on you. And yet, there are oodles of consultants and clubs and whatnot that have made a good living off teaching people how to talk the ears off a captive audience.

Given this, is it a surprise that Tiru has spent a few of his kurals on teaching people how to speak in public? I mean, no matter what he personally thought of this exercise, his readers would have refused to accept him as an expert unless he proffered advice on this facet of human relations. To become an expert in the eyes of Society you HAVE to be an expert on what Society wants you to be an expert in. Else you will be ignored. If Society wants you to be an expert tie-tier (I mean tying that abomination that strangles your neck) and you refuse to do that, you'll be consigned to the role of village idiot, no matter how much of an expert you are in everything else. THAT Tiru well knew and so...

Vagaiyarindhu vallavai vaaisoraar sollin thogai arindha thooimaiyavar - Tirukkural

They who know the way of words AND are capable of assessing their audience never falter or fail in their speech - Loose Translation

You need to understand that you are assumed to know the subject matter upon which you intend to speak. THAT is a given, the basic ability that is assumed. Thereafter, you need also to know HOW to speak.

The problem about how to speak is that it is not the same thing everywhere. If you are talking to school children, say, trying to explain the theory of relativity, you'd need to speak of it differently. You cannot talk about it the way you talk to physicists OR even the way Einstein simplified it - 'Sit on a hot griddle vs sit by a pretty girl'. I mean, depending on the age AND assuming that children of a certain age were like us when we were children (The 'Girls! Ewww' OR 'Boys! Ewww' age!) your audience may not see much difference between the hot griddle and a pretty girl.

There is the maturity level of the audience, there is the background of the audience (I mean, using, say, carpentry examples in a group of Insurance adjusters or the vice versa would not work well, would it?), there is the bias of the audience (The way you say things that they want to hear versus saying those things that you want to convince them about) and so on which needs to be accounted for to speak the right way to the audience.

So, when you talk about 'How to Speak' you talk about knowing a wide variety of ways in which you approach a subject. And THEN you need to understand the audience you are addressing, pick THAT method of speaking which best suits that audience. Then, you can speak both with confidence AND without giving offense.

As usual, Tiru's advice is easier said than done. But then, what worthwhile advice isn't?