Parental duty?

Some advice can get dated. As in, what was wisdom at some point in history may sound like rank folly at others. It is tough, however, to  write finis to the advice because...well, because, things CAN make a comeback. To be sure, bell-bottoms in trousers have never made a comeback...and a good thing too...but you never know. What will be the fate of THIS piece of advice by Tiru remains to be seen.

Thandhai magarkaatru nandri avaiyaththu mundhi iruppach cheyal - Tirukkural

The best boon a father can confer on his son is to make him foremost among the wise - Loose Translation

Now THAT opens a real can of worms, doesn't it? In the first place, the very idea that a father (Boomer!!!) has ANY wisdom to offer to the son is...I don't know...a LMAO+ROFL concept. As far as the sons of the day are concerned, if the fathers just got out of the way and KEPT out, with their mouths shut...THAT would be the best boon! (In the (1A) place is the fact of talking only about sons, and not daughters, but we shall pass lightly over that considering the times of Tiru. Yeah, that 'magar' could be interpreted to mean 'daughter' also but THAT's not the way almost ANY interpreter of Tiru has seen it, so...)

The next thing is this risible idea that making the son foremost among the 'wise' is the 'BEST' boon. I mean, come on, would Mukesh Ambani want to exchange places with ANY Nobel Laureate you can think of? Would he think that Dhirubhai did worse than the father of ANY such wise man? AND reverse the question and see how THAT goes. Ask ANY Nobel Laureate...Foremost among the WEALTHY is laudable; foremost among the WISE? ONLY if it lead to wealth.

There would be those who could claim that 'avaiyaththu' need not only be a congregation of the wise...it could well just be taken to mean 'Society' and, thus, daddy dear had the duty to place the son foremost in whatever was the measure best suited to the society of the day. It just so happens that, in Tiru's day, it is wisdom that counted.

The thing, though, is that wisdom is what the philosophers seem to value above wealth...without regard to the mores of the day. To possess wealth is one thing; to keep it is another; to be a happy person is yet another; and to have and to retain the respect of society is a further stretch. AND wisdom works better than just wealth for all of that. (AND, yes, it IS lack of wisdom that makes you think that just because I am advising wisdom I'm asking you to live in poverty. Making everything an 'either this or that' question IS the hallmark of a moron. THERE is such a thing as a bit of both) Wealth you earn for yourself IF daddy-dear equips you with wisdom.

So, yeah, this may not be as dated as I thought. Or, perhaps, I too have become dated!

Barren Land?

There is this tendency among philosophers to assume that the very land that you were born in reacts to what you do with your life. About how it rejoices in your fame and feels humiliated when you fail. Whether it is metaphorical or whether they really think that this is how your land/country is affected by you...

Tiru is no exception to this rule. Here he goes

Vasaiyilaa vanpayan kundrum isaiyilaa yaakkai poruththa nilam - Tirukkural

The land that bears men lacking fame ceases to yield blemishless abundance of produce - Loose Translation

This idea that there is a magical correlation between the fertility of the land and the fame achieved by its people...this idea seems sort of like fantasy. Most likely, then, that it is metaphorical...that what the philosopher means is that the population, at large, of that land would be shamed by the lack of accomplishments from within their ranks. I mean, yeah, when you say 'my country', more often than not, you mean the people of your country and not the land, the rivers, the mountains and all that. Which is probably one of the truths of this sort of wisdom.

You could go further and say that the fact that there are no such role models in the population makes it less likely that the people of that land have the ambition and put forth the effort to DO what it needed to make the land yield 'blemishless abundance of produce'. Which, again is probably one of the truths of this wisdom.

You could also say that a land in which infamy is considered fame...where, say, the gambler is praised for his wealth and the teacher reviled for his poverty...that's a land which will go on to produce more gamblers and less teachers. In other words, the abundance of produce will not be 'blemishless'. A community of robbers CAN be rich but not 'blemishless'.

Oh, yes, you can see that you CAN understand 'land' to literally mean land. If there are no people of fame, it would mean that there is nobody who is actually working to make the land yield 'blemishless abundance of produce'. And so...how's the land to yield any benefits?

So, yes, the land that does not produce people of fame is a land that will, probably, cease to yield any blemishless abundance of produce. AND it does not need any magic wand to cause it to be so.

Good judgment

The toughest call for a leader is judging people. If you do not want to die of stress, you need to know who to give a job to AND not worry yourself into an early grave about whether it will be messed up after you hand over the responsibility. You cannot do it all yourself either; not unless your leadership role is merely honorary. To trust people's sense of responsibility, to trust people's integrity, to trust people's abilities, to trust...you get the picture. You first understand that 'Do you trust me?' IS the most idiotic (OR manipulative) question because it begs the question 'Trust what? Your discretion, your integrity, your loyalty to me, your abilities,...?' AND you have to assess people on what they can be trusted with and what not.

Tiru has this to say about judging people.

Gunam naadi kutramum naadi avatrul migai naadi mikka kolal - Tirukkural

Assess the virtues and faults of each man, and assess him on the basis of the excess of one over the other - Loose Translation

It is a sad fact of life that no person is perfect. We are all a mixture of various virtues and faults. Nor, indeed, is the definition of a virtue and a fault static. I mean, meticulous attention to detail may be a virtue on an assembly line; but has ANYONE lauded it when their medical advance request is being processed for approval? Dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't' while sanctioning money for an emergency operation is unlikely to be considered a virtue. So, yes, circumstances also determine what is a virtue and what a fault.

Tiru is no fan of the sort of leader who seeks perfection. 'One fault and the guy is out' is not his favorite credo. (AND if, indeed, there is any leader who believes in that credo, he will cease to be a leader in jig time unless he is leading an army of drones.) Which does not mean that you should be blind to the faults of the person. Tiru expects you to take on board all his virtues and all his faults; assess whether the virtues outweigh the flaws or not; and THEN assess the person's worth.

You could be a genius and still be considered unworthy as per Tiru's dictum because you are undependable, arrogant and a disruptor. You could be not so intelligent but dependable, meticulous, and dedicated which could make you worthy if you go by Tiru's dictum. So, the assessment of a person is on the balance of his virtues and faults; not on the ABSENCE of faults.

AND, yes, it does not mean that you FORGET the faults even after assessing the person as worthy.You need to keep them in mind while allocating tasks to them. I mean, what's the point in entrusting an R&D job to a person whose strength is meticulously following routine and weakness is in thinking outside the box? OR, for that matter, putting on the assembly line this genius with the attention span of a butterfly?

To lead is to know the worth of people; including a clear idea of what they can be trusted with. And THAT is why you need to know how to judge people.

Companion effects

It is not like you believe - that your beliefs are all your own. I mean, like, who really has the time to learn everything about everything. So, most of what you think you know are things that you have picked up from what those around you state that they know. AND...well, it is not as though THEY have the time to learn everything about everything. And so...

Tiru has this to say about it.

Nilatthiyalbaal neer thirindratthagum maandharkku inaththiyalba dhaagum arivu - Tirukkural

Just as water takes on the qualities of the land it flows through, people take on the knowledge/attitudes/beliefs of their associates - Loose Translation

You can see that clearly demonstrated in the world at large. Like, take education for example. You'll find that some people seem to overrate it and some underrate it. AND it will be a community thing. Like, in the US, Indians (and Chinese?) push their children to heights in education but not the native westerners. The community values education and, as people who like being respected in their society, the members of the community follow suit. Attitudes being driven by the community.

Beliefs are the most common thing that society pushes on you. Religion, for example. THAT's driven into you from birth. So strongly that, later in life, some are willing even to take the lives of followers of other 'false' religions. Despite the fact that the belief did not start out as their own choice. You are born in a certain family, belonging to a certain community and, presto. Take beliefs about whole other communities - as cunning, cruel, whatever - with no personal experience of the same. Are they yours completely by your choice?

The strange thing is that knowledge itself is dependent on associates. I mean, it is not like you support the Pythagoras theorem or oppose it based on who you associate with. When it comes to things like 'Did the Mughals oppress the Hindus?' OR 'Does the US deep state influence Indian elections?' or some such, what are the 'facts' that you know? Yeah, right! Most of what you know is what is being discussed among your associates, none of whom has the time and energy to learn history or analyse geopolitics or whatever is needed for an understanding of that question. And, thus, most of those opinions are likely to be ill-informed opinions. Not to mention the fact that the selection and interpretation of facts is also subject to bias.

Or, in other words, over a period you and your associates end up creating an echo chamber of your own. Now, echo chambers may have existed from the times of Tiru but it is only now, in the times of Social Media, that the echo chambers have been fully proofed against external influences - including facts and concepts - that may interfere with the echoes that you so love in that chamber. Perfection, at last!