Restraint and Virtue

When philosophers get to talking about the prerequisites for virtue, you can expect one of two reactions. The 'So what else is new?' reaction is more common. Because, you have heard it from childhood and from people who, in their actions, seem well versed in ignoring that advice. The other one, more polite perhaps, is where the person says 'Oh! THAT may have been true in your times. The world has changed now' where you are actually being given the credit for not exactly being wrong. Only out of step with the times.

Tiru says this...

Kadhamkaaththu katradangal aatruvaan sevvi arampaarkkum aatrin nuzhaindhu - Tirukkural

Virtue enters the life of the man who controls his anger, possesses learning and practises restraint - Loose Translation

Actually, this is where the modern chappies pop in and asks, "Who really wants virtue? It's success we want and, if virtue happens to come in, fine. Otherwise..." The problem, though, is that people forget that 'success', in any time, happens to involve social recognition.  And THAT, it so happens, is a function of how people view you. Of course, it is also true that even other forms of success - money, power, what have you - will require people helping you along the way and for that to happen you need to be looked upon as...err...virtuous, though they will not exactly use that term. 'Good team man', 'has leadership qualities' and so on...what's all that but people seeing you as possessing the necessary virtues?

So, yeah, you do need to possess learning, that's almost a given. (Call it skill-set or whatever, if it makes you feel all modern). But you need also to ensure that the learning does not give you a swollen head. Restraint, in this sense, also means that you should keep a rein on your tendency to go all 'I know more than you do'. In a sense, restraint is a leash on your ego. Being confident is one thing, being arrogant is another. So, alongside the learning, you also need to practise humility.

Now, actually, if you succeed in controlling your ego, controlling anger is almost redundant. Most of anger arises out of hurt ego and, well, that's exactly what is less likely to happen if your ego is controlled. But since the whole thing is a process and you ought not to allow your anger free rein till such time as you control your ego....

AND, really, controlling your ego till such time as you end up losing it altogether is what Indian spirituality is all about. So, of course, virtue walks in if you succeed.

Equanimity

Freedom from the pair of opposites is a phrase that resonates specifically through Indian philosophy. The most common opposites that are mentioned are Pleasure-Pain, Comfort-Discomfort, Victory-Defeat, Honor-Disgrace, Attachment-Aversion etc. AND, yes, to those who would contend that happiness IS a goal for humans, and to be indifferent to Joy and Sorrow is ceasing to really live, the reply is that the goal is Bliss in the form of Nirvana. Sort of like, if you had to give up the pleasure of drinking today in order to become the CEO tomorrow, what would you choose? (YOU could choose to drink. The point, as I have mentioned before, is that Philosophers guide you to what THEY think is the desirable goal.)

Try to understand what Tiru says, given this context...

Atremendru allaR padubavo petraemendru ombudhal thaetraa dhavar - Tirukkural

Would he who clung not to his wealth grieve if he lost it? - Loose Translation

Yeah, yeah, I can hear that jeering laugh. If you fail to cling to your wealth, obviously you are going to lose it to some Nigerian millionaire or digital arrest or some such. (These days, nobody considers the possibility that you may lose it because of your generosity. If I suggested it, I'd end up becoming the subject matter of memes.) Then what would be the point in grieving it?

Tiru, though, has other meanings for that 'clung not to his wealth'. What he means is that you have not made your wealth your identity; not made it the core of your self-respect; not surrounded yourself with only those who respect you for your wealth. In other words, if you had considered your wealth as merely a possession and not the core of your personality OR your social position, you'd not grieve the loss of your wealth.

Think of, say, an author or a composer or a painter or a sculptor...their art is their identity, not their wealth. AND, if such a person, embraced the act of creation as his identity and not the successes that come out of it...would losing wealth cause him grief?

Think, then, of wealth as a metaphor for anything external that earns you social position. Your official position, your professional popularity, whatever. As long as you keep that at arms length from your own sense of identity; as long as you can understand the difference between people who like and respect YOU and those who respect your POSITION and treat the latter as unimportant...THEN you can retire without feeling a vacuum; lose that popularity and still be happy.

THAT, then, is what Tiru means. True happiness lies within. To cling to what you get from the world leaves you open to the grief that inevitably follows when the world denies it to you.

Vanishing obstacles?

Sometimes, phlilosophers seem to attribute magical powers to character traits. It's as though they think that, say, perseverance is like a magic wand that can blaze a path to success; that politeness is a trick of mesmerism that will convert foes to friends; that...oh, well, I suppose you know all that. The fact that almost ALL philosophers do that leads you to think that there must be some method to this madness; some reason why it is done this way.

The thing is that, as I may have mentioned before in these annals, that there IS a certain element of exaggeration to philosophic advice. Like, for example, they seldom say that 'Hard work is ONE of the contributors to success'; they will always say 'Hard work is THE path to success'. THAT is not to say that they lie; they just know that you and I, given a list of traits that are needed for success, will see no harm in skipping a few of them if they seem too hard. We'd think that there is no harm in leaving out a couple when we are doing all the rest. Somehow, the thought that, though ONE of that list may not guarantee success, leaving out one of them can guarantee failure does not cross our minds. AND so, these wise men have to exaggerate every time.

So here Tiru goes...

VeLLath thanaiya idumbai arivudaiyaan uLLaththin uLLak kedum - Tirukkural

A tsunami of troubles vanish when a wise man resolutely assesses and faces them - Loose Translation

See what I mean? Miracles. You stand up to a tsunami of troubles and, presto, they vanish like the morning mist. Does that even seem credible?

Well, look at it this way. When troubles come at you from all fronts and you see them as a tsunami, you have put yourself in a state where you have already decided that they are insurmountable. So, you are not even seeking to find a solution for them. If, on the other hand, you face up to them with the resolution to solve them, you have ceased to see them as a tsunami and are rationally trying to analyse them and solve them. So, yes, in that sense, the tsunami has vanished leaving behind problem(s) to be sorted.

When you do analyze, you may find that there are multiple small problems to be sorted...not one giant tsunami which is drowning you. That leaves you with what you will see as several manageable issues that can be readily sorted. Which can relieve you of the stress that the 'tsunami' caused in your mind. Ergo, there never WAS a tsunami except what your own mind conceived.

AND, yes, there ARE times when what happens IS a tsunami. But facing it resolutely will ensure that you come through the other end without getting drowned. The tsunami would have vanished leaving you a stronger person in its wake.

THAT, then, makes it seem less like Tiru is promising miracles. He is only telling you that the easiest way to getting drowned in problems is to see them as a tsunami of obstacles. The best way to tackle them is to, first, APPROACH them as something to be tackled and not as a sea of troubles.

After all, there is such a thing as self-fulfilling prophecy.

'Motive' power?

The point of all philosophy is to motivate you in the right direction. (What is the right direction? The direction that the philosopher prefers, of course. I mean, really, do you expect a Karl Marx to teach you how to become a Warren Buffet?) Quite naturally, they have a very high opinion of motivation...as in, the importance of your being motivated to do what you set out OR what they push you to do.

And, thus, Tiru says...

Pariyadhu koornkottadhu aayinum yaanai verooum pulithaak kurin - Tirukkural

Despite its large body and sharp tusks, the elephant fears the attack of a tiger - Loose Translation

Despite its seeming advantages over a tiger in battle, the elephant fears the attack of the tiger because (and the because is implicit) the tiger is emboldened by its inner motivation (to eat? Yeah, that primarily). It is its motivation and, thus, its enthusiasm that makes it the stronger warrior than the seemingly invulnerable elephant.

In other words, if you can attack the obstacles in your route to success with unflagging enthusiasm, you will defeat them. No matter how insurmountable they appear when you first encounter them. And THAT unflagging enthusiam comes out of the strong motivation to reach your goals, no matter how difficult they seem at first. If, however, you slink away when you see the size of the elephant and the sharpness of its tusks...

So, you see, the extent of your motive power is determined by the power of your motivation.