The biggest Killjoy?

There is no dearth of competition for what kills joy the most. What about envy? Is there anything that belittles all your reasons for feeling happy than to compare it to what the other guy possesses and you do not? What about lack of self-confidence and a sense of inferiority? Is there anything that kills all possibility of joy in company or at work than the feeling that everyone is looking down on you? What about...you get the picture. Joy is a fragile flower, easily destroyed by a multitude of things.

Then why categorise ONE thing as the biggest Killjoy? I'd say it's just because philosophers, like poets, are given to exaggeration to drive home their point. Whether Tiru is just doing this here or not, you judge for yourself.

Nagaiyum uvagaiyum kollum sinaththin pagaiyum ulavo pira - Tirukkural

Is there a worse enemy than anger which murders your smiles and your joy? - Loose Translation

True, Tiru only categorises it as the worst enemy, not the worst killjoy. But IF anything else seemed to him to be a worser killjoy than anger, would that not automatically become a worser enemy?

But, really, what do philosophers have against the poor short-tempered chaps in general? I mean, yeah, I would prefer those around me to be even-tempered but, sometimes, you actually do feel more comfort with a short-tempered chap because, with him, you generally know where you stand. The even-tempered guy may react the same whether he liked what you did or not. (NOTE the 'may'. There ARE even-tempered guys who can tell you to go to hell and make you look forward to the trip, like diplomats are supposed to be able to do. There are others who just go along with you in order not to rock the boat.) But the short-tempered guy probably cannot help getting angry, he can only control how he expresses it.

But, then, I think Tiru does not really mean the guy who screams 'F*@#' when he stubs his toe. Tiru does not mean these small flashes of irritation that last no longer than a few minutes. Anger of the sort that kills your joy is the thing that roots itself in your head and refuses to let go; the sort which flares up over and over again every time you remember the incident or that person; the sort that MAKES you remember that thing over and over, making ANY joyous thought an ephemeral bubble which soon bursts in the flame of remembered anger.

True, the short temper which flares and subsides within seconds can also keep away people; but, sooner or later, most people know to look beyond the ranting and see you for the character you are. That deep-seated anger, though, may not even be visible to most and, yet, will kill all your joys effectively. (AND, yes, those insecurities, those envies, which are also killjoys, root themselves right there in the mind. In the longevity of your memory and in the manner in which you select memories to revive and hold close, the emotions that you continuously refresh.)

It is in the mind that we end up discarding our friends - compassion, love, affection etc - and hug closest our enemies - anger, hurt, envy etc. So the biggest killjoy (as also the biggest source of joy) IS your mind!

The company you keep

If there is one thing that seems to have found acceptance across the world, it is the idea that you are known by the company you keep. Well, lions move with lions and cows move with cows is the sort of thing that is easy to understand. The wise prey does not cozy up to the predator. AND, of course, much as the predator may love its own captive herd of prey, it probably does not find enough foolish prey to hang around with; not to mention the fact that being taken for prey, because of the company it keeps, by other predators is not something conducive to peace of mind.

Comes to human beings, though, the 'company you keep' does not conveniently divide itself into this predator-prey matrix. Though, yes, to be sure it IS the fashion these days to designate the 'other' as predators and those who are 'gullible' enough to accept the other's views as prey. With you as the hard-working protector of whoever you designate as the innocent. But, in reality, humans are not so conveniently divided.

Thus, Tiru does not only mean this predator-prey division when he says

Sittrinam anjum perumai sirumaidhaan sutramai soozhndu vidum - Tirukkural

The great fear associating with the mean-minded; it is the base who surround themselves with such people - Loose Translation

Ah, you do not need to hark back to the Rajinikant dialogue - 'Pannidhaan koottam koottama varum; singam single-aaththan varum' (It is pigs that come in herds; the lion only comes alone). I mean, yeah, in a way Rajini is saying sort of the same thing. That the mean prefer coming in a crowd of their ilk (AND pigs as a metaphor to mean the 'mean' IS common in most parts of the world so do not blame me for typecasting pigs) whereas the lion dares come alone. The thing, though, is that Tiru is not necessarily praising the noble loneliness of the 'lion' but only saying that it prefers not to associate with 'pigs'.

You also note that the PREDATOR is being lauded in my example rather than the PREY. THAT should serve to let you know to wipe your mind clean of all predator-prey divides and approach the issue afresh.

When Tiru is talking of the great OR the mean, he is not talking of predators and prey. The great in his estimation are people who have noble goals and aspirations and who work towards that with dedication. Where did I get that idea about what Tiru meant? Well, you have been with me on this Tirukkural journey for so long and where did YOU get the idea that Tiru could ever mean jealousy, back-biting, laziness (Alas for me!) etc. as the qualities of the great? THOSE are the people - the jealous, the back-biters, the whingers and the parasites of society - whom he generally calls the 'mean' or the 'low'.

So, the great would find the mean as people who suck away all his positivity and enthusiasm and leave him without the motivation to pursue his goals. It would, further, keep away all those who could actually help him on his journey for, after all, a person is judged by the company she keeps. She would therefore avoid them like the plague. The mean, on the other hand, would love to be in that company because it would make them feel validated and...whole.

In other words, to even be judged great or potentially great, to have the enthusiasm to pursue your goals, to be able to approach those who may help you and to gain their assistance, you need to keep away from the 'mean'. Otherwise, sooner or later, you will end up joining their ranks and start bemoaning the fact that the world is being hijacked by the 'unworthy'.

WHICH has seldom been considered the hallmark of ANY sort of greatness! Not yet, anyway, thankfully.

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.