Knowing limits again

When one talks of anything, there seems to be an idea that there is only one meaning to it. I have had occassion to talk of it before on a different subject. "Don't you trust me?" is a question, for example, which automatically gets answered on the basis of trusting the integrity of the other person. But, it could mean that the distrust is on the knowledge of the other person - as in, I may trust my child not to steal from me but do I necessarily trust him to invest well? It could mean a distrust of some other characteristic than honesty as in, say, do I trust the other person to keep a secret? Generally, this idiotic idea that a word has only one meaning is the reason why people get manipulated very easily.

Take this limits thing for example. In the previous post I had discussed how you need to know the limits of your own capabilities. But IS that the only limit you face in life? Tiru has this to say to prove that there ARE others...

Nunikkombar erinaar aqthiranth thookkin uyirkkirudhi aagi vidum - Tirukkural

To try to climb beyond the tip of the topmost branch of a tree could end your life - Loose translation

Tiru indicates that you need to understand another set of limits. The limits imposed by the environment. If you are in mining and exploration, say, you need to stay within the geographical limits within which you are allowed to explore. Going beyond them may not exactly kill you but it could kill your company. (OR, in this modern world, kill a great many people in that country depending on which country owes allegiance to your company...ouch...which country your company owes allegiance to.)

Which brings me to that other point...the limits imposed by the laws of the country. (AGAIN with the caveat that, perhaps, your company is not big enough to have the laws rewritten) You may find that growing beyond a certain size makes it less profitable for your company; flouting the labor laws of the country causes your company intolerable losses; and so on.

Even when you DO think that you can rewrite the laws, you still need to assess the limits imposed and the cost of having the limitations removed. There HAVE been cases where those costs have been incurred and, thanks to those costs, the company has ended up bankrupt.

In life, it is alright to think of pushing the envelope. The point IS to know WHEN you are pushing it and what is the cost of doing so. Rushing about rashly hither and thither is NOT pushing the envelope. It is to tear it into pieces and later on whining that you did not even know it existed!

Knowing your limits

There is always this tug of war between those who would prefer to work within their limits and those who would try to push the envelope. When it comes to the latter, if they succeed they will be lauded as bold pioneers. If they fail, they will be castigated for being rash fools. And the former? Whether they are playing it safe or being sticks in the mud...THAT decision will depend on their success as well. Like, it WAS playing it safe to stick to film photography as a main-stay business but it was not safe for Kodak, was it?

Tiru is advocating the staid play it safe school of thought here...or is he?

Udaiththam valiyariyaar ookkaththin ookki idaikkan murindhaar palar - Tirukkural

Many have fallen because their enthusiasm made them run ahead of their capabilities - Loose Translation

Tiru is asking you assess your capabilities and plan for what is possible. Which IS conservative advice, yes, but is not exactly a blueprint for sticking in the mud.

The first thing that you should understand is that it is QUITE possible to be rash even when you are sticking in the mud. AND equally as possible to plan conservatively when your business is innovation. Like, a grocery store can overextend itself by trying to become a mall by borrowing hugely. AND a start-up can try being frugal with its finances even while operating at the cutting edge of technology.

In other words, the fact that you are taking a risk by trying to develop a business in an, as yet, unproven area is not a license to splurge capital on huge salaries and plush offices. Fiscal prudence does not mean that you stint on research...but that you squeeze every rupee till it squeaks. Yes, it could well mean concentrating initial efforts on one line of innovation instead of splurging it on various experiments that peter out.

In like terms, just because a business is being conservative in its core areas does not mean that ANY expenditure that they make is necessarily conservative. If such were indeed the case, such companies would only die of technological obsolescence and not because of fiscal imprudence. Well...the commercial landscape is littered with examples to the contrary.

So, yes, when someone advices prudence, it is an idiot whose hackles will be raised even as he screams, "I am a risk-taker!" There ARE such risk-takers - in casinos and dangerous sports and the like - but those are not the ones that the world of commerce chooses to laud.

In general, the practical world prefers those who take calculated risks. AND the foremost calculation you need to make is about the limits of your capabilities.

Precautionary attitude?

There are things that are actually easy to do as well as important. Yet, people suffer, and suffer badly, because of not doing them. You know the stitch that saves nine? So easy to do but, often, so ignored that you kick yourself for not doing that one stitch only when the whole line of stitches gives way when you are in a party. Does that mean that the next time you will take care not to skip doing it? Not really, as experience proves.

And thus when Tiru says this seemingly easy thing to do, all you can do is groan.

Varumunnark kaavaadhaan vaazhkkai erimunnar vaiththooru polak kedum - Tirukkural

The life of he who guards not against misfortune/faults shall be destroyed like a haystack near fire - Loose Translation

Tiru gets cryptic quite often. This 'Varumunnark kaavaadhaan' translates merely to 'He who guards not before the coming'. The coming of what? Voldemort? Ragnarok? Left to interpretation. But, yes, it translates to some evil or the other. AND it is not necessarily always external evil.

Like, say, usage of addictive substances. It is easier to forbear from using them. Harder to give up even when you are a desultory user. Near impossible, depending on the substance, if you have become addicted. So, this kural will mean that it is best to 'stop before the coming of addiction' in this context.

Take the case of a credit card bill. It is easy to pay off in full every time (OR, of course, use it only to the extent where it is easy to pay off.) More difficult when you have maxed it out and are paying off just enough to keep it live. Near impossible once you have started defaulting. (Now THAT is a problem associated with ALL financial debt.) Tiru, therefore, says...

You can go on and on. 

About how small jobs timely done are easy but once you accumulate a ton of them...

About doing small wrongs (like, say, forgetting birthdays) and failing to apologise each time till...

About missing talking to your children all through their childhood till they hit their teens and...

It is easier to push yourself to do those things at the time they are required to be done. THAT is guarding off the evil that can come.

Failing that, your life will crash and burn like that haystack in front of a fire whether or not you realise why it is happening to you. THIS will be the answer to the question that you will then scream to the universe...

WHY ME?

Faultless critic?

Have you seen this thing with people? If there is some meme about the characteristics of a good friend, everyone rushes to apply it to their friends to find out if they are fit to be called friends. If there is a WhatsApp forward about how to test whether a partner is right for you, they'll happily try it out. (AND come out sad at the end of it. Fie you pessimist, this is an optimistic blog.) In whatever circumstance, you'll always see people put themselves in the seat of the critic.

Tiru, though, seems to think that it is not the way to do things. He says...

Thankutram neekkip pirarkutrank kaangirppin enkutra maagum iraikku - Tirukkural

You cannot fault the leader who first cleanses his faults before scanning for faults in others - Loose Translation

So, this leader who Tiru lauds...if he comes across a meme, he will first apply it to himself. He sees a meme about characteristics of a good friend, he applies it to himself to see whether HE fits description of a good friend; if not, he changes himself to suit the description; THEN he applies it to his friends. IF he comes across a forward that is about testing a partner, he...well, he will first see if HE likes the idea of his partner testing him like that before he rushes to test the partner. I mean, yeah, you want your partner to care for you if you are ill; but to act ill and make your partner do your errands...THAT can be seen as manipulative behavior. Tiru, therefore, wants you to sit on the other side first and only then become the critic.

Why only 'leader'? Well, it applies to all people actually. But the one who seeks to lead needs to be better than the rest. To REACH a position of leadership includes making others willing to accept criticism from you. I mean, a leader sets the path for others to follow which, automatically, includes explicit or implicit criticism of whatever paths that they are already on.  A leader has to change thoughts and behavior. If HE fails to correct his own faults, then he lays himself open to serious criticism. (Oh, yeah, you can ALSO become a leader by loudly espousing what people want to do. But THAT would only mean that you are walking ahead of the crowd, not leading them.)

The problem with this is that you need to become faultless first before you become a critic, else you'll be faulted. Big deal! I cannot live without trolling others. So what if I also get trolled?