Friendships -Waxing and waning

Like motherhood and apple pie (use the culture-appropriate food item. I'm not getting into the 'Idli vs Aloo Poha vs Poori-bhaji' debate), friendship is something that you have to put on a pedestal and worship. You are not allowed to even think of the possibility that friendship is not all that it is cut out to be. If it fails you, it could not be friendship, no? But if more friendships fail than those that stick, does it not argue for the fact that friendship itself is not something you can lean back on with total confidence?

Tiru has this to say...

Niraineera neeravar kenmai piraimadhip pinneera pedhaiyar natpu - Tirukkural

The friendship of the wise waxes like the new moon; that of the foolish wanes like the full moon - Loose Translation

This one seems to have a lot of underlying assumptions, really. You need to understand that the friendship itself is genuine in both cases and what Tiru is talking here is about its stability. Like, a wise man who holds you in contempt is not necessarily a better friend than a foolish man who respects you. So, you need to assume that both are actually your friends to start with. Plus, of course, you need to understand that 'wise' does not mean merely 'clever' or even 'intelligent'; it also means a man with the right character (IQ as well as EQ as well as morality), else he could be someone who could end up making use of you for his own ends. Not really a sign of a growing friendship.

So, then, why is it that the wise man's friendship will keep growing whereas the foolish man's friendship will wither away? Don't you talk out your problems with your friends and seek advice? If you take a foolish man's advice and end up with serious problems, are you going to feel as friendly as before? Don't your friends also seek your help? Would a foolish man not get into a lot more trouble, insistently ask help that you cannot give, and mess up the relationship? Who would be more prone to misunderstand a passing comment, be susceptible to rumours and keep testing the friendship till it breaks? 

With the wise, generally, you reach a point where you tacitly know what can be expected of each other and that builds trust; with the foolish, the boundaries of friendship are perpetually tested leading to a situation where the relationship breeds more tension than comfort. Which is why you'll prefer avoiding the person rather than seeking them out.

There is the tacit assumption that I have not mentioned yet. An assumption that all of us make readily and are never aware of making...

That YOU yourself are not the 'fool' in your relationships!

The greatest person?

I had recently read a piece about how we have become a society hunting greatness. That greatness had somehow translated to being the 'best', which makes all 'ordinary' people 'losers'. Such a strange and nonsensical thing to propagate and believe in. I mean, the 'best', by definition is one person or, at best, a few. If everyone else, other than a handful (sportsmen, actors, politicians, Start-up founders, CEOs, influencers, yada yada), is to be considered a loser where does it leave all of us? AND is it even possible for that handful to exist without the rest of the 'losers' doing their bit? Where would all of us be but for the farmers, medical personnel, educators...and how many of them can you name in your list of 'winners'? Why, nowadays, even your vacations and your eat-outs are in a competition to win, so what exactly can you do to de-stress? A rat-race at office, a rat-race on your holidays, a rat-race between your children and the neighbor's...

Tiru has this to say...

Karumam seyaoruvan kaidhooven ennum perumaiyin peedudayadhu il - Tirukkural

There is none greater than the man who says 'I will not cease my efforts to do my duty' - Loose Translation

The context in which Tiru says is about a family man, so that 'duty' translates to duty to his family in this case. So, Tiru holds that man as great who will put in all efforts in the service of his own family. Does it seem like elevating selfishness? Not really, not if you parse the message properly.

How does a man serve his family the best? In Tiru's times, it was not just making it rich but also ensuring that the family was respected in his Society. NOT the times where you lived in cities where nobody really knew you, remember? It was a time when everyone knew everone else in the neighborhood, so it was not just your wealth but also HOW you earned it which mattered.

So, how does a man earn wealth other than by contributing to Society by his efforts? Wealth that will gain respect for him from his neighbors? So, the process of his earning wealth means contributing to society in goods or services. Essentially, these multiple ordinary hands which are the building blocks of society and which prop up the 'winners'.

Tiru, therefore, holds everyone who does his duty with full dedication as equally great...and holds none greater than them.

Nice...but is that the Society we live in? Shouldn't we or should we?

Fear leads to virtue?

I had reason to mention before that Indian philosophers place more importance on motives than on action. The thing is you can hardly ever understand someone else's motives. You can only see him act. So, yeah, if the chap pockets your money or stabs you in the back, you will automatically classify him as untrustworthy. You will not try to psychoanalyse him and determine his motives before hating on him. The thing is (a) not everything is as clear as that. Sometimes, understanding actions depends on context, no? AND why so? Because context determines motives; and (b) What about YOUR own actions? Do you hide behind the fact that your actions were virtues - telling the truth, doing your duty etc - when your motives were false? Pulling down your competitors, following illegal orders for raises and promotions etc? YOU do not claim that you do not know your own motives, do you?

AND Tiru says this...

Achchame keezhgaladhu aacharam echcham avaavundael undaam siridhu - Tirukkural

The base man's virtuous actions are grounded in fear; what remains will be based on greed - Loose translation

So, Tiru holds that an evil man behaves in a virtuous manner only out of fear. Fear of punishment, fear of social opprobium, fear of loss and so on. If that fear does not exist, then his virtues would vanish. Basically, all of fear starts from the fear of getting caught. If you do not get caught, none of the other things can materialise, no? So, then, see the behavior of people when they do not fear getting caught and you can understand how virtuous they really are. How do they behave in mobs? Do they loot in times of disaster? Virtue which exists when there is no fear of getting caught and no material consequences to committing vice...THAT is true virtue.

Tiru also holds that there may be SOME virtuous actions committed by the evil man even when fear does not propel him. AND those actions will be based on greed. Where the acts of virtue will beget him more benefits than the costs. The charity of those who do it only for power in Society, say. The middlemen who help you with what you need from Govt...for a price. And so on.

In fact, most men seem to balance fear and greed. The costs that are inherent in getting caught versus the benefits. THAT calculus runs Society all the time...or so it seems.

Actions, therefore, are no true guide to identify virtuous people. Motives are.

But...does anyone really want virtuous people these days? I mean, between a base man who can get you your license to open a school and a virtuous man who will ask you to do the honest thing and have you run from pillar to post...

Maybe Tiru's times were way different after all.

Ain't it just telling the truth?

AND there are these times that these philosophers take up a concept that you thought you understood very well and turn it on its head. Or spin it in a different direction. Or...you know what I mean. They give it a meaning that you never thought could be applied to it. And you stand in front of them, mouth agape, mumbling 'But...but...but...' like an idiot. Which, I suppose, gratifies them no end.

I am sure Tiru had a smug smile on his face when he did that exact thing when he said this...

Vaaimai enappaduvadhu yaadhenin yaadhondrum theemai ilaadha solal - Tirukkural

Honesty is that which says nothing that will cause evil - Loose Translation

So there. You thought all you had to do was to tell the truth to be held honest? Not so. Or so Tiru says.

I don't really think that Tiru means to call you dishonest or blame you merely because your telling the truth caused inadvertent harm. Note that word 'inadvertent'. If you did not SEEK to do harm or cause hurt, Tiru probably thinks of you as honest.

BUT...if your intent WAS to cause harm or to give hurt and you used the truth to do so then Tiru does not think you are honest. What you SAID may be true but WHY you said it makes you dishonest. Like, say, calling someone a fool in public, for example. Truth? Perhaps. Honest? Tiru says no. All the back-biting, the trolling, and so on may all be true but are they honest?

Indian philosophy places a great deal of importance on the motives for actions; not the actions alone. When Krishna says Arjun should do his dharma and killing his relatives will not stain him, what he means is that when Arjun does what he has to do with his mind devoid of personal motivations, he will not be stained by sin. A person is judged for WHY he did what he did. (Oh, yeah, and do not come with ANYONE will say that he did it for his dharma. I mean, we are talking SIN here and you accept it, so go that one step further and accept GOD will know the truth. I mean, if there is no GOD there is no concept of SIN too, no?)

AND so if your motives for saying the truth is to cause harm, then what you said may still be the truth. But YOU will be counted as dishonest!