A plastic mind?

The problem with being human is that, most of the time, we really do not know who we are or who we ourselves want to be. Like, so you yourself love partying or do you do it because you cannot digest the idea of being left out of the activity of your colleagues? Do you feel joy in screaming at the top of your voice in a quiet place or are you conditioned to think that screaming IS joy? How much of what you like is liking for that activity and how much is merely not liking the idea of being the outsider?

Tiru has this to say:

Nilaththiyalbaal neerthirin dhatraagum maandharkku inaththiyalba dhaagum arivu - Tirukkural

Like water takes on the characteristics of the land it is in, the minds of people get molded by the company they keep - Loose Translation

There is hardly a need to belabor the fact that water can become muddy, marshy or flow clean depending on the nature of the land it flows (OR stagnates) in. Tiru says that, in like fashion, your mind adapts in tune with the company you keep.

So, yes, if the chaps around you are into the esoterica of dark matter and black holes, you'd perforce be interested in such things. Else, obviously, you'd change your company because their conversation would put you to sleep. If your company is deeply into applying rocket science to predict the gyrations of the stock market, you'll need to dance with the best of them or jump out of that group into another that is more interested, say, in the gyrations of El Nino. And so on...

It is not merely in WHERE you apply your mind that peers are such an influence. They can also be a big influence on WHETHER you apply your mind at all. As in, ANY political grouping or grouping based on a strong ideology, will perforce have limitations on how you can think. You are absolutely proscribed from any thought that sees the other party as possibly right in any given issue; and, likewise, prohibited from seeing anything wrong in whatever your side has chosen to support. So, yes, you'll slowly realise that the only way to avoid being canceled is to follow the leaders and NOT to think for yourself.

In like manner, whether you treat life as a stern and earnest thing where you ought to spend every hour of every day in making money; whether you treat life as a ball and sponge on friends and relatives as necessary; whether your leisure is spent in activities like hiking or skydiving or scuba diving OR in the time honored tradition of the couch potato lying around eating popcorn while watching the IPL; whether...you get the point. The way you lead your life can well be the effect of how your thought processes were molded by the company you keep.

In other words, Tiru has presciently presented the idea of how your own personal echo chamber will mold you. It behooves you, therefore, to be careful in picking the right sort of company so that your personal echo chamber works in your favor.

Otherwise, you'll probably be dancing to your doom to the music of your own Pied Piper!

The foremost strength?

I don't know how it is in general but Indian philosophers tend to think of their current idea as the 'foremost' idea. Or, perhaps, it is just a linguistic...umm...idiosyncracy. You know, like the 'mother of all battles' etc sort of hyperbole. So, at any point in time, one finds that the foremost virtue is the virtue under discussion only to discover that there is another 'foremost' virtue a couple of sentences down the manuscript. You need to brush it aside much like you brush aside this GOAT (Greatest Of ALL times, in case you have just crawled out from under your rock) reference to cricketers that varies from one IPL match to another.

So, then, when Tiru says this, you need to stop mentally judging him for scattering his 'foremost's across his Kurals. THAT 'foremost' maybe a linguistic style issue but what he is saying is not untrue.

Vinaiththitpam enbadhu oruvan manththitpam matraya ellaam pira - Tirukkural

The foremost strength needed for executing a task is firmness of mind; all else comes a distant second - Loose Translation

Tiru sets aside even talent and knowledge as secondary to a firm and determined mind when it comes to effectively finishing a job. To conceptualise a task, to strategise and plan it, to have the abilities to do what is necessary to carry it out - all of that, in his opinion, is secondary to the will of the person to do it.

AND why would he not consider it so? I mean, have you not met with people with great talent for, say, writing, AND who have honed their craft to perfection but who do not finish a single book. Where would, say, a Stephen King be without his determination that kept him rewriting his first book over and over again?

How many good public policies stay in the files of government because the rulers do not have the will to pursue them to conclusion? The greatest plans and strategies will languish in moldy papers (in decaying chips? Perhaps!) without a determined person who will see to their implementation on the ground. The perseverance to overcome all obstacles, to course-correct where necessary and complete the job would not exist without that firm will. The weak of mind will abandon the job at the first obstacle.

A meticulously planned strategy will be seen as such ONLY when it is implemented. Otherwise it will only be laughed at as Mungerilal ke haseen sapne.

I read something somewhere which encapsulates this very well - 'Vision without implementation is mere hallucination'. AND implementation requires the firmness of will which Tiru sets above all else.

The key to all good?

You tend to get put off by philosophy, sometimes, simply because it tells you what you already know but are unable or unwilling to do. I mean, like, when you get told that hard work leads to prosperity, you get angry. Not because it is wrong but because you know it already but do not want to do it. If there was a philosopher who told you that prosperity will come to you as you loll around in your bed watching a web series, you'd embrace him with all your heart. The philosopher who tells you that politeness yields friendships will face rude ire from you; the one who says that being rude is the way to go, since it denotes frankness, is your bosom pal. The philosopher...WHAT? You got the point already? Alright!

Tiru cannot always be finding out and telling things that you do not already know. (Though, to be sure, since I do NOT know what you already know, it could well be that you do not know this.) Sometimes, he too will tell you what you know already. Like this one...

Thunai nalam aakkam tharum vinai nalam vendiya ellaam tharum - Tirukkural

Having good supporters yields wealth; doing good and progressive work will yield all desirable results - Loose Translation

You know, sometimes, it is difficult to get these philosophers. I mean, you got wealth, right? When you have people around you who are good and capable? What other desirable results could you possibly want that you cannot buy with wealth? Well, Tiru probably means things like popularity, fame etc. Maybe even health if you take 'work' to mean everything you do - including eating, drinking etc - and that they should all be 'good' and 'progressive'.

That phrase - 'vinai nalam' - is tough to translate. It does mean 'good' as in you are not to steal, murder, defraud etc; it also connotes that what you do should be progressive for Society. Yes, you could honestly run an existing business and be 'good'. You could do socially relevant business OR you could expand business to provide more employment OR make available a rare drug OR...You get the point like you did the last time? Business that leaves a mark on Society, leaves Society better off than before - THAT's what that 'progressive' means. That is what gets you all that you may legitimately desire out of life according to Tiru.

NOW you see why advice makes you angry. You know it already but it is hard yards to do it. So...

To prefer violence?

You tend to think of philosophers as peaceful souls. I don't really think anyone thought of a philosopher who prioritises violence. I mean, like, the chappie is most likely to say that 'War indicates a failure of diplomacy' or 'There is nothing that cannot be sorted by sitting down to discuss' and things like that. In fact, the first advice that you expect a philosopher to give in times of conflict is to sit together and discuss. Perhaps, the idea is that you can kill a conflict by boring people to death.

Not so Tiru. At least, as it seems, not in this kural:

Ollumvaa yellaam vinai nandrae ollaakkaal sellumvai nokkich cheyal - Tirukkural

It is best to overcome by fighting if possible; if not, opt for any other workable method - Loose Translation

It needs be clarified that, in India, four methods of overcoming an enemy were outlined - sama, daana, bheda and danda. Sama is the art of discussion and, possibly, compromise; daana is attempting to bribe the enemy to concede; bheda is to try to divide the enemy by creating divisiveness in their ranks; danda is to attack and overcome the enemy.

So, Tiru prefers the violent option of attacking and overcoming the enemy as the first choice, if it is at all possible to win that battle. In the event that such a victory is seen as impossible, he advises that you should seek an alternative solution which is workable from out of the other three options.

On the face of it, this seems like war-mongering. Even if one takes it literally, and not metaphorically, the point is that Tiru probably sees the other options as only postponing the problem and not solving it. All compromises leave some on either side feeling that the compromise was treachery and, thus, leads to a conflict further down the road; bribery works only for a time as the natives of England had reason to find when they bribed the Norsemen to go away - they only come back for more; divisions are also a temporary ruse. If what was together can be split, what splits can come back together.

Tiru assumes that when the base cause of the conflict remains, the war will remain to be fought. You can only buy time to strengthen yourself but the war will still come back to you. THAT, then, IS the point. That Tiru is not really talking of battles that are fought on minor matters of dispute but on fundamental differences that really cannot be reconciled. (No such thing? Well, what about a cannibalistic tribe preying on your citizens? OR a tribe thriving on robbing travellers and merchants to your country? There ARE value systems that you will need to fight for.) Essentially, deciding the goal of a conflict can be open to discussion. Tiru is talking about how you go about ACHIEVING that goal having decided on the desirability of the goal - whether you go all out to achieve it or whether you compromise on achieving the goal.

THAT is, if it is to be taken literally. Metaphorically, a battle is anything that needs to be changed or implemented. Anywhere where there is a conflict, even if it is of opinions or habits, Tiru would call it a battle. AND in any battle, he prefers that you charge ahead and complete the job if you can see the possibility of victory, instead of dilly-dallying. ONLY if such victory is seen as impossible does he suggest the other options which are, indeed, varying forms of compromise.

Just so you can see the applicability, consider gender equality or changing over the indirect tax system to GST or adoption of automation/AI or whatever. Tiru says that if you can at all bull through to making the change-over, go ahead and do it, instead of discussing it to death. IF you find that impossible, THEN go in for a path that is workable on the day - compromise, bribe the opposition (Like, say, a VRS while adopting automation), divide the opposition etc. 

Tiru is more a pragmatist than a philosopher in that sense. 'Do what works, don't keep splitting moral hairs' is probably what he'd say. Even idealism, in his world view, needs to be tempered by practicality. AND who is to say he is wrong? A world moved an inch towards the ideal world is probably better than a completely ideal world that only stays in the mind!