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!

Austerities - Easy?

Have you noticed how philosophers seem to find it so simple and easy to do what is needed for whatever problem you want them to address? You want success? Simple, they say, and give you a six word mantra - like six Hs of success - Honesty, Hard Work, Humility, Helpfulness,  Hearing (You know, listening to others, to experts and so on. I NEED a word starting with 'H', don't I?) and Holding Fast (I'd call it perseverance but it does not fit into the six 'H' thingy). You go off nodding, eager to try it all out, and find that each one of those is oh-so-difficult to practise. Almost all advice seems to belong in the easier-said-than-done category.

So, when Tiru says this...

Utranoi nondraluyirkkurukan seyyaamai atrae dhavaththir kuru - Tirukkural

To patiently endure his own suffering and to cause no pain to others is all there is to Austerities - Loose Translation

You know those ascetics who lead an extremely simple life eschewing all pleasures and live with a mind focused on God? What they do is what is meant by 'Dhavam'. Whether the entirety of that meaning is captured by 'Austerities' I leave it to you but, in this post, THAT is what 'Austerities' mean.

Tiru says that all you have to do is to endure your own suffering without complaint and to avoid giving any pain to others...THAT is the essence of dhavam. So simple, no?

Think, then, of the word endurance. It means that you just live with your pain/suffering without ranting and raving at someone who you think is to blame for it. Easy, yeah? When you cannot even withstand the weather without cursing the Sun, those responsible for climate change, the current government, yada yada. Think then of going out for alms and having someone refuse it with contempt for you? Can you see yourself smilingly bless him still? Think of someone trolling you when you are giving a speech? Can you avoid reacting to that hurt? Think of...you get the point.

You can patiently endure the weather only as long as the power is on and the airconditioner functioning. So, this patient endurance is not as simple a thing as it seems. It involves a total revamp of your character.

As for not causing hurt to anyone...of course it is easy. You are no sadist and only wish well for everyone. Till, say, someone tells you that the other guy is getting the promotion which you were aspiring to get. Or your neighbor says something that hurts your ego. Or when you can retain your job prospects only if you blame that other person. Or when the other guy shows contempt for your leader...

See, more often than not you always have reason to say that the other guy hurt you first. But does Tiru say that you should not cause pain only to those who do not cause you pain? Nope...and therein lies the problem. To adhere to the second requirement of 'Austerities' you need to necessarily be able to patiently endure suffering first. AND, also, be mindful of not causing hurt inadvertently which means you have to live a life of empathy. THAT means completely eliminating your own ego and live a life where everyone and everything is as important to you as your own self.

Does not seem as simple to do these Austerities, now, does it? These philosophers, I tell you...

The light of life

There are times that one thinks of philosophers as being dry as dust. You know, most times they are talking about hard work and dedication and so on and so forth. All things of the brain and you see them as having made no allowance for emotions at all. Yeah, they scatter around words like love or affection but those are rare occassions and, almost invariably, they tie it in to success and things like that. So, I'm sure you see 'light of life' and you think that, at last, there is a glimmer of emotion here.

Well, in this Kural, Tiru does talk of emotion but...

Olioruvarku Ulla Verukkai Iliooruvarku Aqdirandhu Vaazhdhum Enal - Tirukkural

What lights up your life is your enthusiasm; to even think of living without enthusiasm is shameful - Loose Translation

See what I mean? Enthusiasm MAY be an emotion but it is not exactly what you and I think of as an emotion, right? I mean it is not love or hate or joy or sorrow or...I know you know!

But Tiru does have a point you know. You need a reason to want to get up in the morning. If you have never had a time in your life when you go to sleep eager for the dawn, then you have hardly lived. I mean, at least because of those emotions - to want your next meeting with your significant other, you should have had those days. AND, if those days WERE there in your life and ARE no longer, life must be feeling drab.

To want to get back such days, to strive to find some interest that makes you jump out of bed...THAT's living. (NOT in the SAME way, thank you. To chase after a disinterested ex is not living.) To give up on life and just meander from day to day...that's mere existing, not living.

Animals only exist cos that's the way they are made. To be human and to live no better than an animal - that's what Tiru calls shameful. So, one should pick up the light of enthusiasm and brighten the rest of your days.