Laugh in the face of trouble?

Yeah, yeah, you are right. I AM going to start off by saying how philosophers talk of things that, on the face of it, seem insane. I mean, if you come across someone laughing, when something very distressing has happened to him, your first instinct is to say, "There, there, get a hold of yourself" and wave in a paramedic with a sedative injection, if not a straitjacket.

Too late for Tiru who is not around for your kindly ministrations. Here he goes...

Idukkan varungaal naguga adhanai aduththoorvadhu aqdhoppa dil - Tirukkural

Smile in the face of distress; there's no more powerful weapon against trouble - Loose Translation

So there. When you are faced with distress, laughing at it is the most powerful weapon against it, according to Tiru. It's probably not as insane as it sounds. In fact, it seems like the sort of thing you pay good money to a psychologist to hear.

Think for a sec. What happens when you are faced with any sort of hardship? You may grieve or feel hopeless or become depressed. AND...as a consequence of those overwhelming feelings, you give up on living. As in, you give up on actively engaging with the world, working to set things right. The melancholy of distress freezes you into a stasis where you get frozen into that moment - of loss or defeat or pain - without the energy to move on. Which ensures that the distress defines you going forth.

To be able to laugh at it...that probably is hyperbole. Of course, if you CAN you make the entire problem much smaller and, thus, you find that you have the ability to deal with it with relative ease. You know, that things about holding a stone close to your eyes and seeing it as a mountain vs holding it away and seeing it for the stone that it really is. What's the word? Mmmm...Ah...Perspective! Distance yields perspective. AND to hold onto the pain ensures that you cannot distance yourself enough from the problem to see it in perspective.

Even if the hurt is too high for you to laugh at it, it's better if you can avoid any distress from overwhelming you. To be able to look on a thing rationally instead of letting emotions overwhelm you...THAT's the best way to deal with distress. Once you steady your mind, you'll find that the distress becomes manageable and will eventually disappear.

If you, indeed, have the ability to see the funny side of things, to be able to find truly something to laugh at, THEN indeed are you equipped with the most powerful of weapons against all distress. Though, yeah, you may also invite that sedative or straitjacket!

The easy way to virtue?

Sometimes, very rarely, philosophers do manage to make things easy. Or, at least, things sound easy. Surprisingly easy, because in the normal course, the advice they offer is the sort that is nice to spread around but not really worth applying in your own life. Because, to try doing so will involve the sort of effort that you are incapable of putting forth. If you could, you'd hardly be still needing advice.

Like, when Tiru says this...

Enpadhaththaal eidhal elidhenba yaarmaattum panbudaimai ennum vazhakku - Tirukkural

To be accessible to everyone is the easiest way to become a man of virtue - Loose Translation

Actually, 'man of virtue' is a slippery concept. In this context, it could mean various things - trustworthy man, courteous man, what have you. Tiru, I think, means that you will develop into all of it, perhaps over time.

The thing I object to is the fact that what Tiru thinks as easy is vastly different from what I think of as easy. It sounds simple to 'be accessible to everyone.' But just think...you need to be patient and open-minded with that crank who finds fault in what anyone does; you need to give an attentive ear to that man who consistently needs a shoulder to cry upon; you need to learn to ease the mental burden of someone by listening to their problems which you may not be able to solve. AND, most of the time, you yourself may be under the stress of your own problems but should be able to set them aside for the time being.

Like everyone else, you have only twentyfour hours a day to live in. AND, yet, you cannot see all these others as people who are interrupting your life. Because, that way, you will be impatient with them and 'not be accessible' to them. This accessibility is, in other words, a deep empathy for humanity in general which allows you to treat them like you would wish to be treated yourself if you were in their shoes. IF you can really manage that, you would BE a person of virtue. Because that empathy will not allow you to cheat them; would lead you to help as much as you can; and, thus, to really BE a man of virtue.

Yeah...but to call that practice of genuine empathy easy? Whatever was Tiru smoking?

Subtract your faults first?

And there is this story about how the King asked for a way to achieve something impossible and the Philosopher gave him a magic potion to do it...which would work only if the King did not think of mangoes (slot in anything in the place of mangoes as you please) for the next three days. AND, as you may have guessed, the King, who had never in his life bothered to think of mangoes before, could not help obsessing about them for the next three days. THAT, sometimes, is the way their advice works...ask you to do the impossible if you want results.

Like Tiru here...

Thankutram neekkip pirarkutrang kaangirpin enkutra maagum iraikku - Tirukkural

Faultless is the leader who first assesses and removes his own faults before judging the faults of others - Loose Translation

Of course, Tiru said 'king' and not 'leader' but the advice is about leadership, so...

You can see this multiple ways. If, for example, there has been a failure of governance, it is for the leader to see how his own mistakes had contributed to the failure. Having clearly assessed his own contribution to the issue, he can then see how the failure was caused by others. In other words, you need to see if your strategy was erroneous first. IF it was, there is no real point in getting after the guys who were only implementing it. To rectify things, a clarity of where the fault lies is important and if the fault lies in the leadership, then THAT is what needs correcting.

You can see this as a character issue. IF the leader identifies his own faults - lack of knowledge, lack of specific qualities of leadership etc - and learns how to correct them first before he starts judging others, who can fault him thereafter? Like, when the leader is honest enough to identify and work on his own flaws, it is hard to blame him when he gets after you for your flaws. (You know, the standard thing of 'As though HE is always right' etc does not work very well when you can see him working on what HE got wrong!)

The whole problem with this entire proposition is that you can file it under 'Easier said than done'! I mean, how many people have YOU met who can be clear headed and honest enough to admit that THEY may be wrong? Are we not all made perfect and sent down by God only to suffer failure because of all the imperfect idiots that He surrounded you with? How can WE ever be wrong?

Wasted by saving?

Sometimes, the advice of philosophers seems to be counter-intuitive. Like, your common sense says one thing and the philosopher says the diametric opposite of that. And also claims that the guidance of your common sense will lead to disaster. It is times like this that you feel that they inhabit a different universe where, probably, even the laws of physics do not align with what you know of the world.

Like, who could ever claim that spending conserves wealth better than saving? AND, yet, Tiru says here...

Seyarpaala seyyaa dhivariyaan selvam uyarpaala dhandrik kedum - Tirukkural

Wealth accumulated by not spending on what is needed will end up being destroyed - Loose Translation

I think some such thing has been discussed in these annals before. Not all spending is wasteful and not all saving is desirable. Let us take some truly absurd examples. If you fail to spend on doors, locks and guards, for example, can you hold your wealth safe or will you get robbed? If you confuse investments with expenditure and hoard everything in cash, will you not be allowing inflation to eat away at your wealth?

Wealth HAS to be put to use in order for it to grow, no? If you own lands, do you not have to spend money on seeds, fertilisers and labor to make productive use of it? Is keeping the land fallow, because you prefer not to spend money, the best way to safeguard your wealth?

Or, for that matter, stinting on food for your family...is THAT going to save you wealth or lead to serious expenses later - on medical complications? (Without even arguing about what is the purpose of wealth that does not even get used to feed you.) IF you refuse to spend money on your children's education, will that lead to formation of generational wealth or to the dissipation of it?

Not all spending is wasteful and not all saving is desirable. To keep the balance, without leaning too far in either direction, is the best way to safeguard wealth.

AND what is wealth if it cannot be used to make you happy? But THAT is an argument for another day.