Loveless Virtue?

It is not at all easy to be virtuous. Especially if you want to please all these various philosophers. Your case would be much like the father, son and donkey. If the father rides the donkey, people would scoff at him for letting the young chap suffer the walking; if the son rides the donkey, others would deride the son for not respecting the age of the father; if both ride the donkey, up will spring the PETA lot screaming at the injustice meted out to the donkey by overloading it; and if the father and son choose to carry the donkey, the DONKEY objects by kicking them senseless. In other words, there is no pleasing everyone with your virtuousness.

Tiru, not to be outdone by his fellow philosophers, is equally as demanding if not more so. Here he goes with

Enbi ladhanai veyilpolak kaayumae anbiladhanai aram - Tirukkural

Like the Sun scorches boneless beings like worms, virtue scorches those lacking in love - Loose Translation

Boneless beings, here, is merely a description of the sort of beings that cannot stand extreme heat. In other words, it is not their bonelessness that makes them suffer but their inability to regulate their body temperatures because they are cold-blooded.

There is a difficulty in understanding why Virtue should scorch a person lacking in love...as in, is it not possible for a person to behave virtuously even though he feels no love for those around him? To behave as a person of integrity...does it also need you to love? Is it not actually a fact that to be impartial can be a virtue for a ruler, say, and a ruler who does not love would be better because he has no biases? Why, then, should virtue scorch such a person?

The problem with virtue IS that almost everything that you classify as virtuous behavior would, in some form or other, translate to either actively benefitting or, at the very least, no hurting those around you. In other words, the measure of virtue lies in the impact your actions have on other people.

Take that impartial, unbiased actions that you may need to take; actions that could well prove to be detrimental to those close to you because they were needed to be taken in the interests of the larger good. NOW, if you are the sort of person overflowing with love, and your love for those around you is visible...THEN, even though you cost them benefits, they COULD still be friendly with you. (Unlikely, you say, and I'd be inclined to agree. But 'unlikely' is not necessarily 'impossible'.) More to the point, others who are unaffected and more likely to see things without emotions are likely to see things your way and give credit for your virtuous actions. IF, however, you are lacking in love and KNOWN to be so...how quickly you'd alienate everyone in your vicinity (IF he can do THAT to his son-in-law....). THEN your virtuous decisions will readily be taken as vices and, yes, you'll be scorched as a result.

The problem with being seen as a 'cold fish' is that, even when you benefit people by your choice, it'd either be seen as accidental OR as some devious plot to take advantage. AND if you hurt people, even by accident, it will invariably be taken to be a deliberate act. After all, you're seen as someone who does not care for anyone at all.

The other problem IS that, absent love, it is actually very tough to be truly virtuous. Justice, they say, needs to be tempered with mercy. To paraphrase and elaborate on the idea, you cannot live life off a rule book. A rule book is a guide but, in each given circumstance, you need to apply it with compassion and empathy. AND I am yet to see anyone who is capable of compasstion and empathy being incapable of love. So, when your so-called virtue is void of compassion, it's actually no virtue at all. Your charity becomes a self-serving exercise where you look down on the recipients; your help undermines the pride of those who receive it; and your entire life full of acts that can only be dry entries in a ledger book of virtues without really possessing any virtue.

So, yes, sans love you are a 'cold fish' and, thus, scorched by the Sun of virtue!

Parental duty?

Some advice can get dated. As in, what was wisdom at some point in history may sound like rank folly at others. It is tough, however, to  write finis to the advice because...well, because, things CAN make a comeback. To be sure, bell-bottoms in trousers have never made a comeback...and a good thing too...but you never know. What will be the fate of THIS piece of advice by Tiru remains to be seen.

Thandhai magarkaatru nandri avaiyaththu mundhi iruppach cheyal - Tirukkural

The best boon a father can confer on his son is to make him foremost among the wise - Loose Translation

Now THAT opens a real can of worms, doesn't it? In the first place, the very idea that a father (Boomer!!!) has ANY wisdom to offer to the son is...I don't know...a LMAO+ROFL concept. As far as the sons of the day are concerned, if the fathers just got out of the way and KEPT out, with their mouths shut...THAT would be the best boon! (In the (1A) place is the fact of talking only about sons, and not daughters, but we shall pass lightly over that considering the times of Tiru. Yeah, that 'magar' could be interpreted to mean 'daughter' also but THAT's not the way almost ANY interpreter of Tiru has seen it, so...)

The next thing is this risible idea that making the son foremost among the 'wise' is the 'BEST' boon. I mean, come on, would Mukesh Ambani want to exchange places with ANY Nobel Laureate you can think of? Would he think that Dhirubhai did worse than the father of ANY such wise man? AND reverse the question and see how THAT goes. Ask ANY Nobel Laureate...Foremost among the WEALTHY is laudable; foremost among the WISE? ONLY if it lead to wealth.

There would be those who could claim that 'avaiyaththu' need not only be a congregation of the wise...it could well just be taken to mean 'Society' and, thus, daddy dear had the duty to place the son foremost in whatever was the measure best suited to the society of the day. It just so happens that, in Tiru's day, it is wisdom that counted.

The thing, though, is that wisdom is what the philosophers seem to value above wealth...without regard to the mores of the day. To possess wealth is one thing; to keep it is another; to be a happy person is yet another; and to have and to retain the respect of society is a further stretch. AND wisdom works better than just wealth for all of that. (AND, yes, it IS lack of wisdom that makes you think that just because I am advising wisdom I'm asking you to live in poverty. Making everything an 'either this or that' question IS the hallmark of a moron. THERE is such a thing as a bit of both) Wealth you earn for yourself IF daddy-dear equips you with wisdom.

So, yeah, this may not be as dated as I thought. Or, perhaps, I too have become dated!

Barren Land?

There is this tendency among philosophers to assume that the very land that you were born in reacts to what you do with your life. About how it rejoices in your fame and feels humiliated when you fail. Whether it is metaphorical or whether they really think that this is how your land/country is affected by you...

Tiru is no exception to this rule. Here he goes

Vasaiyilaa vanpayan kundrum isaiyilaa yaakkai poruththa nilam - Tirukkural

The land that bears men lacking fame ceases to yield blemishless abundance of produce - Loose Translation

This idea that there is a magical correlation between the fertility of the land and the fame achieved by its people...this idea seems sort of like fantasy. Most likely, then, that it is metaphorical...that what the philosopher means is that the population, at large, of that land would be shamed by the lack of accomplishments from within their ranks. I mean, yeah, when you say 'my country', more often than not, you mean the people of your country and not the land, the rivers, the mountains and all that. Which is probably one of the truths of this sort of wisdom.

You could go further and say that the fact that there are no such role models in the population makes it less likely that the people of that land have the ambition and put forth the effort to DO what it needed to make the land yield 'blemishless abundance of produce'. Which, again is probably one of the truths of this wisdom.

You could also say that a land in which infamy is considered fame...where, say, the gambler is praised for his wealth and the teacher reviled for his poverty...that's a land which will go on to produce more gamblers and less teachers. In other words, the abundance of produce will not be 'blemishless'. A community of robbers CAN be rich but not 'blemishless'.

Oh, yes, you can see that you CAN understand 'land' to literally mean land. If there are no people of fame, it would mean that there is nobody who is actually working to make the land yield 'blemishless abundance of produce'. And so...how's the land to yield any benefits?

So, yes, the land that does not produce people of fame is a land that will, probably, cease to yield any blemishless abundance of produce. AND it does not need any magic wand to cause it to be so.

Good judgment

The toughest call for a leader is judging people. If you do not want to die of stress, you need to know who to give a job to AND not worry yourself into an early grave about whether it will be messed up after you hand over the responsibility. You cannot do it all yourself either; not unless your leadership role is merely honorary. To trust people's sense of responsibility, to trust people's integrity, to trust people's abilities, to trust...you get the picture. You first understand that 'Do you trust me?' IS the most idiotic (OR manipulative) question because it begs the question 'Trust what? Your discretion, your integrity, your loyalty to me, your abilities,...?' AND you have to assess people on what they can be trusted with and what not.

Tiru has this to say about judging people.

Gunam naadi kutramum naadi avatrul migai naadi mikka kolal - Tirukkural

Assess the virtues and faults of each man, and assess him on the basis of the excess of one over the other - Loose Translation

It is a sad fact of life that no person is perfect. We are all a mixture of various virtues and faults. Nor, indeed, is the definition of a virtue and a fault static. I mean, meticulous attention to detail may be a virtue on an assembly line; but has ANYONE lauded it when their medical advance request is being processed for approval? Dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't' while sanctioning money for an emergency operation is unlikely to be considered a virtue. So, yes, circumstances also determine what is a virtue and what a fault.

Tiru is no fan of the sort of leader who seeks perfection. 'One fault and the guy is out' is not his favorite credo. (AND if, indeed, there is any leader who believes in that credo, he will cease to be a leader in jig time unless he is leading an army of drones.) Which does not mean that you should be blind to the faults of the person. Tiru expects you to take on board all his virtues and all his faults; assess whether the virtues outweigh the flaws or not; and THEN assess the person's worth.

You could be a genius and still be considered unworthy as per Tiru's dictum because you are undependable, arrogant and a disruptor. You could be not so intelligent but dependable, meticulous, and dedicated which could make you worthy if you go by Tiru's dictum. So, the assessment of a person is on the balance of his virtues and faults; not on the ABSENCE of faults.

AND, yes, it does not mean that you FORGET the faults even after assessing the person as worthy.You need to keep them in mind while allocating tasks to them. I mean, what's the point in entrusting an R&D job to a person whose strength is meticulously following routine and weakness is in thinking outside the box? OR, for that matter, putting on the assembly line this genius with the attention span of a butterfly?

To lead is to know the worth of people; including a clear idea of what they can be trusted with. And THAT is why you need to know how to judge people.