Virtue is all in the mind?

Manaththukkan Maasilan Aadhal Anaiththu Aran; Aaakula Neera Pira - Thirukkural

 A spotless mind is the only virtue; all else is valueless - Loose Translation

I am back to Thiruvalluvar (hereinafter to be called 'Tiru' to save myself some typing), the man who tweeted, prolifically, more than a millenium before Twitter was ever conceived. The only reason why the chap has not been ubiquitous in memes, apart from the fact that he wrote in Tamil and not English, is because he failed on the main criterion for his 'tweets' to go viral. He seems to have had an aversion to vituperation which, as everyone knows, is the only way to thrive on social media.

Look, for instance, at this particular saying from his book of 'tweets'. According to him, what is important is a virtuous mind. If your mind is virtuous, then you are to be considered a good person. If not, not. I suppose that the assumption is that if you have no vice in your mind then your actions would naturally not be vicious. Quite likely, isn't it?

But, come on, is it all that easy? I mean like, yeah, I may still think of women as inferior, or the differently-abled as lesser mortals than me or some such but can be politically correct about it. Should I not get some pass-marks for that? What does he mean saying that it is totally valueless? 

What was that? It is precisely because the mindset has not changed that they have to keep updating the politically correct terms? Because every new term keeps getting the contemptuous connotation that was attached to the old one? So, if the mindset HAD been changed, the words may never have needed to be changed? Hmmm! You guys never appreciate the trouble we guys go through...do you think it is easy to keep updating yourself on the latest terms?

But, yeah, it looks like there are some people, at least, who think that, unless the mind is virtuous, the person cannot be considered to be virtuous simply based on his behavior. Fine, but what about those people whose MINDS are spotless but whose actions become debatable. You know, like a Vibishan who deserts his brother because to side him was not virtuous in his mind; or a Kumbhakarn who sides the non-virtuous Ravan because he saw HIS virtue in not abandoning his brother. What about them, then?

According to Tiru, BOTH would count as virtuous, won't they? I mean, their actions were not driven by any personal benefit or fear for themselves but by what they saw as their duty. If that is not contradiction, what is? I mean, two people taking diametrically opposite decisions and BOTH count as virtuous?

What do you mean there is no contradiction? That, basically, both of them are doing their duty without regard to any self-interest. In that they are the same? It is just a difference in how they SEE their duties? That Kumbhakarn may have not sided with Ravan in abducting Sita but saw his duty in defending him from being killed whereas Vibishan saw siding Ravan in the war as tantamount to supporting the abduction?

Yeah, that's all fine, laddie, but how the hell am I to KNOW who is a virtuous person and who is not, if I cannot judge them by their actions. If I could read minds, it would be OK. But I cannot, can I?

Huh? You mean that Tiru was talking about how I should assess MY own virtue; how I should go about leading MY life, what sort of character I should build? So, this whole thing is NOT about how I go about judging how virtuous other people are, then?

Hmmm! The thought of judging your own self! Nonsense! Isn't the whole point of discussions on virtue all about judging other people?

I tell you, this Tiru really seems to have no idea of how humanity works!