Companion effects

It is not like you believe - that your beliefs are all your own. I mean, like, who really has the time to learn everything about everything. So, most of what you think you know are things that you have picked up from what those around you state that they know. AND...well, it is not as though THEY have the time to learn everything about everything. And so...

Tiru has this to say about it.

Nilatthiyalbaal neer thirindratthagum maandharkku inaththiyalba dhaagum arivu - Tirukkural

Just as water takes on the qualities of the land it flows through, people take on the knowledge/attitudes/beliefs of their associates - Loose Translation

You can see that clearly demonstrated in the world at large. Like, take education for example. You'll find that some people seem to overrate it and some underrate it. AND it will be a community thing. Like, in the US, Indians (and Chinese?) push their children to heights in education but not the native westerners. The community values education and, as people who like being respected in their society, the members of the community follow suit. Attitudes being driven by the community.

Beliefs are the most common thing that society pushes on you. Religion, for example. THAT's driven into you from birth. So strongly that, later in life, some are willing even to take the lives of followers of other 'false' religions. Despite the fact that the belief did not start out as their own choice. You are born in a certain family, belonging to a certain community and, presto. Take beliefs about whole other communities - as cunning, cruel, whatever - with no personal experience of the same. Are they yours completely by your choice?

The strange thing is that knowledge itself is dependent on associates. I mean, it is not like you support the Pythagoras theorem or oppose it based on who you associate with. When it comes to things like 'Did the Mughals oppress the Hindus?' OR 'Does the US deep state influence Indian elections?' or some such, what are the 'facts' that you know? Yeah, right! Most of what you know is what is being discussed among your associates, none of whom has the time and energy to learn history or analyse geopolitics or whatever is needed for an understanding of that question. And, thus, most of those opinions are likely to be ill-informed opinions. Not to mention the fact that the selection and interpretation of facts is also subject to bias.

Or, in other words, over a period you and your associates end up creating an echo chamber of your own. Now, echo chambers may have existed from the times of Tiru but it is only now, in the times of Social Media, that the echo chambers have been fully proofed against external influences - including facts and concepts - that may interfere with the echoes that you so love in that chamber. Perfection, at last!

Useless knowledge?

The problem with dealing with philosophers is that they set high standards for everything. There you are, complacent in the thought that your intelligence is enough to make you seem a shining light to the world. The philosophers pooh-pooh the idea of mere intelligence being enough unless it has been deployed to, at least, acquire knowledge. THEN you flaunt the fact that you have acquired knowledge - and the philosophers get into the act, differentiating between whether you only have information or you have knowledge. At last you HAVE acquired knowledge and THAT's the time they come and tell you why they said 'at least' when they talked of using your intelligence!

So, yes, Tiru has not been left behind in telling you why mere knowledge may be considered useless. As in this...

Arivinaan aaguva dhundo piridhin noi than noi pol potrakkadai - Tirukkural

What use is knowledge if you know not to empathise with other people's suffering? - Loose Translation

So there! But, first, let us get that translation of 'arivu' out of the way. 'Arivu' is a word that CAN translate to just intelligence; can translate to intelligence+knowledge+competence; can translate even to wisdom. Depending on the context. Here, the second translation seems most appropriate to the context.

The obvious understanding of the Kural is that it says that knowledge that does not serve others, and is merely self-serving, is useless. Useless to whom is normally the question and the answer IS useless to society.

In fact, knowledge that is put to the sole use of serving one's own self is actively harmful to society, Adam Smith notwithstanding. Because, those conditions of free markets - one of the MAIN ones being that the players in the markets do not have the power to set and modify the rules by which they play - are too Utopian to achieve in the real world.

Note that I speak of 'sole use of serving one's own interests'. People like that gravitate generally to the rent-seeking end of the economy. You know, like buying up resources cheap due to inside information about value-enhancing govt. action; insider trading etc and so forth. Anyone who does legitimate business has ALSO to think of legitimate needs of Society to address...after all, they need to put out a product or a service.

In addition to that, it is ONLY the knowledgeable people who CAN think of the sufferings of others in quite a few cases. I mean, it is easy enough to know that what the suffering of the other would be if you cheat your neighbor. But, in quite a few things, it is not that easy. When you participate in a stock market scam, it is difficult to visualise the losers and the possible impact on them, right? When you default on a loan, deliberately sometimes, you really do not think of the bank as a sufferer and you have no idea about other sufferers, true? If you grant a subsidy as a politician and, because of that, slow down or stop development, are there sufferers and who are they?

You see, the PURPOSE of a lot of knowledge IS to identify suffering where it is not readily visible, avoid actions leading to that suffering or take action to redress that suffering. If knowledge is not deployed accordingly that knowledge itself may be considered to be useless.

Who said life is easy? Certainly not Tiru!

Lasting Fame

The problem with fame is that it is not easy to get it; it is even tougher to keep it. It is a funny thing with the world that it first pushes you to reach the top. THEN you need to keep running all the time to stay in the same place! It is as though you are in a race up a descending escalator. The moment you stop running you start descending.

Not that it is something new...or so it appears from the fact that Tiru sets tough conditions for clinging on to fame. Like this...

Niraiudaimai neengaamai vendin poraiyudaimai potri ozhugappadum - Tirukkural

If you wish for everlasting fame you need undaunted patience - Loose Translation.

There are a lot of reasons one may need to take recourse to patience. Patience for your work to be rewarded, patience for your work to get DONE by others, patience when DOING the work when haste will make waste, yada yada. The context in which Tiru is talking of patience...as derived from the kurals preceding...is among the toughest of all.

Tiru is talking of patience in dealing with those who would pull you down, who demean you, who hold your ideas and abilities in contempt, who...in short, 90% of the rest of humanity which envies your success or wishes to obstruct it. To deal with those calumnies with tact requires patience; to react with rage puts off others and makes them think that you lack gravitas. I mean, look on ANY interaction between any two people where one is redfaced and screaming while the other is calmly reasoning...which of the two do you respect? (Oh, yes, IF the screamer is your boss OR the boss of the other guy, you may respect him...or, at least pretend to...but that is not on ACCOUNT of the screaming.)

To think that Tiru gave this advice in the days when Social Media was not even a thing! The best way to deal with trolls on SM is not to engage with them...unless you engage with them with humor WHICH requires the aforesaid patience. If you cannot keep your cool when you read troll messages, you will soon lose respect. Because when you see TWO people screaming, you hardly take the time out to verify who started it; you tend to disrespect them both.

There you are. There is no rest for the wicked...OR the famous. You need to keep running all the time. Patiently!

True Living?

The problem with all philosophy is that they add a 'True' to anything you can think of and then proceed to upend your understanding of that particular thing. IF they start off with, say, 'True Joy' rest assured that anything YOU took joy in will not feature in that list. I mean, sort of like doctors starting off with "Healthy". IF they say something is healthy, you can be reasonably sure that you will hate doing it. Just like that.

Alas, no matter how much you may want to think Tiru will be a class apart, he is NOT. So when he goes on about True Living...

Vasaiozhiya vaazhvaarae vaazhvaar isaiozhiya vaazhvarae vaazhadhavar - Tirukkural

Only those who live stainless lives live; those who live sans fame do not live - Loose Translation

This word 'Live' is a strange word. Especially in the hands of philosophers. Like, they do not consider being alive a sufficient reason to say someone lives. They make a distinction between 'existing' and 'living', for one. A cow may have life but it no more LIVES than a rock. It does the same thing day after day much like the rock...except that the latter just stays put whereas the former moves around chomping on grass. Humans, having choice, need to exercise the choice to be considered to live by Tiru. AND exercising choice means that you need to consciously pick your course of action and not merely follow the previous generation. (OR blindly oppose everything? THAT, too.)

The thing about humans having choice is that they have the potential for evil as well as for good. So Tiru is not content with humans exercising their choice. He also lays one further condition. THAT their actions earn them praise. THAT what they do is lauded by others. ONLY such people are considered to LIVE by him. Those whose actions lead to opprobium (Yeah, google, google!) are those who he considers as not having lived.

Now, me? WHY is it always about me? I am quite content to merely exist!

These bad leaders!

You know, as a kid, you tend to aim for becoming the top of the leadership ladder..in anything. AND, almost always, the driving factor for that ambition is this idea that 'once you become a leader, you can do as you please.' It actually does not need a philosopher to let you know that you are wrong in that assumption IF you actually become a leader. If not, and if you are particularly prone to being blind to other people's problems, you could continue to think that leaders have a plum life of doing whatever they want.

But philosophers are not content to just tell you what you would anyway know...that leaders have their own set of problems and limitations that keep them from doing as they please. No, they go further and set restrictive limits on the sort of character you need to possess to BE a good leader. (It is entirely a different thing as to whether YOUR leaders qualify as good leaders and you can debate that elsewhere.)

So, Tiru is unlikely to be left behind in this. He has this to say...

Ivaralum maanbirandha maanamum maanaa uvagaiyum yedham iraikku - Tirukkural

Stinginess in rewarding, overweening pride and over-indulgence in low pleasures disgrace a leader - Loose Translation

So, there ARE characteristics that a leader ought not to possess. When you are a leader, you do not actually DO everything with your own two hands. You GET things done. AND to those who actually DO those things it is you who needs to reward and acknowledge their contributions. To be stingy in giving those rewards ill-becomes the leader, according to Tiru. AND quite rightly so. IF you fail in the rewards, you may not get the same people to work with the same enthusiasm the next time around. Unless, of course, you could say 'Off with your head'...which would then mean everyone scrambles to hide their abilities and hopes to escape your notice.

This 'maanbu irandha maanam' is capable of various interpretations. A literal translation would be a 'virtue-dead pride' or, in other words, a pride that is devoid of virtue. Thus, you can interpret it in as many ways as you can interpret the word virtue. It IS virtuous to credit the responsible people who helped shape your own idea and implement it. It IS virtuous to show respect to those who are your superiors when it comes to the areas of their expertise. It is virtuous to respect your parents and your teachers. AND so on. IF you feel that your position makes you superior to all of them and, thus, obviates the need for you to respect any of them, you'll soon have no well-wishers left; only sycophants.

AND the last...history is replete with monarchs who lost everything and ruined their kingdoms because they spent their lives indulging in the proverbial 'wine, women and song'. Perhaps one may add gambling to that list. Tiru is not necessarily asking you to take vows of ascetism. Only moderation. There is a difference between having pleasures be a part of your life and letting your life revolve around your pleasures. It is the latter that Tiru says is not good for a leader. (OR, indeed, ANYONE I'd add.)

Anyone with these characteristics can easily be recognised for a bad leader. You do not look for a leader in the local bar, drinking off other people's  money and boasting about how he is holding up the universe, do you?

Narcissistic destruction?

There is this issue among philosophers. Much like dietitians they are of the opinion that whatever you really like doing is bad for you. There must have been a serious design issue when they assembled humans. Or, perhaps, the issue is a minor glitch in the software that put a '0' wherever there should have been a '1'. Or, in emoticon terms, put a 'Thumbs up', or even a 'Heart', where it should have programed a 'Thumbs down'.

I mean, here you go around assuming that self-love is the best love. And then here pops up Tiru saying this.

Amaindhaang gozhugaan alavariyaan thannai viyandhaan viraindhu kedum - Tirukkural

He who fails to work in harmony with those around him, who knows not his own limitations and who indulges in self-admiration brings upon himself a swift destruction - Loose translation

And THAT is that. Admire yourself and you will soon be destroyed. Though, I suppose, that a lot has to be read between Tiru's lines. He was so pithy that you had to fill in a lot of the blanks all by yourself.

Which means that he really is not asking you to flagellate yourself. I mean, if you have really done something wonderful, he probably does not ask you to refrain from feeling proud about it. Nor does he expect you to tie yourself up in knots, modestly denying that you had anything to do with it. But, yes, just because you do not need to say, 'No, I did nothing much' does not mean that it will hurt for you to say, 'I could not have done it without the help of...'. See what I mean? It is always possible to say I-dun-it modestly!

But even that pride...it can be overdone. Keep talking about how wonderful you are, what you did that nobody else could do, and you can slip over from 'legitimate pride' territory to 'too full of himself' territory.

But THAT is not all that Tiru is saying. Admiring yourself is also not to admit that you can do any wrong. Which also means that you are never going to take any criticism well. And the next time you get pissed with someone never accepting his mistakes, always blaming someone else for whatever goes wrong and refusing to learn anything because he is already perfect...well, look into the mirror and think about how your boss feels about you!

IF you have that sorted, this business of not being blindly in love with yourself, it automatically means that you are open to understanding what your limitations are likely to be. AND a person who understands that he HAS limitations is well on his way to working in harmony with others.

ALAS! Even I am not allowed to admire myself!

The biggest Killjoy?

There is no dearth of competition for what kills joy the most. What about envy? Is there anything that belittles all your reasons for feeling happy than to compare it to what the other guy possesses and you do not? What about lack of self-confidence and a sense of inferiority? Is there anything that kills all possibility of joy in company or at work than the feeling that everyone is looking down on you? What about...you get the picture. Joy is a fragile flower, easily destroyed by a multitude of things.

Then why categorise ONE thing as the biggest Killjoy? I'd say it's just because philosophers, like poets, are given to exaggeration to drive home their point. Whether Tiru is just doing this here or not, you judge for yourself.

Nagaiyum uvagaiyum kollum sinaththin pagaiyum ulavo pira - Tirukkural

Is there a worse enemy than anger which murders your smiles and your joy? - Loose Translation

True, Tiru only categorises it as the worst enemy, not the worst killjoy. But IF anything else seemed to him to be a worser killjoy than anger, would that not automatically become a worser enemy?

But, really, what do philosophers have against the poor short-tempered chaps in general? I mean, yeah, I would prefer those around me to be even-tempered but, sometimes, you actually do feel more comfort with a short-tempered chap because, with him, you generally know where you stand. The even-tempered guy may react the same whether he liked what you did or not. (NOTE the 'may'. There ARE even-tempered guys who can tell you to go to hell and make you look forward to the trip, like diplomats are supposed to be able to do. There are others who just go along with you in order not to rock the boat.) But the short-tempered guy probably cannot help getting angry, he can only control how he expresses it.

But, then, I think Tiru does not really mean the guy who screams 'F*@#' when he stubs his toe. Tiru does not mean these small flashes of irritation that last no longer than a few minutes. Anger of the sort that kills your joy is the thing that roots itself in your head and refuses to let go; the sort which flares up over and over again every time you remember the incident or that person; the sort that MAKES you remember that thing over and over, making ANY joyous thought an ephemeral bubble which soon bursts in the flame of remembered anger.

True, the short temper which flares and subsides within seconds can also keep away people; but, sooner or later, most people know to look beyond the ranting and see you for the character you are. That deep-seated anger, though, may not even be visible to most and, yet, will kill all your joys effectively. (AND, yes, those insecurities, those envies, which are also killjoys, root themselves right there in the mind. In the longevity of your memory and in the manner in which you select memories to revive and hold close, the emotions that you continuously refresh.)

It is in the mind that we end up discarding our friends - compassion, love, affection etc - and hug closest our enemies - anger, hurt, envy etc. So the biggest killjoy (as also the biggest source of joy) IS your mind!

The company you keep

If there is one thing that seems to have found acceptance across the world, it is the idea that you are known by the company you keep. Well, lions move with lions and cows move with cows is the sort of thing that is easy to understand. The wise prey does not cozy up to the predator. AND, of course, much as the predator may love its own captive herd of prey, it probably does not find enough foolish prey to hang around with; not to mention the fact that being taken for prey, because of the company it keeps, by other predators is not something conducive to peace of mind.

Comes to human beings, though, the 'company you keep' does not conveniently divide itself into this predator-prey matrix. Though, yes, to be sure it IS the fashion these days to designate the 'other' as predators and those who are 'gullible' enough to accept the other's views as prey. With you as the hard-working protector of whoever you designate as the innocent. But, in reality, humans are not so conveniently divided.

Thus, Tiru does not only mean this predator-prey division when he says

Sittrinam anjum perumai sirumaidhaan sutramai soozhndu vidum - Tirukkural

The great fear associating with the mean-minded; it is the base who surround themselves with such people - Loose Translation

Ah, you do not need to hark back to the Rajinikant dialogue - 'Pannidhaan koottam koottama varum; singam single-aaththan varum' (It is pigs that come in herds; the lion only comes alone). I mean, yeah, in a way Rajini is saying sort of the same thing. That the mean prefer coming in a crowd of their ilk (AND pigs as a metaphor to mean the 'mean' IS common in most parts of the world so do not blame me for typecasting pigs) whereas the lion dares come alone. The thing, though, is that Tiru is not necessarily praising the noble loneliness of the 'lion' but only saying that it prefers not to associate with 'pigs'.

You also note that the PREDATOR is being lauded in my example rather than the PREY. THAT should serve to let you know to wipe your mind clean of all predator-prey divides and approach the issue afresh.

When Tiru is talking of the great OR the mean, he is not talking of predators and prey. The great in his estimation are people who have noble goals and aspirations and who work towards that with dedication. Where did I get that idea about what Tiru meant? Well, you have been with me on this Tirukkural journey for so long and where did YOU get the idea that Tiru could ever mean jealousy, back-biting, laziness (Alas for me!) etc. as the qualities of the great? THOSE are the people - the jealous, the back-biters, the whingers and the parasites of society - whom he generally calls the 'mean' or the 'low'.

So, the great would find the mean as people who suck away all his positivity and enthusiasm and leave him without the motivation to pursue his goals. It would, further, keep away all those who could actually help him on his journey for, after all, a person is judged by the company she keeps. She would therefore avoid them like the plague. The mean, on the other hand, would love to be in that company because it would make them feel validated and...whole.

In other words, to even be judged great or potentially great, to have the enthusiasm to pursue your goals, to be able to approach those who may help you and to gain their assistance, you need to keep away from the 'mean'. Otherwise, sooner or later, you will end up joining their ranks and start bemoaning the fact that the world is being hijacked by the 'unworthy'.

WHICH has seldom been considered the hallmark of ANY sort of greatness! Not yet, anyway, thankfully.

The true possession?

Even when it comes to possessions, you cannot rest certain that your ideas will find a philosopher nod in agreement. I mean, yeah, one understands that they will not agree with you on virtues. After all, if you and they share the same ideas on virtues then exactly why are THEY philosophers and YOU just a mango person? But...possessions?

And, yet, here is Tiru out to tell you what is a true possession and what is not.

Udaiyavar enappaduvadhu ookkam aqdhilaar udaiyadhu udaiyaro matru - Titukkural

You possess only if you possess zeal; else do you truly possess what you possess? - Loose Translation

Ah! Actually, Tiru is more into defining whether you are a true possessor rather than whether what you have is a true possession. It is more like saying that what you think you possess is not really your possession because to possess anything at all you first need to possess zeal. Sounds sort of like Nityananda in his full glory, doesn't it? Quite unlike Tiru who really does not go in for these Zen type of statements that sound very profound but convey no meaning to you.

But, yeah, glimmers of light pierce that shroud. A simple understanding would be that if you have no zeal, you would take no active interest in your possessions. If you do not take interest in your possessions, do you even KNOW that you possess them? If you do not, does it even matter that some legal document says that you do?

To possess something is not merely to hold onto it. It is also to make use of it. If you own land and take no interest in it and someone else has encroached on it and is putting it to use, who really possesses that land? YOU or that chap who is currently in...err...possession? End of the day, he who is deriving benefit from something IS the guy who truly possesses it, not someone who just has a legal claim to it.

And, yes, that's just another way you will end up truly not possessing what you possessed. I mean, if you fail to take interest in what you possess, sooner or later someone else is going to take it off you without your consent or even, possibly, knowledge.

One can even go so far as to say that the man without zeal does not even possess his own life. I mean, unless YOU have a zeal for life, you are never going to seize the moment and do something with it; never going to live the day. So, then, have you truly lived?

Zeal, ardour, enthusiasm...call it what you will. You get the joy of your possessions only with it; without it all possessions are dross!

Covetousness repels wealth?

The thing about philosophers is that they assume that virtue is a magnet for all good things - including wealth. Quite contrary to the most common lament among us mango people - that it is our virtue that is keeping us poor while the wicked flourish like a green bay tree. But then, come on, do you honestly expect to be taught in your childhood that the path to success is to rob your uncle blind? Of course, they will tell you the virtues of hard work etc. including the benefits of not coveting other people's wealth.

As Tiru does here:

Aranarindhu vekkha arivudaiyaar serum tiranarindhu thaane tiru - Tirukkural

The goddess of wealth comes voluntarily to he who righteously covets not the wealth of others - Loose Translation

Well, so there. If you covet someone else's wealth, you need to do all the hard yards yourself - of finding a way to lining your pockets with his wealth. If, on the other hand, you stay righteous, wealth automatically flows to you. Really? Seems more like the sort of thing you say to keep men righteous.

And yet...maybe it is not like the wealth will just flow your way. Generally, you tend to apply your abilities in the direction of your wishes. So, if you covet someone else's wealth, you will tend to apply your mind to finding ways and means to try to get some, if not all of it, for yourself. That, obviously, means that you'll succeed only when the other guy is more stupid than you and also has no wise advisers.

Whereas, instead of looking around to see whose wealth you can covet, you concentrate on how YOU can make wealth for yourself...then your abilities are applied in that direction. Quite naturally, you could make your success happen for yourself without necessarily picking someone else's pocket for it.

Oh, yes, you are right! Success is not certain and wealth may not automatically flow to you. Poets and, yes, philosophers do tend to hyperbole. But then, do you really know what the success rate is when you try the covetousness route...AND the success rate of evading capture thereafter which you do not need to worry about? Except, of course, if you evaded taxes on that wealth that you earned!

Covetousness may not necessarily REPEL wealth, repulsive though the character of the covetous man IS. But it certainly ensures that you lose your chance of succeeding legitimately.

The temporary and the permanent

It is a tough world to live in, especially when you not only have to live a good life but should also be SEEN to live a good life. It is not enough that you BE happy, you have to be ACKNOWLEDGED to be happy. Otherwise, your happiness is...err...temporary, isn't it? Like, you put up a Insta reel showing how happy you are and nobody reacts to it at all. Are you even sure that you WERE happy when you put it up?

So, then, Tiru has this to say about the temporary and the permanent

Nilladhavatrai nilaiyina endrunarum pullarivaanmai kadai - Tirukkural

To see as permanent that which is ephemeral is the worst of ignorance - Loose Translation

So there. To not even realise something is ephemeral and shall not last is the worst thing for you according to Tiru. Think of it and it does seem logical, doesn't it? I mean, most people tend to work towards their own goals. When you fix those goals without even realizing whether they are worth pursuing is a sure-shot way to becoming a failure without even failing, if you get what I mean. Like, as a kid, if you chase being the best gilli-danda player in your area over doing well at school (OR even cricket) even if you succeed in your goal, you end up becoming a failure in life, no?

To know what is lasting and what is not IS of utmost importance. Like, in the above case, realising that being the best gilli-danda player in your area is not something you can continue to boast of in your twenties OR use to get into college on the sports quota...THAT also falls under this 'what is temporary and what is permanent' thingy. Easy as it is for parents to tell that to their children, it is tougher to recognize for themselves whether something is gilli-danda or cricket/academics when it comes to their own lives. I mean, say, the pleasure of telling off your boss vs your career etc (Where is it something temporary as just letting off steam OR as permanent as maintaining your self-respect?) OR getting a moderate raise vs spending time with your family OR...I mean, really, people find it tough to KNOW whether one more party with their friends is worth losing your spouse so what to talk of tougher choices?

The point IS that one should have a clear idea of what IS temporary to THEM and what IS permanent. I mean, I may feel that a career is worth more than the pleasure of an annual trip to the Himalayas; you may feel that life is short and it is far less likely that you will toil up the Himalayas in your sixties so it is now or never...ALL of that is individual taste and interests. BUT...you DO need to prioritize what IS permanent to you over what is temporary.

Of course, Tiru WILL go on to say 'Life is ephemeral and the soul flits from body to body so you need to seek the permanence of nirvana'. Which also has its kernel of truth if you do believe in the soul but, yeah, unless you ARE pushing my age you'd probably yawn and say, "Yeah, fine, see you later!" and that would be that.

If you fail, however, to properly assess the temporary and permanent in life...Most of those with talent who are unhappy about not having succeeded can look back on decisions where THEY failed to do this.

Regret tastes VERY bitter!

Oratorial abilities?

This human interest in speechifying has always mystified me. The one thing that puts me readily to sleep is to have someone climb up on a stage and start off with, 'Ladies and Gentlemen...' OR 'Respected/Honorable so-and-so...' or some such variant that indicates that he is teeing off to unleash a flood of words on you. And yet, there are oodles of consultants and clubs and whatnot that have made a good living off teaching people how to talk the ears off a captive audience.

Given this, is it a surprise that Tiru has spent a few of his kurals on teaching people how to speak in public? I mean, no matter what he personally thought of this exercise, his readers would have refused to accept him as an expert unless he proffered advice on this facet of human relations. To become an expert in the eyes of Society you HAVE to be an expert on what Society wants you to be an expert in. Else you will be ignored. If Society wants you to be an expert tie-tier (I mean tying that abomination that strangles your neck) and you refuse to do that, you'll be consigned to the role of village idiot, no matter how much of an expert you are in everything else. THAT Tiru well knew and so...

Vagaiyarindhu vallavai vaaisoraar sollin thogai arindha thooimaiyavar - Tirukkural

They who know the way of words AND are capable of assessing their audience never falter or fail in their speech - Loose Translation

You need to understand that you are assumed to know the subject matter upon which you intend to speak. THAT is a given, the basic ability that is assumed. Thereafter, you need also to know HOW to speak.

The problem about how to speak is that it is not the same thing everywhere. If you are talking to school children, say, trying to explain the theory of relativity, you'd need to speak of it differently. You cannot talk about it the way you talk to physicists OR even the way Einstein simplified it - 'Sit on a hot griddle vs sit by a pretty girl'. I mean, depending on the age AND assuming that children of a certain age were like us when we were children (The 'Girls! Ewww' OR 'Boys! Ewww' age!) your audience may not see much difference between the hot griddle and a pretty girl.

There is the maturity level of the audience, there is the background of the audience (I mean, using, say, carpentry examples in a group of Insurance adjusters or the vice versa would not work well, would it?), there is the bias of the audience (The way you say things that they want to hear versus saying those things that you want to convince them about) and so on which needs to be accounted for to speak the right way to the audience.

So, when you talk about 'How to Speak' you talk about knowing a wide variety of ways in which you approach a subject. And THEN you need to understand the audience you are addressing, pick THAT method of speaking which best suits that audience. Then, you can speak both with confidence AND without giving offense.

As usual, Tiru's advice is easier said than done. But then, what worthwhile advice isn't?

The great and the not so great

I do not remember ever wanting to be great, really. From what I have seen, being great has always been an invitation for people to pull you down. The moment someone calls you great, a million people whip out their microscopes to find out every single flaw that they possibly can find in order to denigrate you. But then even those million guys apparently WANT to be great and try to pull you down only because they think of it as an easy path to greatness, so I suppose that I'm not representative of humanity in this. (In anything? THAT's your opinion!)

Tiru has this prescription to achieve greatness if you are not born great nor have had greatness thrust upon you. As usual with advice, it does not seem to make things easy for you.

Seyarkariya seyvaar periyar siriyar seyarkariya seykalaa dhaar - Tirukkural

Great men attempt the impossible; lesser men do not dare to try - Loose Translation

The translation, in this case, is more the spirit than the letter of the Kural. The Kural itself says that 'Great men DO the difficult things; lesser men cannot do them' but, as you can see, that seems more like a post mortem insofar as you are assessing a man as great UPON his achieving the difficult. Now, that's all fine but the greatness of CHARACTER is in attempting it in the first place and I'm sure that Tiru would have meant it in that sense and not in the sense of 'He who wins is great' which ANY gossipmonger could say.

See, THAT is the characteristic of greatness. To only assess whether something needs to be done and then setting out to find a way to do it. The 'siriyar' or the lesser men assess how easy something is to do and then choose to do it or not based on the ease of doing it. At the bottom of the pile are those who, when given ANY job, assess the difficulties in doing the job and explain why they could not do it.

So, there you are. I am thrown bang in the middle of the 'siriyar' since I eschewed the idea of becoming great because of the difficulties of being great!

A time to decide

Management is full of jargon that peps up knowledge that seems to be commonly known through the ages. There are times that this reductionist view of management education seems to me to be a vilification of a degree which has endowed people with enormous earning power. At other times, though, it seems to be absolutely true. (Which, I suppose, IS necessary for ANY criticism - that small kernel of truth.)

So, yes, I read this Kural by Tiru and I find that this is yet another of those times when management clothed old knowledge in a three-piece suit and sold it as new wisdom.

Soozhchchi mudivu thuniveydhal aththunivu thaazhchchiyul thangudhal theedhu - Tirukkural

The proper function of analysis is to come to a decision; and that decision should be timely else it is criminal - Loose translation

Now THERE. The idea of analyzing something is not to be endlessly discussing it in circles. There is NO point in analyzing anything unless there is a clear intent to come to a conclusion. AND unless you have come to a decision based on the analysis, the analysis has to be deemed to be a waste. I mean, otherwise, everyone sitting in a bar and arguing about politics could call himself an analyst. (AND does, going by what goes on in TV debates? I wouldn't know about that!)

Not only is a decision necessary from out of analysis, that decision should also be timely. I mean, it is all fine to wait for a perfect conclusion and the pluperfect solution but...well, if a car is about to collide with yours, there is no real point in identifying the most optimal path by which you can avoid the collision AFTER you have gone through the windshield, is there? Decisions have to be timely after all, unless you are only doing a post mortem of the situation at a later date.

Now, we management chappies have a pithy way to say that same thing. We ask you to avoid 'analysis paralysis'. Keep analyzing a thing from so many different angles that you fail to come to a conclusion. See what I mean. Management IS a sort of shorthand to commonsense.

But then, if commonsense were not SO uncommon, you'd probably not need a degree in it, would you? Now...

Better than an ascetic?

You generally expect an ascetic to be placed above everyone else whenever a philosopher does the rankings. The idea, perhaps, finds widespread acceptance as well because you see the poor chap doing without so much in life that you feel that it is only right that he gets something out of it. Such, generally, has been the way ascetics have been ranked in most cases.

Tiru, though, seems to swim against the current in this issue. At least when it comes to this Kural.

Aatrin ozhukki aranizhukkaa ilvaazhkkai norppaarin nonmai udaitthu - Tirukkural

The householder, who upholds his virtue while helping others uphold theirs, is worthy of greater respect than the ascetic - Loose Translation

Tiru was quite understanding of the interdependence of people as, indeed was Hindu Society. No ascetic could sustain himself, however meagerly he consumed, unless there was someone who not only produced what he consumed but was also willing to give some of it away in alms. So, you'd see that the duties of the householder (Grihasta dharma) include giving alms to the ascetics. Thus, the householder (the regular joe who works for his living and has a family) is the person who enables the ascetic to BE an ascetic.

So, Tiru holds that the householder who lives up to his dharma, including charity to ascetics, shines brighter than the ascetic. The ascetic, himself, is the person who has given up all worldly pleasures; sacrificed his status in society; given up his ego sufficiently so that he can beg for his living and leads a life devoted to worship. (Oh! Yes! He was not just a lazy vagabond who found it easy to live off others. People in those days were not THAT gullible to be accepting indolent no-goods as ascetics.) How, then, can the householder who lives a life of relative ease and pleasure be better than the ascetic?

To live up to the dharma of a householder, while surrounded by the temptations of a normal life, is not given to everyone. You see, the dharma of a householder in those days meant, for example, placing the needs of hospitality above the needs of the household. Is that a call that you can see yourself readily taking when you have just enough for feeding your family and a guest lands up? Or, say, living with the jibes of your relatives about the relative 'poverty' in which you keep your family because you refuse to take bribes? It is not for nothing that you exalt a Raja Janak as a Rajarishi AND place him at par or above the sages of his day.

You know, net net, I realize one thing. That, no matter what you choose to be, Tiru does not grant you respect unless you live up to the dharma of THAT thing. And, boy, the conditions that THAT dharma imposes on you...

True duty?

This duty thing is very vexing. I mean, if there is any saying that is much over-used (AND most popular) from the Bhagavad Gita it is...YES! THAT is it! 'Karmanye vadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachana.' OR, in English, 'Do your duty, look not to the fruits thereof' or some such. See, it is not enough that this duty thing involves DOING, instead of lolling around, but you are also supposed not to expect anything out of it.

About the only thing that keeps your nose to the grindstone is the fact that, at the end of it, you'll benefit from it. AND here these guys come, telling you that you are not to expect anything out of it at all. And Tiru is certainly no ray of sunshine when he talks of the same subject.

Dhavam seyvaar than karuman seyvaar matrallaar avan seyvaar aasai utpattu - Tirukkural

Only he whose mind is free of desire truly does his duty; the rest waste their efforts being distracted by desires - Loose Translation

You know, these words like 'Dhavam' are a tough nut comes to translation. People sort of call it 'meditation' and dust their hands off thinking that they have done a good job. Not really. Dhavam is a mix of worship, the mindset of meditation, the renunciation of a sage, yada yada. Which is one of the reasons why the West finds it impossible to GET Indian philosophy - the fallacies of complacent translators. In the instant Kural, the mind free of desires IS the most apt attribute to use for Dhavam.

Where the Gita tells you to avoid concentrating on the fruits of your actions, it is seen more as a philosophical construct. That if you do anything as a duty, without being driven by the desire for the fruits of the action, you are free of the sins of that action. (AND, yes, that 'duty' IS an imperfect translation of 'Dharma'. Every human being is supposed to adhere to multiple dharmas - as a human, son, a husband, a neighbor, a citizen, an employee etc. etc. SO, 'duty' as in Indian philosophy is not the simple thing of saying that "I was obeying orders therefore I am free of sin"! There is a hierarchy of dharmas to live by, not just one. Especially when you are supposed to acted while being free of desire for the fruits - promotions, desired transfers OR even escaping being shot at dawn.)

Tiru is not merely being philosophic here. What he, in effect, is saying is that you WILL be doing whatever you set out to do only if you free your mind from desire. If your mind is always set on your desires, then your effort will go waste because you are not taking interest in the job itself. Sweeping assertion, yes, but is true to a greater or lesser extent in all jobs. How good a job you do of ANYTHING is a function of how much interest you take in doing it. And if your desires rob your concentration on the job, the results are likely to be less than good.

What, then, if you conceive of YOUR job AS satisfying your desires and nothing else? As most of us seem to do. Point to ponder? Not really IF your desires are to be satisfied by others and not exclusively by yourself. THEN your primary objective IS to satisfy those others, even if the final goal is to satisfy yourself. Therefore, you still need to do a good job which means you need to focus ON the job, and not on your desires, at least WHILE you are doing it.

Sad! No philosopher ever seems to project a decent shortcut to success. What's the use of philosophy if I still have to work, I say!

The sure path to Heaven?

This thing about a Heaven after death is, I suppose, something that people may have their doubts about. I mean, yeah, it's nice to believe that there IS a Heaven where all is bliss and that you could earn a place there by what you do down here. But...you see, the issue IS about what you have to do down here. Like not being greedy, not lusting yada yada. It's almost like you got to live a Hell on earth in order to get to Heaven after death.

I daresay that there would be a lot more believers in Heaven if only the path to it on Earth were a shade more...joyful, shall we say? I have always found that belief in the existence of a certain goal is directly proportional to your belief in your ability to achieve it. OR, in simpler terms, grapes are seldom pre-judged to be sour if they are within reach.

Tiru's path to Heaven, in other kurals, may have been equally as terrible. But, in this one, he makes a point that is not really so off-putting.

NallaatraaL Naadi AruLaaLga pallaatraal therinum akde thunai - Tirukkural

To study and assess morality and be kind to all around you is the only path to Heaven even in the light of the conflicting tenets of various sects - Loose translation

Yeah, yeah, that 'morality' bit does not seem too much like it will be a easy thing but being kind? Is that too much to ask? Yeah, I know, it sort of kills all your social media popularity because where is the fun in reading kind things? So, bang go your chances of going viral which, other than for things like Covid, seems to be the most sought after social media nirvana. Hmmm! So Tiru, also, is asking for some serious sacrifice then.

Though, Tiru seems to echo what everyone pays mouth service to these days. That, despite what each religion varies on, the bottom line is that Kindness IS the passport to Heaven. All that fighting for the morality of my religion's tenets etc. etc. do not seem to cut much ice when it comes to your aspirations for whatever you think is Heavenly Bliss. Not if you go by Tiru. You can study all the morality you like, you can choose to live by it but when it comes to others you need to comport yourself with kindness first and THEN comes whatever preaching that you choose to do. Sans the kindness, the rest is useless in transporting you to Heaven or so Tiru would have it.

Now THAT I suppose is something every sect will agree on. That all this is nonsense, that kindness be damned if it gets in the way of propagating their own idea of morality. Alas!

Win by patience?

I wish that someone would pick a quality that I possess and tout it as the true path to success. Why should it not only be a character attribute that I do not possess but also be one that is the exact opposite of the way I am? ALWAYS? I mean, really, if there was someone assembling humans up there, there should be some quality checks to reject faulty pieces, no?

Now this patience thing. I mean, yes, there are people who say, "Everything comes to he who waits" and others who say, "Yes, all the things that nobody else wants." So, there ARE a few people who do not believe that being impatient is a no-no. But it looks like Tiru is not one of them.

Migudhiyaan mikkavai seydhaarai thaantham thagudhiyaan vendru vidal - Tirukkural

When someone arrogantly harms you, beat him with your patient handling - Loose Translation

Now THAT is guaranteed to raise the hackles of any teen you give that advice to, I am sure. Alongside that other thing about turning the other cheek. I mean, if someone treats you like dirt and you take it dumbly, your name will be mud in no time, right?

Actually, though, it is a lot more than just dumbly taking things lying down. I mean, really, Tiru is considered a sage, alright, but it's not like he is advocating you to become one. This is the chap that also writes a whole series of kurals on sex, so I'm sure he cannot be blamed as being too la-di-da for the real world.

What he means here is to possess even-tempered composure in the place of getting flustered and screaming with anger. The point he makes is to keep your cool and use your abilities to get the better of the other guy instead of trying to win a screaming match with him. Makes sense that way?

Anger, the getting hot under the collar kind, invariably gets in the way of applying your mind to the issue at hand. Instead of trying to find a way to victory in the situation, you are merely trying to cap insult with insult, which really gets you nowhere. AND, if you are really the sort who can get things done, you very seldom are also the chap who can win shouting matches, so you are fighting the other guy on his home ground.

So, yeah, instead of treating Patience as some sort of loser mindset, see it as a way to maintain your composure and win in a lasting manner. I'm yet to see anyone who can conclusively prove victory in a shouting match.

AND, yes, shouting matches do not get you any Olympic medals, do they?

Helped by god?

It is a nice sentiment to be told that when 'you want something, the entire Universe conspires in helping you achieve it.' Though, yes, it is a bit concerning to see that it will only be 'helping' you. I mean, it is not like you can just want something and roll over to the other side and continue sleeping with the expectation that you'll have what you want when you wake up. If you will only be 'helped' it means that you also need to be doing something towards it.

Nor is it like some desultory steps will suffice. I mean, it's not like you can just pop a couple of rupees into your piggy bank, when the mood takes you, and expect the Universe to help you get your BMW. It would seem like you need to really want whatever it is with the fervor that will make you work for it with enthusiasm and determination.

That much already seems like a bit too much but Tiru is not done with you yet, even if Coelho is. (This chap Paulo Coelho is who Google credits with that Universe conspires theory.) Tiru seems to think that the Universe will turn up its nose at some of the things you may want and gets picky about when it would enter the conspiracy. Or so Tiru says but, yes, he says 'God' and not 'Universe' since, in his times, they clubbed everything that their mind could not encompass under the heading 'God'.

Kudiseival ennum oruvarkku dheivam madithatruth thaan mundhurum - Tirukkural

God shall support he who has set out to work for the betterment of his people - Loose Translation

You know, it is a pity that the more colorful metaphors do not translate well into other languages, and you are left doing a bland job of communication. I mean, Tiru does not merely say 'support'. People who wear dhotis will understand that, when you set out to do physical work, you need to tighten the dhoti lest it falls off you during your exertions. So, what Tiru actually says is that God himself will tighten his dhoti and enter the fray in support. (Khaske baandke and all that, for the Hindi speakers). That creates a much stronger image of God as a supporter.

That 'his people' also is subject to a lot of interpretation. You could interpret it as family (though, in Tiru's days, even a nuclear family was possibly multiples of the size of our nuclear families and Tiru in all probability meant 'family' in the widest terms, not just the joint family, which would probably be the population of a good-sized town!); you could interpret it as community which may actually be your town or your caste or whatever; or you could interpret it as Society at large.

Whatever it be, Tiru does not expect God to mess around with his dhoti for your own personal needs. What you WANT should have a serious element of altruism in it before God bothers to take notice. Much more restrictive than that Coelho chap who thinks that the Universe will conspire to get you your yacht if that is what you want and are working towards in all earnestness.

But, yeah, in a way, Tiru has made it easy on himself. He is more likely to prove true because, as far as I have seen, people who work towards a larger goal generally tend to be much more dedicated to what they are doing. I mean, you could sort of moan about the pain and start thinking about whether you really want something for yourself. You are much less likely to take the call about not wanting it when it is someone you care for who is getting deprived in the process.

And, who knows, you may even get what you want without troubling God at all!

Respectable poverty?

There are those times when you feel that the past was a different universe compared to the present. I mean, we all prate (I suppose this is one of those 'Look, there goes Suresh making us run to a dictionary' words. OR, in short, Tharoorism) of unchanging values in a changing world and all that but really? Let us see how many people you can find who will consider ANY type of poverty 'respectable'?

Let us dive right into what Tiru considers poverty that still commands respect.

Keduvaaga vaiyaadhu ulagam naduvaaga nandrikkan thangiyaan thaazhvu - Tirukkural

If a righteous man ends up being poor, he will not be looked down upon by the world - Loose Translation

Now THAT...does that sound like the world you know to you? I mean, come on, how often have you heard, "Vaazha theriyaadhavan" (Chap who does not know life) or some such that castigates such a person as impractical? A person who sticks to his values on a 'let the chips fall where they may' basis is only considered as someone who does not know the 'real' world.

If such a person laments that his righteousness has led him to suffer in life, people tend to be very unsympathetic, telling him that he brought it upon himself. You see, the biggest problem with a righteous man is that he makes you come face to face with your own compromising of your values. So, rather than deal with that guilt, you'd blame that chap for being 'impractical' and, when he laments his suffering, you feel justified in your own compromises.

To actually be respected for being righteous, you need to be self-respecting as well. I mean, if YOU are the sort of person who sticks to your values, come what may, you also need to be the sort of person who can be happy in the poverty that could come as a consequence. In other words, YOU should not be lamenting your poverty but continue to take pride in sticking to your values. THAT is when people could come around to respecting you despite your poverty.

Otherwise, I'd say that the interpretation that some have placed on this kural - that you will not be looked down upon by the wise and, thus, not necessarily all the world - would probably be truer of the reality.

AND the rest of the world will consider YOU unwise!

Self Control

One of the things that most philosophers go gaga about is this weird beast called self-control. AND the way they go on and on about this would make you feel that you have been given a self ONLY in order for it to be controlled.

Possibly true that. I mean, unless there is a huge design flaw (which is also likely), this thing of making all delicious things unhealthy and all healthy things yucky IS, shall we say, insane unless it has been done specifically for the purpose of ensuring that you get an opportunity for this self-control gig. I mean, I am yet to come across anyone who believably says that he salivates at the thought of broccoli and gags at the smells from a bakery or chaatwallah. What sort of design is that, pray, when that green muck is supposed to be healthy and these yummy delights are a strict no-no? Unless, as I said before, someone was trying to ensure that you had ample need for exercising self-control.

Well, then, Tiru proves no exception as a philosopher. He has this to say

Orumaiyul aamai pol aindhadakkal aatrin ezhumayum yemaappudaitthu - Tirukkural

If, like the tortoise which pulls in its limbs and head into its shell, you control your five senses in one life, you shall be protected for seven births - Loose translation

So there. You need to control your sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell throughout life. When Tiru says 'control' what he means is that that your senses are what lead you to temptation and, therefore, you need to either avoid seeing, hearing, touching, smelling or tasting things that can tempt you; OR control your mind from being tempted by what the five senses feed to it. In other words, either avoid the smell of bakeries OR avoid being tempted into trying out those luscious goodies OR both.

Now, this control over your senses and your mind, if you can achieve it over your whole lifetime - or what remains of it - IS what molds your character. You may not carry across births the weight that you put on by giving in to every culinary attraction; but that weakness of character which does not allow you to control yourself WILL carry over. So, this seven-birth protective charm may not be (or may nor JUST be) the karma but also the strength of character that you develop by such self-control. E.O.D Atman meets Paramatman only when it becomes closer in nature to the latter; and it is tough to see Paramatman as a slave to its tongue...no matter how we like to portray and see Ganesha and Krishna. (AND, perhaps, it IS that modak-eating OR butter-guzzling nature, which is given to them, that endears them to us. It makes them seem more human and, thus, more approachable!)

(Oh, yeah, I AM aware that there are other temptation from the other senses as well. The problem is that most such seem to be troll-magnets and, therefore, I'm sticking safely to food. Though, yes, these days one can attract trolls by any culinary ism which is why I avoid the whole lot of them in my post.)

Now, you see, where the problem lies, right? Bingo! It is the belief in these seven births that creates the need for self-control! If you just abandon the belief, if you think that this is your only birth, there you are, free to do what you want.

Alas, not really! THIS birth, generally, happens to be one of the seven when these chaps like Tiru say 'Seven births'. So, if you really want to be protected from trouble even in the current life...

...your five senses need to be under control. Drat!

The greatest joy

The one thing people think they are sure about is regarding what makes them happy. Philosophers, though, seem to be of the opinion that they are wrong about that. I mean, there is even that proverb saying something on the lines of 'When the gods are angry with you, they grant you whatever you desire' or some such. Which goes to show that those gods certainly think that the easiest way to heap misery on you is to give you everything you ask for. Apparently, humanity cannot be trusted even to know what will make them happy.

So, yeah, take recourse to someone like Tiru who tells you what will delight you the most. Even though you did not know that it would. Even though you thought that the exact opposite was what the doctor ordered to make you happy.

Inbatthul inbam payakkum igal ennum thunbatthul thunbam kedin - Tirukkural

When the worst misery - hatred - is vanquished, one gains the best of joys - Loose Translation

Yeah, when everyone knows for sure that to hug hatred to your heart and achieving vengeance is the only way to lasting happiness. I mean, come on, does anyone really think that you can be happy by forgiving and forgetting?

And, yet, think! I mean you developed a hatred because of what? Because someone said or did something that made you happy? No, right? Hatred comes out of something said or done by someone that made you angry. And anger is generally an outcome of hurt.

Then, to hug that hatred to your heart is to constantly remember that moment of hurt. It is akin to clawing a wound continuously and keeping it raw and bleeding. Well, misery of miseries IS right then, isn't it? AND vengeance...when hurt has been kept alive for so long, does ANY retribution seem sufficient? AND will not the perceived insufficiency of the vengeance, keep the hurt alive even after the vengeance is achieved? (Not to mention the fact that the guilt about the acts YOU perpetrated, in the process of achieving that vengeance, kicks in AFTER the dust is settled.)

Not that it is easy to do that. To not seek vengeance does not mean that you can be at peace with the decision. You see, the hatred IS alive, you have only decided to forego the option of acting on the dictates of hatred. So where then is this 'greatest joy'?

THERE, like all philosophers, Tiru expects too much of you. OR, to be more honest, he sets up the ideal for you to aspire to. You see, 'Igal' is not like 'political correctness' as in, being determined by how you behave externally. 'Igal' IS the burning hate you carry in your heart. AND Tiru says you need to vanquish THAT. In other words, you must learn to rid yourself of that hate in your mind.

Now, is it not how we stay unhappy? By storing up all our moments of hurt, periodically taking one or the other off the shelf, dusting it and looking on it in all its pristine glory so that you can relive the hurt? If you could only wipe out those hurtful memories, eliminate all that hate...

A man who can truly cleanse his heart of all hate...THAT is the man capable of the greatest joy. Us mango people, we have to make do with the small pleasures of life.

True delights?

The problem with 'True' as an adjective or adverb is that the moment you see it you know that someone is going to rain on your parade. I mean, here you are relaxing with your single malt (OR beer or tequila or whatever, just so I don't get into an idiotic argument about the relative merits of various liquors...OR about the virtues of being teetotal) and your music of choice, murmuring to yourself, "This is bliss' and someone pops up with "Oh, yeah! Do you know what true bliss is?"; THAT puts paid to the evening, let me tell you.

Invariably, that someone IS a philosopher, yes. It is as though that THIS is a badge that identifies a philosopher - this finding of 'true' this and 'true' that. So, how do you expect Tiru to NOT acquire this badge?

Gunanalam saandror nalane piranalam ennalatthu ulaadhoo-um andru - Tirukkural

The only delight of the wise and good is that of good character; all else is dross - Loose Translation

Let us get the translation issues out of the way. 'Saandror' generally indicates 'wise people'. NOW, in those times, apparently 'wise' also connoted 'good' automatically; 'intelligent' was a whole different cup of tea but 'wisdom' also meant that the person concerned was as good as a saint. I mean, these were the times when 'knowledge' itself meant more spiritual knowledge than worldly knowledge, the latter being relegated to the 'skills' department. In these days when worldly-wise is the only wise there is (AND, no, I start from the day I was born when I say, 'these days' NOT from the day I retired!), I make it a point to add '...and good' to 'wise'.

Further, this 'nalan' or 'nalam' meant 'well-being' which can be translated to physical or mental well-being or both; it also means 'good' when it is used as an...err...adjective or adverb. I call it 'delight' because, after all, it was those times when mental well-being and mental goodness were being considered the acme of delight.

So, yes, Tiru says that the only delight that the wise and good seek is the delight that comes from inside...of good character traits. All else that comes is not of great consequence to them. Which, essentially, has passed down through the ages till it was discarded recently. THAT NOTHING is worth gaining at the cost of losing your character. (As someone in the relatively recent past said, "When Wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when Health is lost, something is lost; when Character is lost everything is lost". Who said it? I take no names for, after all, if I do we will only end up in a long discussion about vilifying OR praising the person and totally forgetting the issue we were discussing.)

THAT was the 'wise and good' and what they do. How nice for us that we are neither!

Incomparable Fame

There is this thing about fame. Everyone wants it but even the famous know not if it is lasting. Especially true these days when a viral video or message can yield fame that lasts only as long as it is not displaced by the next one. Ephemeral is a word that would be in over-use these days, when it comes to fame of this sort, if only people believed that words more than two syllables long really exist and can be used.

Now Tiru has his bit to say about it, as usual. The chap seems to have an aversion to leaving any subject alone.

Ondraa Ulagatthu uyarndha pugazhallaal pondraadhu nirpadhu ondril - Tirukkural

Other than fame, which is incomparable, nothing else is imperishable - Loose Translation.

This particular Kural allows itself to be interpreted as 'Only fame is incomparable AND imperishable'. That, though, seems to me like an incomplete understanding of what Tiru wants to say. I mean, Tiru has time and again proved himself to be a nuanced guy. So, how likely is it that he would mean this, leaving people to assume that ALL fame is incomparable and imperishable? Like, a viral meme of today is overtaken by a viral meme of tomorrow, so what is incomparable about it?

The other, more nuanced, interpretation, would be that the fame which comes out of the person being incomparable is lasting fame. Which means that a person who seeks to be the best in what he does or how he comports himself AND succeeds in it; is famous for it - whether it be as the greatest archer, administrator, man of charity, whatever - has achieved lasting fame, fame that may be considered imperishable. 

You know, you CAN slice and dice it too - like greatest author can be genre-wise; can be the greatest of his time and so on. The point is that he who excels AND is famous for what he excelled in has achieved lasting fame.

All else, as some poet or the other is likely to have said, is dross!

Virtue sans compassion?

There is a reason why philosophers are discarded in favor of meme-creators. More so in these days, really. I mean, it is a digital age and we prefer to have a 'Push this button, this happens' sort of solution. And philosophers...well, philosophers are the original wafflers who will tell you to acquire a bunch of character attributes without even indicating where on Amazon or Flipkart you can readily purchase them...on a sale, if possible. I mean, where is the 'Say please and thank you and people will like you' sort of easy instruction manual in any philosophy? (In religion? Please...do you want to get me lynched?)

So, yea, our man Tiru has this to say:

Therulaadhaan meipporul kandatraal thaerin arulaadhaan seyyum aram - Tirukkural

The virtues of a man lacking compassion is akin to the comprehension of a man lacking discernment - Loose Translation

You know, it is a tough job today to really say anything the way these ancient philosophers said it. They just scattered their adjectives and nouns with gay abandon - 'Fool', 'brainless people' etc. - and you have to think whether you need to say 'intellectually challenged' or some such AND also worry about being accused of privilege.

So, Tiru says that a man without discernment reading a book would make a mess of understanding the true sense of it; in like manner, a man doing charity, but lacking true compassion, will still remain lacking in virtue.

So, yeah, you can get away legally by DOING things in the name of Corporate Social Responsibility. But when it comes to personal virtue, you need to first feel the compassion for those whom you seek to help. Else, it is merely another thing you are crossing off on your to-do list but has no more meaning than that.

See, what I mean? 'Give charity, go to Heaven' is not the way it works according to Tiru. Ah, no, you need to go and change your character as well.

Alas, when will I find a philosopher who will teach me to just push a series of buttons and become a saint?

Raining Help?

There is this peculiarity about yesteryear philosophers that runs totally counter to modern culture. Whatever they suggest seems to be an indictment of current practices so much so that you could almost accuse them of being trolls. Except that it is tough to categorize them as such without also explaining how they could have had the prescience to KNOW modern practices.

Tiru, all said and done, IS a yesteryear philosopher. So, how could he be any different? Take this one for example.

Kaimmaaru vendaa kadappaadu maarimaattu enAtraankollo ulagu - Tirukkural

True benevolence seeks no recompense; what can you give the clouds in return for the life-giving rain? - Loose Translation

So, there you go. In Tiru's view, a benevolent person helps others because it is his nature to do so much like it is the nature of clouds to rain. The thought that there should be ANYTHING can be expected in return for the benevolence does not even cross the mind of such a person.

I know, I know, the cynical generally say that the benevolent person does his thing because it makes him happy to do so, therefore he is also selfish and, thus, no different from anyone else pursuing his own ideas of happiness. That's an interesting but singularly idiotic concept. I mean, yeah, the sadist gets his kicks from causing others suffering and, thus, is no different from the altruist who gets his kicks from helping others? Really?

AND are all decisions bereft of choices? I mean, like I have some money, are there not multiple things that make me happy on which I can spend it? The CHOICE of helping someone else with it is but one of them and my making THAT choice leaves me the same as the other guy who blows it up on Cocaine? What do these guys smoke really?

So, yeah, true benevolence IS laudable and seeks not to make much of its own acts. AND why is it that I say that this is against today's cultural norms?

I mean, come on, Tiru wants you to be as altruistic as rain clouds. When is the last time you saw a rain cloud posting a selfie about how it was going to rain down and save the parched land?

Exactly!

Troll Strength

There is a quote that I vaguely remember from the mists of my past. 'Never argue with fools; they drag you down to their level and beat you by experience." After all they have spent all their lives at their level whereas you are a total amateur there. (It is quite a different affair that ANYONE who has fought an inconclusive or losing argument tends to feel that HE has been dragged 'down'!)

Tiru probably had to deal with his share of trolls too. AND, just to clarify, a troll is not anyone who opposes you but someone who opposes you without bothering to (OR being unable to) understand your point of view. Opposing for the sake of opposing, so to speak, knowing only WHO they are opposing, if that, and not WHAT.

So, Tiru has this to say...

Inmaiul inmai virundhoraal vanmaiyul vanmai madavaar porai - Tirukkural

The worst poverty is inability to extend hospitality to a guest; the best of strengths is to bear the gibes of foolish men - Loose Translation

One does get a sidelight about what hospitality meant to ancient Indian culture. To not be able to feed a guest is seen as worse than to not be able to feed your family. THAT is the priority of hospitality!

But, in this case, it is just a comparator. It is used to say something like 'Just as THAT is the worst of poverty THIS is the best of strength'. THIS, in the instant case, being the ability to handle the gibes of the foolish with equanimity.

Quite the right advice for today. You start getting all heated up under the collar about a troll and reacting to him in like measure and, soon, people find it tough to differentiate between the two of you. THAT is the problem with descending into an argument with a fool - you end up getting taken for one as well.

IF, on the other hand, you have the strength to be trolled without letting it affect you, you will be able to react with grace. You may not rise to the heights of being cool enough to hear, "You will either die of syphilis or be hanged" and reply, "THAT depends on whether I embrace your mistress or your principles". No, you may not rise to those heights but even silence is a far more graceful reply to a troll than mudslinging.

But, then, Tiru does not think it is an easy thing to do. Which is why he says it is the 'best of strengths'.

Vile pride

Philosophers somehow tend to be down on pride. They seldom count it a virtue and tend to look down on pride as an undesirable characteristic. Ordinary chappies like you and me find it difficult to see how one cannot be proud of one's own achievements, say, or some such. It does not help that, mostly, people seem to think that there is no difference between pride and arrogance. You can keep telling them that pride comes from seeing yourself as better compared to who you were yesterday, whereas arrogance comes from comparing yourself to other people and seeing them as inferior. But it does not help. If you mention 'pride' they will scrunch up their faces in disgust and turn away.

But, in this instance, Tiru is not talking of pride as being vile; he is talking of what causes a vile person to feel pride.

Agappatti aavaaraik kaanin avarin migappattuch chemmakkum keezh - Tirukkural

The vile feel pride when they see someone viler than themselves - Loose Translation

In this, Tiru talks primarily of character. Of people of vile character who compare themselves to those whose character is worse than themselves and, thus, feel pride in their own relative virtue. Which is, probably, the root of all whataboutery. You know, like, "So what if I have taken a bribe. You will allow all those chaps who take bribes in crores go scot-free and show all your efficiency on me." OR, "Yeah, big deal if I bought that land from my aunt at a throw-away price because she trusted me. There are people worse than me, who forcibly occupy and take over other people's plots." (Yeah, I know that nobody really vocalises that they 'took a bribe' or 'betrayed a trust' even in their minds. But the way they justify themselves IS somewhat like that AND the need to justify themselves arises from a sub-vocal acknowledgement that they are doing wrong.)

The point, though, is that you replace the 'vile' with 'failures' and the thing works very well with them as well. AND, when I say 'failures', I do not mean those who are trying but have not succeeded yet OR those who tried an failed. I call people failure only when they do not dare to try at all.

AND such failures also have this habit of feeling happy at others who have failed worse than them. The 'I am at least pulling this much salary; look at him' being more common. They also have a habit of exulting at the failures of those who are trying. The "You keep blaming me for not trying. So, that chap there who has been trying according to you. What had he achieved?" brigade.

AND, as you can see, ALL of this pride IS an outcome of trying to look down on others in one form or the other. AND thus, it is not merely the pride OF the vile; it IS vile pride!

Penance?

There is a lot of problem translating some words from Indian languages to English. More often than not, it is because the word encapsulates a nuanced meaning for which there is no direct equivalent word and, thus, you need a phrase to get across the meaning. (AND before you start the war of which language is superior, I hasten to add that such an issue can arise the other way round as well.) I tend to get peeved when translations take the easy way out and drop the nuances in favor of a single word translation.

There are also times when this problem of translation occurs because the CONCEPT itself is alien to the culture to which the other language belongs. OR the concept is not totally alien but is rare enough for an exact word to have not been invented to identify it. To go so far as to say that the word I am slowly working my way around to IS a word for which the concept does not exist in English-speaking cultures requires the sort of chutzpah on my part that I do not have, given that I cannot claim to be any sort of expert on the culture. If I did, I'd be a shining star of the WhatsApp university, no?

So, getting around to what Tiru said which set me off on that meandering prologue...

Utra noi nondral uyirkkurukan seyyaamai atre thavatthir kuru - Tirukkural

To stoically endure your own suffering and to cause no pain to others is the nature of penance - Loose Translation

Now, that word 'penance' is where I get into translation trouble. Rightly or wrongly, penance always gives me the nuance of atonement for some sin. Whereas 'Thavam' is more a religious meditation, a state of being where your devotion to the Divine excludes everything else.

AND Tiru explains in what shape 'Thavam' manifests itself. That such a person endures stoically whatever sufferings are thrown his way AND the thought of causing pain to others does not cross his mind. It is not merely that the chap does not seek revenge; most of the sufferings in life do not have a villainous face against whom you can vent your ire. It is that he does not even think of merely passing on his pain to others like most of us are wont to do.

I mean, look, how often have you said, "Must have had a fight at home", when your boss spews venom at everyone who crosses his path? How often have YOU spewed venom - either at office or at home - merely because someone hurt you somewhere? THAT thing, this 'Saab ka mood karaab hai' issue does not happen with this sort of person.

Nor, indeed, does this sort of person destroy people in the path of achieving his own ambition. Well, in one form, he HAS no ambition since his mind is focused exclusively on the Divine. But, even where he sees it as his DUTY to do his best, his best does not automatically include riding rough-shod over others. If you ARE focused on the Divine, the idea of causing gratuitous hurt is anathema to you.

One keeps talking of the Divine here because the idea of Thavam automatically includes the idea of focusing on a larger power; else you talk of 'Dhyanam' for meditation and use the more 'secular' words like that.

Whether or not such people really exist is moot. Tiru, however, gives you one yardstick to assess people who claim to be such a person. Not that we are going to use it, of course. As usual, we will assess based on whether our circles endorse that person or revile him!

The right experts?

The funny thing about advice is that you really respect only that advice which vibes with what you yourself want to do especially when the results of following the advice are either long term or indeterminate. You know, like you have the choice of becoming either an engineer or a doctor...choosing one negates the possibility of the other and you can never be certain that choosing the other would have led to a better outcome. So he who tells you to do what you want to do is the better adviser as far as you are concerned. (As opposed to your wanting to become a musician instead of an engineer when you are tone deaf...now THERE it is tough to convince yourself that you would have starved equally as much if you had chosen to become an engineer.)

When it comes to determinate and relatively short-term issues, though, you tend to think that the better adviser is the guy who helps you to successfully fight fires. In other words, he who sorts out a current problem is that best adviser for you. Tiru sort of agrees but...

UtraNoi neekkki uraa amai murkaakkum petriyaarp penikkolal - Tirukkural

Cherish those who help sort out current problems and protect against their recurrence - Loose Translation

Now, yup, Tiru does feel that it is important to have advisers who will help you to sort out your existing problem. But he sets a higher bar for cherishing them. They not only have to sort out current ills but also help you to put in place systems to avoid recurrence of the same problem.

You know, that's a huge ask. It is easy enough for you to see how someone has helped you put out a fire. It is much tougher to see how he is helping you when he has you install fire extinguishers here and sprinklers there. All you can see is that he is increasing your costs, taking advantage of the fact that you have had a fire. You probably have a sneaking suspicion that he is taking a cut from the chaps selling you all those devices.

Even if you do avoid all those dark suspicions, it is difficult to look on with respect at a person, who is busily running hither and yon, doing things that are not relevant to any current problem. The chap who is helping you put out the next fire is the guy who has your respect currently. The chaps who are with you helping you put out fire after fire...now THOSE are the ones worthy of respect; worthy of cherishing.

I mean, like, the firefighter is a hero! Whoever gave medals to the guy who put up the firefighting systems?