Crime and Punishment?

It's a funny thing about punishing crime and/or mistakes. Invariably, the one on the receiving end of the crime wants revenge. (AND if anyone is mealymouthed enough to say 'Oooh! THAT's bad. You ought not to seek revenge' it normally is someone who has not been a victim of a crime OR a victim of THAT crime) What of mistakes, then? Well, if you have had to suffer consequences arising out of that mistake, like your boss tearing strips off your favorite skin because of your subordinate mucking up the addition of two and two, it is inevitable that you would want to tear strips off your subordinate's skin in return. AND, yet, as I have parenthetically indicated earlier, there are virtue signalers who could go so far as to consider ANY punishment as vengeance-seeking.

Tiru, though, does not side them. Not in toto, that is.

Thakkaangu naadi thalaicchellaa vannatthaal otthaangu oruppadhu vendhu - Thirukkural

Only he, who neutrally judges a crime and metes appropriate punishment to ensure that the crime is nor repeated, is a fit leader - Loose translation

Yeah, yeah, Tiru said 'King' not 'Leader' but the fact is that, if he were around today, he would not pop up and scream that he meant it only for King Charles and not for Joe Biden OR Elon Musk or whoever. So, there! (In fact, he MAY probably say that he meant it more for Rishi Sunak and NOT for King Charles!)

The thing about both crime and mistakes is that, unless there are negative consequences, they tend to be repeated. After all, even with the Commandments, we are a species that say that the most important commandment is the Eleventh: 'Thou shalt not get caught'. Which, in effect, means that we fear not the sin, only the consequences. AND, thus, if you would drive behavior in desirable channels then you necessarily need to visit consequences upon those who commit undesirable acts.

The point also is that the punishment should be proportionate. Disproportionate punishment will not have desirable consequences. I mean, if someone steals a million dollars and your punishment is going to be 3 months community service, do you really feel that it will stop such crimes? On the other hand, if someone is caught in a minor traffic violation and the punishment is seven years hard labor, what do you think will happen to the automobile sales in that country? Would you get drivers for the public transport?

As would be the case in a company. Excessive punishment would lead to an exodus of employees; too lenient a punishment would lead to an inefficient operation.

Punishment is a form of feedback. Treat it as such and you'll know to measure it out appropriately. Give in to either your impulse to get your own back OR to think that ALL punishment is revenge, and you'll get a malfunctioning community.

Leads on to Good Fortune?

When it comes to destiny, people have all sorts of beliefs. Some believe that there is no such thing and everything that comes to you comes because of your own efforts. Others believe that you get only what you are destined to get and, thus, there is no point in your exerting yourself. Most of us, though, tend to shelve our belief in destiny for the once-in-a-lifetime type of things - a great spouse, ending up rich and famous etc. - but, on then day-to-day affairs you tend to place your belief in your efforts. Except, of course, to blame destiny when you fail to get that promotion or that bonus or...well, stuff like that.

But, Tiru...now, HE has his own take on destiny that does not vibe with that of mango people.

Aakoozhaal thondrum asaivinmai kaipporul pokoozhaal thyondrum madi - Tirukkural

The destiny to acquire wealth brings the power for untiring efforts; the destiny to lose wealth brings laziness - Loose Translation

Now THAT is a new twist on the tale. You cannot rest easy in the belief that your destiny will bring you success. According to Tiru, as long as you are inclined to rest easy, your destiny is to LOSE wealth and NOT to gain it. The moment your destiny changes to one of bringing you wealth, you shall spring and dash about hither and yon in the pursuit of wealth. So, there.

And, of course, you cannot say that there is no destiny, ONLY your effort. By Tiru's dictum, the very fact you are putting in efforts or not putting in efforts IS the working of destiny. When I used to think of this 'only my effort' school of thought, I was more put off it by the fact that, quite often, there are circumstances that mess you up...like, say, you invest your all in a travel start-up and Covid strikes within the month...things like that. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever consider the idea that my inclination to effort itself can be laid at the feet of destiny!

But, then, that IS also, in a way, one of those circumstances, isn't it? That you feel down in the dumps at times, upbeat at others. That if there is no positive feedback, someone to pick you up when you hit an emotional low, you could well stop dreaming and go looking for a stable mundane life? So, yeah, Tiru is not really positing something airy-fairy.

Me? Oh well, you see, I am lazing around because what can I do? My destiny has made me that way!

Worthy Success?

Whatever it is that you want out of life, the philosophers will tie it right back to your character. Irritating though it is to discover that they have no convenient instruction manual that helps you achieve success, say, in six easy steps, it is difficult to fault them for it. I mean, even if you DID have those six easy steps to success, it IS your character that will help you DO what is needed in those six steps. So, yeah, sad though it is to acknowledge, character sort of matters.

Tiru has his own list of characteristics that are required. In this Kural, it is not so much about what is needed to get success but what is needed to make it worthy.

Serukkunj Sinamum sirumaiyum illaar perukkam perumidha neertthu - Tirukkural

The success of only he, who lacks arrogance, anger and low desire, is considered of great worth - Loose Translation.

Well, well, well! I mean, really, what is the use of success then? Do you not chase success so that you can lord it over others? So that you have no need to rein in your temper now that the other guy cannot cause you harm? Because you can satisfy your every desire? Or does Tiru define success like these sages do...the only worthwhile success is in realizing the Almighty or some such?

Or, perhaps, it is just that he is worried about whether other people will consider you are worthy of respect. If you throw your weight around and indulge in all your desires, you will lose the respect of those around you and, thus, your success will be hollow. THAT, perhaps, though it is also a fact that the very fact of your being successful will cause people to start questioning your worth. Which is why, from the day after someone is declared an idol, people start hunting for clay in his feet.

All that, really, is twisting and turning to avoid the need to change your character! Yes, it is true that there WILL be people who will hate your success...but it is not for them that you need to not let success go to your head. It is for those who you care for and those who care for you...it is THEY who you can alienate, lose and never find again if you allow your success to make you arrogant, intemperate and hedonistic.

AND then, there IS this problem. For, as long as you keep throwing your weight around, you are also aware that, given a chance, those around you would want to turn the tables on you. Success, then, seems more like riding a tiger. You live in fear of being thrown off and getting mauled. Does that seem of great worth, then?

You know, these guys like Tiru...they make everything seem so difficult. Difficult to succeed, difficult to keep your success, need to control behavior no matter what your status...yuck! Hardly worth being alive, I tell you!

Finance and Leadership?

It is funny how money always insinuates itself into any facet of life. Think of it as sordid, think of it as a useful tool, think of it as the holy grail of life...it doesn't matter. No matter what you think of it, no matter how you decide to lead your life, you will find yourself running into the need of dealing with money...or, perhaps, the absence of it.

So, when Tiru talks of leadership (yeah, yeah, of Kings, yes, but if you think that it does not apply to you as a leader, you really do not belong there), money rears its head there as well.

Iyatralum, eettalum, kaatthalum kaattha vagutthalum valladharasu - Tirukkural

A good leader creates avenues for wealth creation, earn wealth, safeguards the wealth and spends it appropriately - Loose Translation

Actually, this one by Tiru covers the gamut of leadership in a way, since money pervades every activity of Society.

One may think of it as crass but, be it governance or corporate leadership, all facets of leadership are related to money. I mean, when you speak of governance these days it IS the economists who hold sway, right? True, you can keep screaming of social justice but, comes elections, one cry of employment- generation or lack thereof is worth a thousand communal or caste slurs. So, there you are. The chap who gets Foreign Direct Investment, who manages to provide the infrastructure and economic environment so that wealth gets generated, who ensures that the wealth so generated stays in the country and who distributes it in such a way that he mitigates poverty...THAT's the great leader. In other words, he has ensured avenues for creating wealth by way of fresh investments, he has ensured the generation of wealth by conducive environment, he has safeguarded the wealth by ensuring that it does not flee the country and he has ensured that it gets spent appropriately for socially relevant purposes.

Talk corporate world and you get to roughly the same needs. To find new products/markets; to ensure that you invest and produce efficiently and effectively; to ensure that your wastage is minimal; and to ensure that you spend wisely on employees, shareholders, reinvestment, statutory needs and community...is that not what management is all about?

So, is Tiru leaving out NGOs? Not really, he is not. NGOs also needs to ensure that they find new donors including tapping foundations for their project; ensure that the donations not only keep flowing in but are also appropriately invested till they are required to be spent; ensure that their money is safe and not frivolously spent; and, finally, that they are spent most effectively for the needs of those who deserve help.

Comes to leadership and management, there are a thousand pieces of advice floating around the world. But if you have space to hold on to just one I think THIS one probably should get first place.

A good leader?

The problem with all advisers is that they very seldom tell me what I want to hear. Why is it that, whenever it comes to the sort of person I want to be in Society, it always gets bundled in with the qualities that I do not possess? And, what is more, these advisers very seldom offer me work-arounds. All that they can say is 'Tch, Tch! If you do not have them, why do you even dream of succeeding?' Which, you will agree, is not precisely a paean of praise.

So what else can I expect of Tiru? But this...

Anjaamai eegai arivu ookkam innaangum enjaamai vendarku iyalbu - Tirukkural

Courage, compassion, wisdom and the motivation to persevere are the four qualities of a leader - Loose Translation

Tiru, of course, talks of kings in this context but, then, a king IS a stand-in for anyone in a leadership position. After all, Tiru knew not of CXOs in his time. And look at what he expects of a leader. I mean, ONE virtue is difficult enough to have, and he expects not one but four virtues in a leader. Talk about expecting the impossible.

Now, courage I can understand. Not necessarily, I suppose, the sort of courage that are so lauded in films...the taking on of a hundred machete-wielding goons and coming out victorious. But if you are not merely the sort of leader who judges which way the crowd is going and runs ahead of the mob...where was I? Ah, if you are not that sort of leader but one who decides himself about the direction he wants to take his people in, THEN you need to have the courage of your convictions; to take decisions under uncertainty despite the risk of being proved wrong. Now THAT I suppose one has to admit as necessary even though one does not possess it.

Compassion (literally, eegai is being charitable. I use compassion here as the generic character trait which leads to charity)? Now THAT is something that the corporate world will find difficult to understand as a necessity. After all, the history of the corporate world as it is today starts off with robber barons and exploitative leaders who sent in young children into mines for the most part of the day. Perhaps, by around now, the corporate world has come to recognize that a semblance of compassion is necessary but...actually being compassionate? THAT's possibly a hard-sell but I will say this - when the corporate culture is known to be compassionate, it earns loyalty. Now whether loyalty, employee loyalty in particular, is a sought-after thing in these gig-economy days is something that you have to decide for yourself. Maybe in this Tiru is dated since in his days life-time employment in the same place was probably THE rule.

Wisdom is another of those things that people may well think is a dated idea. I mean, come on, even in the old days one could lean on consultants; NOW you can always google.

In this context, I must tell the tale of a open-book design examination in chemical engineering. You walk in to the exam hall, get a question on designing a reactor but, where you were expecting to be given the volume of the reactor that piece of datum is conspicuous by its absence. Instead, you have all sorts of esoteric data AND a huge 1200 page Chemical Engineer's Handbook which obviously has all the necessary information if only you knew where to look for it. Once you identify that the esoteric data given can be used to CALCULATE the volume of the reactor and that formula is likely there in the reaction kinetics portion of the Handbook...well, the rest is a breeze.

What was that story for, you ask? The point IS that wisdom may not lie in KNOWING all the formulae but in knowing that such a formula exists at all and where to look for it. In other words, to know where to look for a solution IS wisdom in and of itself. Whether it is in a book or in the right adviser is immaterial. Which is why they say that to know that you do not know IS the beginning of wisdom because THAT is when you know to look for it.

AND then that ookkam thingy. I have translated as 'motivation to persevere'; it could well be translated as 'enthusiasm'. The point is that Tiru does mean that you need to have the energy and the enthusiasm to stick to your task and not give way at the first difficulty. Leaders carry along people to the completion of the goals that they set, keep encouraging them when their spirits flag and carry through to completion. Enthusiasm, these days, seems to be a thing of the moment in most people's minds as in it is all too easy for them to say, "I have lost enthu," and drop a project. Which is why I preferred that 'motivation to persevere' as the closer phrase to Tiru's meaning.

But, yeah, it is nice and easy to list, elaborate and even nitpick on all these qualities that Tiru prescribes. I look into the mirror and it looks back at me incredulously. Nope, not ONE!

Good and Wealthy?

One sort of assumes that philosophers tend to be down on the wealthy. You know 'Easier for the camel to go through the eye of the needle than for the wealthy to enter Heaven' and all that. It is, therefore, surprising that ANY philosopher can be in favor of wealth, more especially from India where anything to do with the world at large is supposed to be considered illusory. (AND, yes, I have differed with the identification of 'Maya' with 'Illusion' in the past, if you really want to know. In 'Theory of Maya - Is it all illusion?')

Tiru flies in the face of all philosophers when he says this:

Payanmaram ullur pazhuthattraal selvam nayanudaiyaan kan padin - Tirukkural

Wealth in the hands of the benevolent is akin to a fruitful tree in the middle of a town - Loose Translation

Tiru, here, means that such wealth shall be useful to everyone in society much like the fruits of such a tree are available to everyone in town. Of course, his were more benevolent times. So much so that the idea of a powerful man building a wall around such a tree and claiming it as his own never even crossed his mind while THAT is the first thing that crosses ours. (IF, of course, there is no intent of cutting down the tree and building a shopping complex there!)

The truth, though, is that most people in the world do not really understand the meaning of wealth. I mean, you talk of wealth and people immediately think in terms of yachts, private jets, million-dollar mansions and the like. True, all those ARE possible uses of wealth, but do you stop to think a step further?

The wealthy also have need to invest their surpluses, right? Now where exactly they invest those surpluses would depend on their morality, no? I mean, you could have people who invest in exploitative companies chasing huge returns or, on the opposite end, in what are social impact investing. (Yes, they could also put their money into charity but, at the moment, I was discussing INVESTING the money, meaning that they intend to earn a return from that money.)

AND, you see, ownership of shares or land etc. is also wealth. IF you have a company owner who takes good care of all stakeholders - employees, shareholders, lenders, customers and community - you would say that wealth in HIS hands is better than the same company's ownership being transferred to a less responsible consortium.

Benevolence, as in Tiru's words, need not necessarily mean that the person distributes largesse from out of his wealth. Even a responsible handling of wealth could well count as benevolence and wealth in such hands is of more use to society than otherwise. (One needs mention that if those benevolent hands are also capable hands, which create more value addition THEN the case for such wealth is inviolable.)

Of course, it would be icing on the cake if that person exhibits true benevolence by way of also doing charity.

Tiru, thus, does not seem like he is a blind votary of Communism! Before you start redistributing wealth in Society, he would have you check on whether the wealth is doing more good where it is!

Win the world?

This thing about timing is something every philosopher goes gaga about. Call it timing, call it luck, it seems all the same. The guy who loses out calls it bad luck that his timing was off. (You know, the product was ahead of its time and all that.) The guy who wind lauds his own ability to time his actions. Luck? There's no such thing like luck in the lexicon of he who succeeds! Even Billy the bard adds his couple of words to this timing thing with his "There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune" thus mixing up action and luck all in one quote allowing you to pick what you choose to do...whether it is luck that caused the tide in your affairs OR your super-ability to take it at the flood which lead on to fortune.

Well, you cannot expect Tiru to not put his oar in on timing. After all, the chap IS a philosopher, and it is de rigueur for philosophers to talk of timing.

Gnaalam karudhinum kaikoodum kaalam karudhi idatthaar seyin - Tirukkural

You can even conquer the world if you attempt at the right time and right place - Loose Translation

As a piece of advice that says 'Nothing is impossible' I'd say that this couplet is useful. It is also true that to attempt anything one needs to ensure that the timing of your actions is right and, perhaps, in a a lot of cases, you also need to ensure that the place where you act needs to be right as well. (I mean, like, you'd not be trying to be the King of Fertilizers by opening your first retail shop in Delhi's Connaught Place OR Mumbai's Marine Drive, now, would you?) So far so good.

The problem is that you cannot take this world domination theme very seriously, in my opinion. THAT part is more like economics. AFTER someone achieved world dominion, be it Alexander or Jeff Bezos, you can dissect his success and find why it was right timing and placement that got him there. The problem is that you cannot PLAN it. When you assess success your sample size is those of the winners and it seems like they all managed to time their actions well. The number of people who failed at the same thing earlier tends to get obscured and, if taken into account, would underscore the difficulty of achieving that timing so well.

Which is not to say that you should never try anything big; or to say that it is impossible to get proper timing and placement in ANYTHING. The fact is that, in most things it IS possible with some thought to time things so that you maximize your chances of success (Like, if you can, timing your travel during the day could get you across Bangalore without getting stuck in a traffic jam :) ). AND, when you are attempting something big, it is advisable to keep an eye out to check whether the time is not favoring your action and be ready with course correction plans.

The point IS that timing and placement are important. To the extent possible, you need to get them right. AND be prepared to course correct in case it seems that you got them wrong. THEN you could possibly win the world!

Blemishless?

You know, it's a rather tempting thing for people to think that a leader is someone who can do no wrong. Leaders, too, would love to consider someone - a friend, a follower or a trusted adviser - who can be trusted to always be right in what they say. It is such a stress to always to assessing issues, weighing one person's opinion versus another's and so on. Much easier to be able to vest the burden of your decision-making on the judgment of one person and leave it at that.

Tiru, though, does not allow you that luxury. Here he goes with his couplet against the idea: 

Ariya kattru Aasattraar kannum theriumkaal inmain aridhe veliru - Tirukkural

Even he who is learned in even the rare scriptures and is free from faults, when carefully examined, will not prove totally free of ignorance - Loose Translation

There you go. Essentially, perfection is not given to mortals. The point that Tiru is making here is not merely that. It is, quite likely, a cautionary statement about the fact that the most learned and trustworthy of your advisers can be wrong at times.

Which, essentially, means that you SHOULD take advice from multiple sources anyway and not rely on only one adviser. IF, perchance, he IS the only person who can advise you on a certain issue, you SHOULD filter even his advice through your own judgment. AND, when you have acted on the advice, you need to still take routine feedback on the results of the actions and be prepared to change course if necessary. In other words, no matter how much you trust the adviser, your attitude cannot be one of taking a decision with certainty merely because of who you got you advice from; you CAN take the decision in accordance to the advice but you should also take all the precautions that you would take for a decision taken in uncertain circumstances.

The same applies if YOU are the follower. Blind obedience to a leader can lead to the downfall of both you and your leader. More often than not, only you! Even your leader, no matter how great, can be wrong at times and it behooves you to be aware of the possibility.

Perfection is not given to mortals, yes. But you CAN be a perfect idiot especially when you trust someone else to BE perfect!

Listen well, speak well?

It's a rather archaic thing to be speaking of listening these days, I know. I mean, we are all engaged in shouting as loud as we can, expecting to go viral, that we hardly have time to listen to anyone. I mean, it's hard enough to hear yourself think above the din of your own shouting so where's the scope to listen to anyone else? So, yes, this is one of those pieces where we can all go, "So that's how people lived in the old days! How quaint!"

So, what Tiru says in this Kural probably made more sense in his times.

Nunangiya kelviyarallaar vanangiya vaayinar aadhal aridhu - Tirukkural

He who is not a discerning listener very seldom manages to be a polite speaker - Loose Translation

You know, it's very tempting to just understand it as 'You cannot be a capable speaker if you do not have the habit of listening', which is ONE way to interpret this couplet. I mean, after all, if you are being a convincing speaker and are being listened to with respect, you have no need to yell and shout and call people names, all of which will be counter-productive, so you WILL be polite. AND to be a such a speaker you need to have the habit of listening with discernment to all that you hear so that you can not only learn well from what people say but can also understand what they are saying. Including the discernment of what is right in it and what is wrong.

You can see it the other way. IF you are incapable of discernment while listening, you truly do not understand what is being said. In that case, and especially if you are in a debate or argument, you cannot speak politely because the hollowness of your argument is more clearly visible in calm discussions. You tend to bluster and yell so that you can win your point by the sheer volume of your voice. So, yes, if you are not a discerning listener, it is tough to be a polite speaker.

Of course, there is this problem as well of not truly understanding what the other person has said, because you did not properly listen, and getting angry because you misunderstand his position totally and go into a screaming fit. More often than not, discussions turn into screaming matches because one person fails to listen to the other properly and starts attacking him personally (what we call ad hominem attacks) because he cannot attack the other guy's points since he did not even understand them. (Oh, yeah, I AM talking about well-meaning discussions. Ad hominem attacks CAN also happen because the listener understood the point all too well, has no counter to it, and tries to win the discussion by converting the debate into a quarrel!)

So, you see, Tiru can convey too many things with just a couple of lines. Though, yes, about archaic abilities like listening which, apparently, Homo Sapiens once had!

They exist but do not live?

Life is a strange thing. I mean, in one sense, if you are not dead, then you are living. But a philosopher would make the distinction between your merely existing and truly living. In a sense, they have a point. If you merely satisfy the biological definition of life but make no more impact on the world than a stone or any such object; if your contribution to the rest of the world is based on what use others make of you and not because of your own agency, then the fact of your being alive does not qualify you as living your life. You merely exist like the stone exists.

Now Tiru MUST count as a philosopher. So, naturally, he does draw the same distinction between merely existing and truly living.

Ularennum maaththiraiyar allal payavaakkalaranayar kallaadhavar - Tirukkural

The ignorant merely exist as uselessly as barren land exists - Loose Translation

To be sure, Tiru says 'the uneducated' and not 'ignorant' but education is a fraught phrase with different meanings in different contexts. I mean, you have Tamil sayings that also say 'Yettu suraikkai karikku udhavaadhu' (A vegetable drawn on paper cannot be cooked) to mean that theoretical knowledge is no real use practically. Most such sayings are correct in THEIR context but are prone to misuse when taken out of context. (You cannot learn to drive a car merely by reading about how to do it. But you could possibly learn how to design a car from books. So, the saying does have its application comes to driving but not when it comes to automobile engineering, though, yes, it needs a mix of both in the latter case. If you want to COST the automobile manufacturing process, though, you could learn it entirely from books...and books of accounts!).

So, yes, Tiru's this Kural may be read to mean that anyone who is not literate is useless. As, of course, the 'bookish knowledge' saying can be interpreted to mean that studying out of books is practically useless. Neither of which can be universally true. Which is why, I think that this Kural of Tiru is more addressed to ignorance rather than insisting that you are knowledgeable only if you read out of books.

The problem with ignorance is that, with all the goodwill in the world, you are not able to decide WHAT to do. And, even when told what to do, you may not know how to do it. Which essentially means that you could turn out to be of no use to anyone in the worst case...much like the barren land. And, in the best case, whatever abilities you have - physical strength or such - can be deployed by someone else in the service of whatever job is at hand. In effect, you will be put to use much like an object is put to use with no agency of your own guiding what you will do - other than accepting or refusing to help. Which would be like someone deciding to use the barren land as a garbage dump or some such. (I speak of Tiru's times. Not now when barren land will be worth crores for the guy who wants to build and sell the next gated community! Thought THAT too depends on whether someone has decided to make that area a tech hub or some such...not due to any inherent value in the land.)

The problem is that, when ignorance couples itself with power, it is not merely useless. It can prove actively harmful. To be sure, to get and keep power needs SOME type of knowledge, if only political, unless, of course, you are born to someone in power and inherit it. THEN the rest of Society would be only too happy if you prove to be ONLY barren land and not toxic land!

Largely, though, one may consider the ignorant as those who only exist but do not live.

Enter to excel?

You know, there are these times when these great philosophers speak words that actually resonate with me. It happens rarely but it does happen. And, no, I am not lying. And THIS is the proof I am not for this post is all about advice that I live by.

Tiru has this to say about how to choose your profession:

Thondrin pugazhodu thondruga aqdilaar thondralin thondraamai nandru - Tirukkural

Enter a profession where you can excel; if not, it's better not to have entered - Loose Translation

Though, yes, Tiru talks of it as 'Appear on a stage only if you can excel...' but I'm sure that this advice is not meant only for actors. So, that 'stage' is probably metaphorical and is meant like Billy's 'All the world is a stage'. (Billy? William Shakespeare. I thought, by now, you'd be accustomed to me. I am, you know, like your next-door uncle who says, "When I last met Rahul...Rahul? You know, Rajiv ka ladka...Rahul Gandhi'. Only I play it safe and use it with people long dead!)

So, Tiru says that you should enter a profession/company/whatever when you have the confidence that you can excel at what you have to do. It is not enough for you to sort of while your days away making a 'decent living'. You need to thirst to be the best at what you have taken up. If you feel that you cannot do so, either because of lack of talent or lack of interest, then it's best that you do not enter that field at all.

It's all well for Tiru to say so...I mean, if what I am best at will yield a tenth of what I can get in that other area where I'm probably at the bottom of the ladder...what then? Like I'm sort of average as a programmer, say, but the best at proof-reading, do you really expect me to hop over to work in a newspaper rather than Microsoft? Really? Yes, quite possibly, professional life would suck in an area where I'm not too good but...

I suppose Tiru would say that I should THEN put in the efforts to excel at what I DO choose to do cos the other way would be meaningless existence. THAT would be his idea.

Me, I also think that it's best to leave rather than stick on when I cannot excel.

So...I left! RETIRED! I really excel at idling, don't you know?

Seek Critics?

They keep telling you that good advice is normally bitter. It's like food, you know. Whatever tastes good is bad for health and whatever you truly hate the sight of is what makes you healthy. (Yeah, yeah, I know that you could find people who drool at the sight of broccoli and are revulsed by the smells of baking but, really, what are the odds?) In like manner, anything that is pleasant for you to hear is, at best, useless and, at worst, bad for your character. And what IS good for you is exactly what you hate to hear. There has been some real mess up when they made the Universe, I tell you.

So, yes, you really cannot expect Tiru to swim against the tide there.

Idipparai illaadha yemara mannan keduppaar ilaanum kedum - Tirukkural

The king without critical advisers needs no enemies to be destroyed - Loose Translation.

Whether it is a king or leader or us ordinary mortals, it probably does not matter. I'm sure Tiru does not think that it is alright for us mango people to be surrounded by people who only sing your praises. Tiru talks only of kings simply because he is playing the odds himself. Like, really, you are of the mango people and you'll be surrounded by people singing your praises? Give me some of what you have been smoking. Us guys, we do not need to hunt for critics, they swarm out of the woodwork. It is kings/leaders who need to be careful not to let the sycophants drive away the ones who can offer honest criticism.

And Tiru, like all those who offer advice, says that if you fail to surround yourself with people who WILL offer honest criticism, your destruction is assured even if you have not a single enemy in this world. It is like you are a gambler with a system of your own devising playing the roulette table in a casino. You do not need any enemy to plot your destruction; you can jolly well plot it yourself and implement it because you have shed anyone who would advise you about the dangers of what you are doing.

Alas, what sort of world is this that you need to search for and surround yourself with people for the 'pleasure' of hearing them tell you what an ass you are!

An eye for an eye?

I'd rather not be talking as though I feel that everything that's being said today was said way back in India by our sainted ancestors. It's sort of become a standing joke...what, in the idiom of today, may be called a meme...when someone, especially someone my age, says anything that can be construed as something akin to 'We had drones and AI from the Ramayan times.'

But...I mean, come on, society seems to keep regurgitating the same damn ideas over and over again, so what's one to do? Technology may change but ideas about how to lead life seem to oscillate between the same basic ideas and, thus, it IS bound to be something that SOME ancestor has already told before. No point blaming me for pointing it out.

Thiranalla tharpirar seyyinum nonondhu aranalla seyyaamai nandru - Tirukkural

If someone does evil to you, it's best to not let the pain cause you to likewise do evil to them - Loose Translation

There! No eye for an eye! This quality of forgiveness thing seems to be widely prevalent among philosophers though, to be honest, Tiru does not go so far as asking you to forgive that evil so-and-so in this Kural. He merely asks you to abstain from doing evil back to him. And, thankfully, he only says it's best not to do so and not that mealy-mouthed 'Then what's the difference between you and him.'

That, though, is the real problem with revenge. If you CAN do the same evil to the other person, because of the provocation then it DOES change you. Either the guilt of what you have done eats at you; or you actually become closer to the other guy in terms of mindset. What you did today as an act of justified revenge could well turn into something that you do tomorrow merely because you managed to justify it to yourself.

The problem lies in the quest for vengeance. For unrequited vengeance can eat at your soul and embitter you. If Society should punish in such a manner as to give you closure, fine. But if it is not an injury which Society can punish, it can fester inside you.

So...it is not so mealy-mouthed after all. It IS best for YOU to be able to forgive and move on!

The greatest power?

You know, the strange thing about these philosophers is their odd ideas about things like wealth, power and the likes. I mean, when us ordinary mortals think of wealth, for example,  we think of the BMWs and, perhaps, the odd island or two that we could own...simple things like that. AND, as you have seen in these very annals, talk to philosophers and they will prate of what's in your head - knowledge etc. It's like what we look for in the outside world, they seem to look for inside us.

So, it's not really surprising that Tiru came out with this:

Inmaiyul inmai virundhoraal vanmaiyul vanmai madavaarp porai - Tirukkural

The worst of poverty is to deny hospitality to guests; the greatest power is to be able to bear with the criticism of fools - Loose Translation

THAT is a double whammy for you. Tiru says that, no matter how rich you are, if you do not have the generosity to extend hospitality to guests, you have a poverty of mindset. (See! The worst of poverty is the one in the mind!!) AND, if you can be patient with the idiotic criticism of fools, you possess the greatest power. (Alas, yes, it IS expected of anyone in creative endeavors to possess this greatest of powers and listen to the criticism of everyone without any retaliation or defense.)

But, yes, in a way, this ability to shrug off unwarranted criticism IS a super-power. It is probably a major component of what you could call EQ or SQ or what you will. The ability to deal with people is largely dependent on the ability to not react emotionally to criticism. He who can let insults slide off his skin like he is coated in Teflon is the guy who eventually wins people over. 

The converse is equally as true. If you allow criticism to prey on your mind, you could either be convinced that you are no good OR be convinced that the people around you are no good. Either way, you could end up with the idea of 'What's the good of my persisting with my efforts because...' AND complete that sentence either with '...I am no good at this' OR '...these people are incapable of appreciating what I have done'.

Now, yes, those are the two extremes and most people fall in between. But a lot more people actually hit the negative extreme and far too few are capable of hitting the positive extreme.

Which is why Tiru is right and it IS a super-power!

Good Parenting?

Yeah, yeah, I know that you guys are sniggering at my writing anything at all about parenting. Though why you should is a mystery since I am certain to have been at the receiving end of parenting - good or bad. And, in all the whole wide world, the ones who are the most vocal about ANYTHING are those who perceive themselves as victims of that thing - administration, leadership, whatever - and are also not the ones who have ever had to do it. AND the conviction about knowing what's wrong with it is the strongest with those who never have had to DO it. So, why should I not talk of parenting with equal conviction, given that I have not had to do it at all?

But then, by now you should know that I have always a readymade recourse to lean back on when it comes to pontificating about anything I do not really know. (Yeah, yeah, that means almost everything. Do you need to belabor the obvious?) Of course, I'm talking of Tiru.

Thanthai magarkaattru nandri avayatthu mundhi irupaach cheyal - Tirukkural

The greatest boon that a father may grant is to make his son foremost among the learned - Loose Translation

Now THAT, I suppose, is a laudable goal for a father - to educate his children so that they have respect in an assembly of the wise. (Yes, Tiru does talk of only fathers in this context. What can I say, he lived in patriarchal times. Just take the essence of his ideas without outraging on the patriarchy.)

The problem, though, is that education means different things to different people. As in, there was a time when education meant knowing literature and philosophy; now education is useful only if it renders you employable which, essentially, seems to exclude literature and philosophy. There was a time when engineering was education and a camera was for fun; now...you get the picture.

Most parents DO strive to get their children to a space where they are respected by the wise in Society. The problem is only that parents think that they know best about WHAT sort of education will help them achieve their target. Which very seldom seems to vibe with what the children themselves want.

And not just that. It is probably the children who know what's best to get them that respect these days. With rapidly changing technology, parents could well be attempting to educate their children in exactly those areas which will be rendered redundant by AI/ML/what-have-you.

So exactly what are parents to do? Leave children to their own devices? Perhaps.

The only thing that parents CAN help inculcate in their children is character. So, instead of picking the area in which the children should gain the respect of their peers, parents can just stick to...

Teaching them to pursue excellence in whatever area they choose to work.

Useless AI?

Technology has always proved to be a huge let-down for me. They first talked up automation and, now, they are all talking up this Artificial Intelligence thingy. And I am sure that this is going to end up disappointing me the same way all the previous disruptive technology did. Though, yes, nowadays I couldn't care less given that the benefits which I sought from technology are, in a way, mine already.

I mean, look, people used to explain the need for work on the basis that, unless people produced, there would be nothing to consume. Therefore, you HAD to work at something in order to be able to lay claims to those things that you would like to consume...like food, clothing, shelter, yada yada. AND, whenever they talked of technology, they talked of it as something that would ease the burden of work by humanity.

So, is it so out of the way to assume that the day would come when ALL the burden of work would be taken up by machines and humanity could loll around and relax without having to earn the right to consume? After all, the whole rationale for work was to produce that which you needed to consume and now, the machines would do all that production, no?

Reading Science Fiction only exacerbated my misconception. The story that stuck in my mind (just the story, not the title or the author of the story) was one about a chap living in a huge six room villa and allowed to work only for one day in the week. Yup, in a future world where most of the work was being done by machines. The chap was an idiot, though, since he spends most of the story moping about how to rise so high in society that he could live in a single room house and work six days a week. The author was, possibly, satirizing the fact that we yearn for things that society says is upmarket without regard to what we ourselves find comfortable or luxurious. What stuck in my mind, though, was the fact that technology could, one day, create the utopia where I need not work for a living.

Never worked out that way, did it? I mean, every time there is a technology advance which seems like it can take over some of the burden from humanity, people rush in saying 'Oh! It will create new types of jobs' as though it is something desirable. They said that when first computers appeared on the horizon and, alas, they proved right. Now AI makes its way into the world and they are saying that again. Shit!

I don't understand exactly why they say this new-jobs thingy as though it is supposed to reassure people. I mean, really, do people actually LOVE working and are frightened of the concept of leisure? Like that idiot in the story wanting to work six days a week instead of one day and considering it an effing improvement? Has humanity gone bonkers OR was it always bonkers?

I am told, though, that this madness is more systemic than individual. As in, we have a system wherein people have to BUY things and to buy they have money which is given to them only when they work...unless, of course, their forefathers had done what was needed and handed them over an inheritance OR they get that money in a lottery. So, being in a job is sort of necessary in order to consume even if there is an abundance produced without your needing to lift a finger. So, no jobs could equal starvation and thus...

Not that we have, as yet, reached a situation where most of the production is automated. AND, yes, the transition period can get very painful.

But...never mind. We have politicians, who are ahead of the curve, promising freebies at every election. And freebies are after all what everything will be if machines do all the work!

What was that? They are so far ahead of the curve that they are practically distributing what is not even getting produced but so what? You nitpickers are the reason why the world is so slow to progress!

Worthy Silence

In childhood, I used to always get told 'Children should be seen but not heard.' The problem, though, is parents very seldom stick to their own rules. I mean, I was all for remaining silent but then they would call on me to recite 'Baa Baa Black sheep' or some such crap. What happened to the virtues of silent children then?

Tiru comes around also preaching the virtues of silence but sort of offers an explanation about when it applies as well.

Kalladhavarum naninallar katraar mun solla dhirukkap perin - Tirukkural

Even the ignorant seem worthy if they but keep silent in the company of the knowledgeable - Loose Translation.

There you are! The virtue of silence is that it does not expose your ignorance. You know that saying - It is better to keep your mouth shut and be taken for a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Something like that, though Tiru thinks that silence will make you seem worthy. At least the worth of having the sense to keep your mouth shut if not the worth of knowing more than you actually do.

The problem, though, is that most people actually cannot spend the time to learn the things that are generally talked about in social circumstances. I mean, you spend your life learning Python or whatever, and can scarcely be bothered to learn Indian History or the merits and demerits of the various 'ism's. If you adhere to this 'Silence is golden' rule, you are condemned to remain silent except when you can speak in or about code. What sort of life is that?

And, anyway, you can always assume that you are not in the company of the knowledgeable, given that most people around you are like you.

Ignorance - other people's ignorance - is your bliss!