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!