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...