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!