The foremost strength?

I don't know how it is in general but Indian philosophers tend to think of their current idea as the 'foremost' idea. Or, perhaps, it is just a linguistic...umm...idiosyncracy. You know, like the 'mother of all battles' etc sort of hyperbole. So, at any point in time, one finds that the foremost virtue is the virtue under discussion only to discover that there is another 'foremost' virtue a couple of sentences down the manuscript. You need to brush it aside much like you brush aside this GOAT (Greatest Of ALL times, in case you have just crawled out from under your rock) reference to cricketers that varies from one IPL match to another.

So, then, when Tiru says this, you need to stop mentally judging him for scattering his 'foremost's across his Kurals. THAT 'foremost' maybe a linguistic style issue but what he is saying is not untrue.

Vinaiththitpam enbadhu oruvan manththitpam matraya ellaam pira - Tirukkural

The foremost strength needed for executing a task is firmness of mind; all else comes a distant second - Loose Translation

Tiru sets aside even talent and knowledge as secondary to a firm and determined mind when it comes to effectively finishing a job. To conceptualise a task, to strategise and plan it, to have the abilities to do what is necessary to carry it out - all of that, in his opinion, is secondary to the will of the person to do it.

AND why would he not consider it so? I mean, have you not met with people with great talent for, say, writing, AND who have honed their craft to perfection but who do not finish a single book. Where would, say, a Stephen King be without his determination that kept him rewriting his first book over and over again?

How many good public policies stay in the files of government because the rulers do not have the will to pursue them to conclusion? The greatest plans and strategies will languish in moldy papers (in decaying chips? Perhaps!) without a determined person who will see to their implementation on the ground. The perseverance to overcome all obstacles, to course-correct where necessary and complete the job would not exist without that firm will. The weak of mind will abandon the job at the first obstacle.

A meticulously planned strategy will be seen as such ONLY when it is implemented. Otherwise it will only be laughed at as Mungerilal ke haseen sapne.

I read something somewhere which encapsulates this very well - 'Vision without implementation is mere hallucination'. AND implementation requires the firmness of will which Tiru sets above all else.

The key to all good?

You tend to get put off by philosophy, sometimes, simply because it tells you what you already know but are unable or unwilling to do. I mean, like, when you get told that hard work leads to prosperity, you get angry. Not because it is wrong but because you know it already but do not want to do it. If there was a philosopher who told you that prosperity will come to you as you loll around in your bed watching a web series, you'd embrace him with all your heart. The philosopher who tells you that politeness yields friendships will face rude ire from you; the one who says that being rude is the way to go, since it denotes frankness, is your bosom pal. The philosopher...WHAT? You got the point already? Alright!

Tiru cannot always be finding out and telling things that you do not already know. (Though, to be sure, since I do NOT know what you already know, it could well be that you do not know this.) Sometimes, he too will tell you what you know already. Like this one...

Thunai nalam aakkam tharum vinai nalam vendiya ellaam tharum - Tirukkural

Having good supporters yields wealth; doing good and progressive work will yield all desirable results - Loose Translation

You know, sometimes, it is difficult to get these philosophers. I mean, you got wealth, right? When you have people around you who are good and capable? What other desirable results could you possibly want that you cannot buy with wealth? Well, Tiru probably means things like popularity, fame etc. Maybe even health if you take 'work' to mean everything you do - including eating, drinking etc - and that they should all be 'good' and 'progressive'.

That phrase - 'vinai nalam' - is tough to translate. It does mean 'good' as in you are not to steal, murder, defraud etc; it also connotes that what you do should be progressive for Society. Yes, you could honestly run an existing business and be 'good'. You could do socially relevant business OR you could expand business to provide more employment OR make available a rare drug OR...You get the point like you did the last time? Business that leaves a mark on Society, leaves Society better off than before - THAT's what that 'progressive' means. That is what gets you all that you may legitimately desire out of life according to Tiru.

NOW you see why advice makes you angry. You know it already but it is hard yards to do it. So...

To prefer violence?

You tend to think of philosophers as peaceful souls. I don't really think anyone thought of a philosopher who prioritises violence. I mean, like, the chappie is most likely to say that 'War indicates a failure of diplomacy' or 'There is nothing that cannot be sorted by sitting down to discuss' and things like that. In fact, the first advice that you expect a philosopher to give in times of conflict is to sit together and discuss. Perhaps, the idea is that you can kill a conflict by boring people to death.

Not so Tiru. At least, as it seems, not in this kural:

Ollumvaa yellaam vinai nandrae ollaakkaal sellumvai nokkich cheyal - Tirukkural

It is best to overcome by fighting if possible; if not, opt for any other workable method - Loose Translation

It needs be clarified that, in India, four methods of overcoming an enemy were outlined - sama, daana, bheda and danda. Sama is the art of discussion and, possibly, compromise; daana is attempting to bribe the enemy to concede; bheda is to try to divide the enemy by creating divisiveness in their ranks; danda is to attack and overcome the enemy.

So, Tiru prefers the violent option of attacking and overcoming the enemy as the first choice, if it is at all possible to win that battle. In the event that such a victory is seen as impossible, he advises that you should seek an alternative solution which is workable from out of the other three options.

On the face of it, this seems like war-mongering. Even if one takes it literally, and not metaphorically, the point is that Tiru probably sees the other options as only postponing the problem and not solving it. All compromises leave some on either side feeling that the compromise was treachery and, thus, leads to a conflict further down the road; bribery works only for a time as the natives of England had reason to find when they bribed the Norsemen to go away - they only come back for more; divisions are also a temporary ruse. If what was together can be split, what splits can come back together.

Tiru assumes that when the base cause of the conflict remains, the war will remain to be fought. You can only buy time to strengthen yourself but the war will still come back to you. THAT, then, IS the point. That Tiru is not really talking of battles that are fought on minor matters of dispute but on fundamental differences that really cannot be reconciled. (No such thing? Well, what about a cannibalistic tribe preying on your citizens? OR a tribe thriving on robbing travellers and merchants to your country? There ARE value systems that you will need to fight for.) Essentially, deciding the goal of a conflict can be open to discussion. Tiru is talking about how you go about ACHIEVING that goal having decided on the desirability of the goal - whether you go all out to achieve it or whether you compromise on achieving the goal.

THAT is, if it is to be taken literally. Metaphorically, a battle is anything that needs to be changed or implemented. Anywhere where there is a conflict, even if it is of opinions or habits, Tiru would call it a battle. AND in any battle, he prefers that you charge ahead and complete the job if you can see the possibility of victory, instead of dilly-dallying. ONLY if such victory is seen as impossible does he suggest the other options which are, indeed, varying forms of compromise.

Just so you can see the applicability, consider gender equality or changing over the indirect tax system to GST or adoption of automation/AI or whatever. Tiru says that if you can at all bull through to making the change-over, go ahead and do it, instead of discussing it to death. IF you find that impossible, THEN go in for a path that is workable on the day - compromise, bribe the opposition (Like, say, a VRS while adopting automation), divide the opposition etc. 

Tiru is more a pragmatist than a philosopher in that sense. 'Do what works, don't keep splitting moral hairs' is probably what he'd say. Even idealism, in his world view, needs to be tempered by practicality. AND who is to say he is wrong? A world moved an inch towards the ideal world is probably better than a completely ideal world that only stays in the mind!

A time for procrastination?

About the one thing that I was sure of was that no philosopher would support procrastination. You know how these chaps are - if you truly like a certain behavior, the whole lot of them will come down on you like a ton of bricks and call you all sorts of names. AND, bar a very few, the whole world sort of likes procrastination though, yes, they may claim otherwise. Much like they all claim to be...well...honest, hardworking, monogamous, yada yada.

So, yeah, I was sure that no philosopher would support procrastination and, yet...well, when Tiru says this...

Thoonguga thoongi seyarpaala thoongarkka thoongaadhu seyyum vinai - Tirukkural

Leisurely do those jobs which should be done at ease; never be slow on those that ought not be delayed - Loose Translation

So, yes, Tiru is not giving you a free pass on procrastinating on all jobs. He clearly insists that there ARE jobs that ought not to be delayed and, thus, need to be done immediately and as soon as possible. I mean, like, if your dress is on fire, you are unlikely to appreciate the chap who wants to sleep over the idea of putting the fire out. (Oh, by the way, if you literally translated this kural it would come out as 'Sleep over such jobs as can be slept over; never sleep over those jobs that cannot'. Here, though, that 'sleep' does not actually stands for stretching out and snoring. It is a euphemism for taking it easy.) But Tiru DOES actually instruct you to take it easy on some jobs.

So such jobs actually exist? I mean jobs that actually INVITE procrastination? Hmmm. Maybe Tiru is NOT talking of procrastination at all. Like, I have heard of dishes that have to marinade for hours; of dishes that have to be cooked for long over a low flame...things like that. (Yeah, yeah, cannot get my mind off food. So?) Doing those dishes urgently by reducing the time of the marinading or cooking on a high flame to get done faster...Would that make for a satifactory dish?

There ARE jobs that have to be done slowly and steadily. Whether it be at the level of actually doing work with your hands OR whether it is things that you do in an organisation, you will always find some things that work better when done slowly.

Implementing change can be like that. I mean, yeah, it may be a necessary thing but...Well, unless your employees buy into the change, unless they completely understand what is expected of them in the new way of doing things, will that change get implemented properly and yield the results that you expect to get?

So, yes, there ARE jobs that cannot be rushed. For THOSE jobs, Tiru is only saying that 'Haste makes Waste'. And there ARE jobs which need to be done urgently - the 'stitch in time saves nine' sort of jobs. So, in one pithy kural, Tiru encompasses both and says that unnecessary haste AND undue delay will both cause damage.

Now to figure out what jobs can be done leisurely and what need doing right now! THAT's the challenge in which Tiru is no help. You need to do it yourself.

Pick your advisers

There is this idea, fostered at our schools and colleges, that the more you learn the more successful you will be. And, almost inevitably, you end up with some people thinking that they are bound to fail if they do not know everything. As in, you got to be good at coding, at finance, at HR...you get the picture. Why, if they had a garden, they will feel a pressing need to be good at digging (AND not just holes for their competitors!)

Then there is this thing called 'Delegation'. Delegation is basically the idea that you do not need to do everything yourself. It is alright if you can shove it off on other people. But if you delve into people's ideas of delegation, you will get to a core belief that delegation means that you CAN do it yourself if you want to BUT you allow other people to do it while you concentrate on other things. In other words, if you tell them that it is alright not to KNOW how to do those things they'll probably balk. To not KNOW translates to not being in control of that area. When it comes to key areas, the feeling of not being in control is anathema.

Tiru, like a lot of philosophers (AND management experts, yes), does not think that this DIY style is a great idea. Here he says...

Aranarindhu mooththa arivudaiyaar kaenmai thiranarindhu thaerndhu kolal -  Tirukkural

A good leader picks people of virtue and requisite wisdom and does what is needed to surround himself with them - Loose Translation

In the normal course, this idea of picking 'virtuous' people is taken as a sort of 'has to be said' thing which is not to be considered as binding. Not in this case. I mean, look, you are getting people to advice you on areas where you are not yourself knowledgeable. It is primarily their own integrity that will keep them from misguiding you. So, yes, here their virtue is an important prerequisite. (Read 'people of virtue' as 'trustworthy people' and you'll know what I mean.)

There is no need to belabor 'requisite wisdom'. Since Tiru was advising kings, he would be asking them to surround themselves with wise people to advise them. But, what would be the point in having people deeply versed in the knowledge of the naval matters in a completely landlocked kingdom? So, yes, the leader/king would pick people with 'requisite' wisdom only, unless he has need to accomodate the Queen's brother or his own nephews...in which case Tiru would pooh-pooh him as a bad king, anyway!

AND picking these people is not enough. You need to get them to work for you with a will. So, the leader has to get them to stay with him by understanding THEIR own needs and satisfying them. In other words, in HR parlance, the King/leader needs to understand the needs of these potential advisers and align them with the needs of his own kingdom/organisation.

Of course, Tiru's was not the time of management consultants who could be hired on a project specific basis. But whether you can rely exclusively on them or you need your own set of advisers to vet their recommendations...THAT is for you to decide!

Physician, heal thyself?

There is this thing about vision. It is sharper when it focuses on the ills of others and practically blind when it comes to your own flaws. There is hardly a school of philosophy/religion which turns an...err...blind eye to this particular character trait in humans. There is something about seeing the 'mote in your brother's eye ignoring the beam in your own eye' in the Bible, for example.

Tiru has this to say about the same subject

Than kutram neeekkip pirarkutram kaangirpin enn kutram aagum iraikku - Tirukkural

He who first cleanses himself of his own faults before assessing the flaws of others is a flawless leader - Loose Translation

You know, that sort of seems obvious. I mean, like, if you have to cleanse yourself of any of the faults that you could possibly see in others, that would well nigh mean cleansing yourself of ALL faults. Ergo, you'd have to end up being flawless.

The point, though, is that you should acknowledge that something which is a flaw in others is also a flaw in you. Essentially, you cannot say that it is ok for me but not for them - the 'Do as I say, not as I do' school of leadership.

There is a story about Mahatma Gandhi where a woman brings her kid to him and asks him to advice the kid not to eat sugar. Whereupon Gandhi asks her to come after two weeks. THEN he tells the kid to stop eating sugar because it was bad for him. The woman asks him why he could not have given this same advice two weeks back. Gandhi says that he himself loved eating sugar two weeks back and had to break the habit himself before he advised the kid to do so. THAT is adherence to cleansing yourself of the flaw before you see it in others.

It is a tough ask for more mundane leaders to cleanse themselves of all their flaws before they lead. At the same time, it is rather tough to carry conviction about, say, punctuality when you enter the office three hours late and lecture the staff about being on time. There has to be some via media - an in-between path where you can work to reduce your own flaws WHILE seeking others to do so as well. Only when you know WHY it IS a flaw, what damage it causes, how difficult it may be to get rid of it and, yet, how important it is to do so - only THEN can you carry conviction as a leader and be SEEN as a flawless leader. Not flawless as in never making a mistake but flawless as in being someone who walks his own talk.

I mean, unless people believe that you truly espouse those values yourself, why would THEY strive to espouse them? As they say, Yatha Raja Thatha Praja. If YOU only preach and don't practise, they too will only preach and not practise.

And put in all their efforts into not getting caught!

The indipensable three of leadership?

I was under the impression that this 'Five best ...' and 'Seven worst...' etc were the result of some recent virus that had infected humanity. Not so, not if I am to just peek into one of the philosophers of my own country. Ah, but I AM being remiss. When such a thing happens, I am not supposed to bemoan but beat my breast and claim how we had done it before everyone else, no?

So, yes, long before the management gurus and their followers caught on to this 'Eight steps to...' etc, there was Tiru who had the same idea. Like, in this, he goes...

Thoongaamai Kalvi Thunivudamai immoondrum neengaa nilaan bavarkku - Thirukkural

Never procrastinating, wisdom and analytical and bold decision-making are the three things that a great leader holds fast to himself - Loose Translation

We are into words with multiple meanings again. This 'Thoongamai' can be literally taken to mean 'not sleeping' which can be interpreted to be 'not sleeping at the switch'. So, it could just be that the leader is called upon to be alert. Alert, yes, but one step further. It also means that the leader HAS to take action when due and not postpone it due to laziness or fear or whatever. To take TIMELY action is what characterises a good leader.

'Kalvi' is just learning or, in other words, knowledge in the most straightforward interpretation. But, for a leader, it cannot be just knowledge. I mean, like, if you want to make profits in tough times, and are cutting labor costs, you know that dispensing with assembly-line personnel will cost you production whereas cutting R&D will not adversely affect anything that year. THAT is knowledge. To remember the long term effects and to balance that against short term needs - THAT requires wisdom. (OR to pivot to a new product altogether rather than cutting costs on the existing product or...). A great leader needs to be knowledgeable, yes, but also should transcend knowledge to make wise decisions.

Thunivudamai is, in one sense, the ability to analyse and come to a decision. It is also the boldness to take decisions, especially risky decisions. So THAT word could mean both - the ability to analyse a situation completely AND the boldness to take decisions in times of uncertainty as can happen when you have incomplete information or in times of great flux.

Whether or not these three qualities are sufficient to make a good leader, one can hardly say. Or, perhaps, one can. After all, wisdom is a catch-all phrase which can incorporate knowledge of a wide variety of things - be it finance, marketing, HR or whatever. But, whether or not it is sufficient to possess these three, it is NECESSARY for the leader to hold on to them. Tiru says so and he is seldom wrong, so...

Listening humility?

There is this thing about philosophers that they give a great deal of respect to humility. The idea of any humble man being worthy of respect is, quite possibly, funny today. The man of respect is the man who flaunts his power, not the man who speaks politely. I mean, when we were praising humility, we also called the open-minded chaps who were willing to see the other person's point of view as liberals. Which made the liberal a polite and humble man who did not espouse the idea that only he was right. Now, though, all sides of any debate are convinced of their rightness and the moronic wrongness of anyone who has the least little thing to say which deviates from their point of view. Humility? What humility?

Tiru does not live today, does he? So, it is no surprise that he said this without the least little fear of being canceled.

Nunangiya kelviya rallaaar vanangiya vaayina raadhal aridhu - Tirukkural

He who is not a discerning listener is incapable of being a polite speaker in public - Loose Translation

Yeah, Tiru actually lived in times where they placed a lot of weightage on convincing others with their debates and not merely shouting them down. If, indeed, you are placed in a situation where the chap you are speaking to is not someone you can merely shout down, you may need this advice.

I mean, yeah, you can walk rough shouldered in Social media. But that is not where you really live, do you? You can hardly think that shouting down your potential Venture Capital provider will get you funds or shouting down your interviewer will get you a job. You do NEED to convince by polite reasoning; calling him a profit-sucking leech is not what will get you the moolah.

To be able to convince politely, you need to be able to be a discerning listener who is able to understand the nuances of what is being said. If you can see beyond what is being said to what is being meant, you can then find a way to satisfy the other's need without sacrificing your own. Like, a lender asking you to pledge your ancestral home is seeking security for his loan - if you can see a way to making him feel secure about his loan either by providing a surety or by pledging something else, you could satisfy him without agreeing to the letter of what he says. For that, you need to have to be a nuanced listener, failing which you could end up screaming about never giving up your home and losing the loan. To be able to speak well starts with being able to listen well.

Listening well is to open your mind, stop filtering everything through the lens of what you want and seeing it like a neutral third party would and assessing the pros and cons impartially. Only that will help you formulate a meaningful and polite response that could carry forth the discussion to a fruitful conclusion.

Oh and yes, Tiru is talking about being a discerning listener to everything. After all, in his times, most learning happened by way of listening to the wise. Thus, to be a bad listener was to end up being an ignorant lout. So there was that as well.

It is the fool who thinks that wisdom lies in non-stop talking. The wise listen and, thus, are listened to. AND it is not the talking but the fact that people listen to you when you talk which makes one shine forth as a wise man.

A desireless life?

There is something in common with most philosophers. They seem to be against the idea of desire. One could easily dismiss that as 'sour grapes' on the grounds that philosophers are only those people who are unable to gratify their desires. Unfortunately for that argument, a leading light of the 'desire is the root cause of sorrow' school of thought is the Buddha, who was a prince and, thus, more capable of gratifying his desires than most. So...

I am sorry for disappointing you if you thought that I was going to say that Tiru came out in support of desire. Not so. He was also a vehement supporter of the anti-desire lobby. As in this...

Inbam idaiyaraa theendum avaavenum thunbaththul thunbam kedin - Tirukkural

There will be everlasting joy if you are rid of desire - that woe of woes - Loose Translation.

It is a rather tough thing, isn't it, to conceive of a desireless existence. I mean, if you desired nothing then what would be the purpose to your life? After all, you get up in the morning with a zest to do something only because you are working to satisfy your desires. Without desire, there is no ambition, there is no progress. No?

The problem is probably that we do not understand whether the philosophers conceive of desire the same way as we do. Or, rather, they probably DO conceive of it in the same way we do. It is just that we are too hypocritical to accept that there ARE things that we may want to do, things that can stoke your ambition and thus fuel progress, that we ourselves may not consider as 'desires'. It is just that we find it convenient to club those things also under desires so that we are absolved of the need to vanquish desire on the pretext of seeking progress.

Tell me, do you seriously think of people who put in time, effort and money in order to feed, clothe or educate the less privileged as pursuing their DESIRES? Do you think that the scientific curiosity of an Einstein or a Hawking or a C.V. Raman was driven only by the pursuit of individual glory? Do you think it is impossible for an industrialist to be driven by goals other than self-gratification?

The cynical point of view is that no industrialist or politician is driven by anything other than the need for gratifying their desires. Even if it IS true, it does not mean that they CANNOT be driven by other goals or aspirations.

So, yes, progress is not inevitably tied to desire though the reality of the day may be that it IS so tied. Desire is related to gratifying yourself. AND when that gratification can only come from outside, you place your happiness at the mercy of the external world. THAT is a sureshot recipe for sorrow. (Like, to want to DO a good job is not necessarily a desire in this context. To want PRAISE for doing a good job - THAT is a desire which places you at the mercy of others.)

Which neatly segues me into that most popular Bhagavad Gita shloka, which people love to quote but very seldom think of practising, perhaps under the belief that good advice has to be given away and not used yourself: Karmanyeva adhikaraste maa faleshu kadachana - which ends up saying the same thing about doing your duty without bothering your head about what you get out of it.

A desireless existence is not necessarily a purposeless existence. The world IS full of sorrow only because almost everyone believes that desires are the root of all purpose!

Outdated Advice

One tends to think of advice as timeless. All advice, however, comes with a date stamp except, perhaps, the advice that roots you in values. One likes to think of values as being timeless though one has seen that even value systems come with a timestamp. (I mean, how well does this 'sanctity of human life' gel with 'You are sinless if you just carry out your duty as a Kshatriya and wage war'? Though, yes, the jury is out on whether war does need to be waged on those who care two hoots about your values including the sanctity of human life, with people ganging up on both sides of the argument.) But values have a longer shelf life than norms of behavior.

So, when Tiru said this, he was much more likely to become dated than in other instances.

Ozhukka mudaiyavarkku ollaave theeya vazhukkiyum vaayaar solal - Tirukkural

It does not behoove a man of good conduct to ill-speak, even by error - Loose Translation

One cannot even excuse Tiru on the grounds of his having lived in an era sans social media. Even without the help of X et al, we have long been accustomed to tromping down the polite and respecting, if not fearing, the rude. The fact is that we hardly know whether there is any difference between 'respect' and 'fear' and whether there is even any point in discussing any such differences.

I mean, like, do you seriously nitpick between whether you are respectful of your boss or are merely afraid of losing your next raise? In such a circumstance, isn't the boss who keeps you on tenterhooks about your next raise considered the more worthy of 'respect' and not the one who makes you feel valued? (Aha! IF you get back with 'Oooh, in our companies we are made to feel valued' it just means that you are still in an industry where your skills are rare and sought after; I am talking of places which seek to normalise a 90 hour week!) And HOW does the man keep you on tenterhooks - by speaking ill of your efforts or speaking well?

In office, in Society, in Politics, in diplomacy - everywhere it is becoming the day of the man who dares speak evil. HE is seen as powerful; he is seen as difficult to pleased and, therefore, the one who you stand on your head trying to please; he is the guy who gets his service fastest in a restaurant, whose subordinates fall all over themselves to meet his deadlines, whose...you get the picture.

In the same position of that guy, put in another who is soft-spoken and appreciative; who reprimands without using evil words (threats, swear words etc). He is seen as the man who may be powerful but will not use his power; he is seen as easily pleased so no need to put yourself out for him; he is the guy who the waiters smile at apologetically while they serve the rest of the world, whose subordinates expect to be forgiven for not meeting deadlines with some modicum of excuse, whose...you get the picture.

You see, there IS a problem of being dated with Tiru. Maybe in HIS day and time this avoidance of ill-speaking worked...oh,wait! Tiru only says that the 'man of good conduct' will not ill-speak even in error.

What has happened is that we do not WANT to be OR respect men of good conduct!

Need to spend

There are times when a philosopher can surprise you by the very fact that he makes sense to you readily. I mean, you tend to think of philosophers as chaps whose advice takes a couple of interpreters to understand; not commonsense that readily penetrates your brain. (AND, yes, as readily departs the brain too, going by how uncommon 'commonsense' is in the daily actions of the 'common man'!) Yet, sometimes, such miracles actually happen.

It happens more often than not with Tiru, since the chap was also writing about governance and, even, love. Here he does with

Seyarpaala seyya dhivariyaan selvam uyarpaala dhanrik kedum - Tirukkural

The wealth of a miser, who fails to spend when necessary, shall be destroyed - Loose Translation

You sort of expect that the MISER will be destroyed if he does not spend when necessary and ends up starving to death. But, it is true that the wealth can itself be destroyed. Even in the case of the chap merely hoarding his coins, if he fails to spend on protecting it, he will lose it to robbers.

If, say, the miser is earning from Agriculture. He needs to spend on fertilising his lands; spend on labor; spend on storing water if his lands are vast enough...there is a lot of necessary expenditure to keep the wealth flowing, failing which his lands will become worthless. Wealth destroyed!

OR, if he is running a production unit. You need to maintain machinery, you need to keep your key employees happy, you need to spend on your logistics...if you fail to spend where needed, your wealth will vanish.

Or, as in the case of the rulers who Tiru was primarily addressing...if you fail to spend on infrastructure, on defense, on law enforcement, on...you get the picture.

AND, as in the case of us mango people, it seldom helps to keep the money under the mattress. Inflation is a silent stealer of wealth.

Wealth NEEDS to be put to use. Stagnant wealth finds a way to evaporate!

Know the unstable

I have always wondered about poetry. I mean, when your English teacher tells you what the poet meant in his poetry, will the poet recognise his own thought process? Or does he, like the rest of us, wonder at the various ways in which your communication can be misunderstood by the listener? Does he, wonderstruck, rejoice in all that wisdom that he has, without knowing, put into his poetry? In other words, how much of the stated meaning of a poem owe itself to the poet and how much to the interpreter?

Tiru, for all that he writes what amounts to two line haikus, is as likely to be open-mouthed at the ways in which his Kurals can and have been interpreted. Like this one, which possible lends itself to interpretations other than what Tiru is likely to have intended...

Nillaadhavatrai nilaiyina endrunarum pullarivaanmai kadai - Tirukkural

To consider the transient as permanent dishonours the wise - Loose Translation

The importance of knowing the difference between unstable pleasures and stable happiness cannot be understated. To learn when you have the opportunity to learn leads to more stable happiness and, yet, the child is easily attracted to the temporary joys of play. Not that play has no place in life; just that play at the cost of learning is...unwise.

Take almost ANY intoxicant. The joy is temporary and, in a lot of cases, you end up with suffering in the absence of the intoxicant and not much joy when the craving is satisfied. The consequences on health, on relationships, on happiness - permanent. Pursuing it is, to put it mildly, unwise.

There are any number of lesser example one can quote in daily life which highlight the rank idiocy of chasing the unstable. What would you say to the chap who screams,"I did it" when your boss is being praised for the team's work? Or the chap who stops his car and gets down to scream that the chap behind him who's persistently honking...only to be late to a key office meeting and losing his promotion?

And then that other thing...'Prioritising the urgent over the important'. Anything that falls under that umbrella for you is all a case of chasing the unstable and ending up forgoing the stable. Unwise!

But, yeah, Tiru probably did not mean all these things in life. What he probably was trying to tell you is that LIFE is unstable, transient and, thus, instead of chasing the 'good life', you ought to be chasing the 'good afterlife'!!

Foundations of success

You tend to find that philosophers talk of things that seem too airy-fairy. I mean, like, here we are trying to make a living on earth, trying to get your family and friends to not scoff at you and...well, you know, ordinary mundane things like that. AND you go to a philosopher for advice and he ends up scoffing at what you want and preaches to you about what you SHOULD want. But, then, there ARE times when a philosopher does surprise you by talking your own lingo leaving you open-mouthed in amazement.

So, Tiru says

Mudhalilaarka oodhiyamilla madhalaiyanj saarbilaark killai nilai - Tirukkural

Those who lack capital gain no profits; those who lack supporters lack stability of position - Loose Translation

Tiru seems to be well-rooted in Capitalism. He is very clear that if you seek to profit from your operations you need to have capital to invest in them. Like it or lump it, that is the way the world works. As I have had occassion to say earlier in these annals, 'Those who have get more of it' IS a law as much in the rest of life as it is in organic chemistry. (You can check  Markownikoff's Rule for human behavior for other applications of the law than for wealth.) Life, as has now become a cliche, IS unfair!

Tiru's point in this Kural, though, is about the second half of it. He is essentially saying that 'Just as lack of capital deprives you of profits, lack of supporters renders your position unstable'. Your social position, your status in your place of work, your ability to command respect...ALL of that depends on supporters. Unless you have people who trust you and are willing to support you in your endeavours, you are unlikely to hold on to any of that. Or, so Tiru says.

AND he is probably right. It is a rare case where you can achieve anything by dint of your own efforts. Achieve anything that gets you widespread approbation in society, that is. Almost always, you need to carry along people in your efforts. To do that, you need a few who will be unstinting in supporting your viewpoint and helping you convince others. If you do not earn such support among enough other people for you to make your mark, you'll lose your position sooner or later.

Support, trust, friendship, networks...call it what you will. With that you can become AND stay a leader. Without that...

Renounce to get?

There are these times when philosophers seem to take an almost sadistic pleasure in saying oxymoronic things. Not moronic things which merely do not make sense but oxymoronic things which ask you to see sense in self-contradictory statements. You know, things like 'organised chaos' which allow them to give you superior smiles when you screw up your face in puzzlement as you try to figure out how something can still be chaotic after it is organised.

So, Tiru does his thing when he says

VendinUn dagath thurakka thurandhapin EenduIyar paala pala - Tirukkural

Renounce your pleasures while you still have them to renounce if you seek a life of peace; having renounced you will find a lot more joys to savor - Loose Translation

So there! Give up your joys in order to be joyous, in short! Talk about contradiction!

That 'when you still have them to renounce' makes sense. I mean, like, you can only give up what you currently have, right? It's not like I can say, "OK! I renounce my private jet and my yacht and my designer clothing..." and feel that nice glow of renunciation. When it comes to what you do not yet have, all you feel is resentment. As I have said before in these annals, to be the monk who gave up his Ferrari, you first need to have HAD the Ferrari. If you wait till your digestive system goes on strike at the thought of fried food, you do not feel like you have renounced fried food...you feel DEPRIVED of fried food. So, THAT part is absolutely sensible.

To give up your pleasures leads to a life of peace? Most likely, yes. You see, the thing about pleasures is that, over time, you tend to MISS them when you do NOT get them. Not so much enjoy them when you DO get them. Except when the pleasures are unaffordable and rare. In which case the pleasure you get WHEN you have them is far outweighed by the deprivation you feel when you cannot afford to have them. Either way your mind is unquiet. Renouncing pleasures reduces your desires. AND, like the Buddha says, desires are the root cause of all misery.

But what's this about more joys to come after you renounce your pleasures? The absence of desires knocks expectations on the head. And expectations are what keeps you focused on the future...waiting for the day that you will get what you crave. Once they are gone, you start living in the moment - open to the unexpected joys that every moment of life can bring you.

And THAT without even the benefits that philosophers attribute to the state of Nirvana that renunciation is reputed to raise you to. So there you have it. You give up in order to get!

Envy and Progress

There are things that philosophers will never agree on with their arguments splitting hairs that you cannot even see. Largely, though, these things are issues that the mango person hardly ever bothers his head about. You know, like whether plants have a soul or whether there is  multiverse and things like that. Comes to the things that we guys are interested in, they seem to show a surprising unanimity of opinion. Which can be reduced to 'Whatever the common man thinks is ok is not.'

Take envy for example. Who among us thinks it is...well, not exactly good, but....Ah! What I mean is that we all think it is sort of normal to feel it and, thus, it cannot be sinful. Well, just think of that other thing that we all find normal to feel - lust - and think what the philosophers have to say about it. So, here goes Tiru

Azhukkatru agandraarum illai aqdhu illaar perukkaththu theerndhaarum il - Tirukkural

No envious man achieves greatness; nor does lacking envy cause you to fail in achieving it - Loose Translation

There you go! Tiru strongly holds that envy destroys you chances of achieving greatness. Which, in a way, seems logical. I mean, if you are in a race, it hardly helps you win to concentrate on the way the other guy runs, does it? Envy keeps you concentrating on what the other guy is doing/has achieved AND feeling that, somehow, the universe has conspired to give him success. Instead, you ought to be concentrating on what YOU need to do to win. BUT...if you assume that winning or losing is the conspiracy of the universe, then you do not plan to work on winning; you only plan to either steal the win from the other guy OR, perhaps, strive to make him lose.

You see, envy shifts your attention from the race to the competitor; ergo, your future actions will be centered on how to make the competitor lose than on how to run a better race. Why, when you generally envy a person's success - in terms of his money or fame - you may even end up entering the wrong race. End up entering the sprint, because the other guy made his success by sprinting, when you have the makings of a great marathoner.

The point is that greatness is achieved by knowing who you are - what your strengths and weaknesses are. THEN you enter the proper race for yourself, learn the training you need to succeed in that race and acquire it. Envy keeps your focus on others; on the things that could, perhaps, help you disrupt THEIR success; not to succeed yourself.

AND Tiru also says that a lack of envy has not been a reason for anyone to fail. Now, yes, ambition is a consequence of not being satisfied with who you are and where you are. True, but that dissatisfaction need not arise out of comparing yourself with the next guy. Even if it does, it is not necessary to envy the other guy; just use him as a role model for what is possible for you.

But, then, all that is tough. It is easiest to just lie back and say, "If only luck favored me like it did him..."

Loveless Virtue?

It is not at all easy to be virtuous. Especially if you want to please all these various philosophers. Your case would be much like the father, son and donkey. If the father rides the donkey, people would scoff at him for letting the young chap suffer the walking; if the son rides the donkey, others would deride the son for not respecting the age of the father; if both ride the donkey, up will spring the PETA lot screaming at the injustice meted out to the donkey by overloading it; and if the father and son choose to carry the donkey, the DONKEY objects by kicking them senseless. In other words, there is no pleasing everyone with your virtuousness.

Tiru, not to be outdone by his fellow philosophers, is equally as demanding if not more so. Here he goes with

Enbi ladhanai veyilpolak kaayumae anbiladhanai aram - Tirukkural

Like the Sun scorches boneless beings like worms, virtue scorches those lacking in love - Loose Translation

Boneless beings, here, is merely a description of the sort of beings that cannot stand extreme heat. In other words, it is not their bonelessness that makes them suffer but their inability to regulate their body temperatures because they are cold-blooded.

There is a difficulty in understanding why Virtue should scorch a person lacking in love...as in, is it not possible for a person to behave virtuously even though he feels no love for those around him? To behave as a person of integrity...does it also need you to love? Is it not actually a fact that to be impartial can be a virtue for a ruler, say, and a ruler who does not love would be better because he has no biases? Why, then, should virtue scorch such a person?

The problem with virtue IS that almost everything that you classify as virtuous behavior would, in some form or other, translate to either actively benefitting or, at the very least, no hurting those around you. In other words, the measure of virtue lies in the impact your actions have on other people.

Take that impartial, unbiased actions that you may need to take; actions that could well prove to be detrimental to those close to you because they were needed to be taken in the interests of the larger good. NOW, if you are the sort of person overflowing with love, and your love for those around you is visible...THEN, even though you cost them benefits, they COULD still be friendly with you. (Unlikely, you say, and I'd be inclined to agree. But 'unlikely' is not necessarily 'impossible'.) More to the point, others who are unaffected and more likely to see things without emotions are likely to see things your way and give credit for your virtuous actions. IF, however, you are lacking in love and KNOWN to be so...how quickly you'd alienate everyone in your vicinity (IF he can do THAT to his son-in-law....). THEN your virtuous decisions will readily be taken as vices and, yes, you'll be scorched as a result.

The problem with being seen as a 'cold fish' is that, even when you benefit people by your choice, it'd either be seen as accidental OR as some devious plot to take advantage. AND if you hurt people, even by accident, it will invariably be taken to be a deliberate act. After all, you're seen as someone who does not care for anyone at all.

The other problem IS that, absent love, it is actually very tough to be truly virtuous. Justice, they say, needs to be tempered with mercy. To paraphrase and elaborate on the idea, you cannot live life off a rule book. A rule book is a guide but, in each given circumstance, you need to apply it with compassion and empathy. AND I am yet to see anyone who is capable of compasstion and empathy being incapable of love. So, when your so-called virtue is void of compassion, it's actually no virtue at all. Your charity becomes a self-serving exercise where you look down on the recipients; your help undermines the pride of those who receive it; and your entire life full of acts that can only be dry entries in a ledger book of virtues without really possessing any virtue.

So, yes, sans love you are a 'cold fish' and, thus, scorched by the Sun of virtue!

Parental duty?

Some advice can get dated. As in, what was wisdom at some point in history may sound like rank folly at others. It is tough, however, to  write finis to the advice because...well, because, things CAN make a comeback. To be sure, bell-bottoms in trousers have never made a comeback...and a good thing too...but you never know. What will be the fate of THIS piece of advice by Tiru remains to be seen.

Thandhai magarkaatru nandri avaiyaththu mundhi iruppach cheyal - Tirukkural

The best boon a father can confer on his son is to make him foremost among the wise - Loose Translation

Now THAT opens a real can of worms, doesn't it? In the first place, the very idea that a father (Boomer!!!) has ANY wisdom to offer to the son is...I don't know...a LMAO+ROFL concept. As far as the sons of the day are concerned, if the fathers just got out of the way and KEPT out, with their mouths shut...THAT would be the best boon! (In the (1A) place is the fact of talking only about sons, and not daughters, but we shall pass lightly over that considering the times of Tiru. Yeah, that 'magar' could be interpreted to mean 'daughter' also but THAT's not the way almost ANY interpreter of Tiru has seen it, so...)

The next thing is this risible idea that making the son foremost among the 'wise' is the 'BEST' boon. I mean, come on, would Mukesh Ambani want to exchange places with ANY Nobel Laureate you can think of? Would he think that Dhirubhai did worse than the father of ANY such wise man? AND reverse the question and see how THAT goes. Ask ANY Nobel Laureate...Foremost among the WEALTHY is laudable; foremost among the WISE? ONLY if it lead to wealth.

There would be those who could claim that 'avaiyaththu' need not only be a congregation of the wise...it could well just be taken to mean 'Society' and, thus, daddy dear had the duty to place the son foremost in whatever was the measure best suited to the society of the day. It just so happens that, in Tiru's day, it is wisdom that counted.

The thing, though, is that wisdom is what the philosophers seem to value above wealth...without regard to the mores of the day. To possess wealth is one thing; to keep it is another; to be a happy person is yet another; and to have and to retain the respect of society is a further stretch. AND wisdom works better than just wealth for all of that. (AND, yes, it IS lack of wisdom that makes you think that just because I am advising wisdom I'm asking you to live in poverty. Making everything an 'either this or that' question IS the hallmark of a moron. THERE is such a thing as a bit of both) Wealth you earn for yourself IF daddy-dear equips you with wisdom.

So, yeah, this may not be as dated as I thought. Or, perhaps, I too have become dated!

Barren Land?

There is this tendency among philosophers to assume that the very land that you were born in reacts to what you do with your life. About how it rejoices in your fame and feels humiliated when you fail. Whether it is metaphorical or whether they really think that this is how your land/country is affected by you...

Tiru is no exception to this rule. Here he goes

Vasaiyilaa vanpayan kundrum isaiyilaa yaakkai poruththa nilam - Tirukkural

The land that bears men lacking fame ceases to yield blemishless abundance of produce - Loose Translation

This idea that there is a magical correlation between the fertility of the land and the fame achieved by its people...this idea seems sort of like fantasy. Most likely, then, that it is metaphorical...that what the philosopher means is that the population, at large, of that land would be shamed by the lack of accomplishments from within their ranks. I mean, yeah, when you say 'my country', more often than not, you mean the people of your country and not the land, the rivers, the mountains and all that. Which is probably one of the truths of this sort of wisdom.

You could go further and say that the fact that there are no such role models in the population makes it less likely that the people of that land have the ambition and put forth the effort to DO what it needed to make the land yield 'blemishless abundance of produce'. Which, again is probably one of the truths of this wisdom.

You could also say that a land in which infamy is considered fame...where, say, the gambler is praised for his wealth and the teacher reviled for his poverty...that's a land which will go on to produce more gamblers and less teachers. In other words, the abundance of produce will not be 'blemishless'. A community of robbers CAN be rich but not 'blemishless'.

Oh, yes, you can see that you CAN understand 'land' to literally mean land. If there are no people of fame, it would mean that there is nobody who is actually working to make the land yield 'blemishless abundance of produce'. And so...how's the land to yield any benefits?

So, yes, the land that does not produce people of fame is a land that will, probably, cease to yield any blemishless abundance of produce. AND it does not need any magic wand to cause it to be so.