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.