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!