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!
