True Wealth?

Sometimes, you end up not understanding philosophers simply because you tend to see those issues from a different vantage point than the one they intended. You know it seems silly to laud generosity when you think of yourself as the giver. After all, in this ungrateful world, only a fool parts with his wealth. The true magnificence of generosity dawns on you only when you are to be the recipient. Like that.

Like, when Tiru says this...

Arutselvam selvaththul selvam porutselvam pooriyaar kannum ula - Tirukkural

The true wealth is affectionate benevolence; material wealth is possessed even by the base and undeserving - Loose Translation

(I have translated 'Arul' as 'affectionate benevolence' where others may choose 'kindliness'. Arul is a word of multiple nuances but the main impression I carry of that word is the willingness to help uplift the other. Perhaps because it is most often associated with deities. So, kindliness seems a lesser word than benevolence when it comes to 'Arul'. AND benevolence is not a complete explanation, either, since 'Arul' is benevolence extended to someone who is loved and not merely an impersonal benevolence. Thus...)

So, you could see this Kural as deriding wealth and scoff at it. True, wealth can be inherited and some of such inheritors may be base and undeserving; wealth MAY accrue to people by luck despite their being undeserving; wealth may well be in the hands of the selfish, of the untrustworthy, of the evil AND you may say that they are not deserving. Yet, wealth could well be with the deserving and a lack of wealth could well be an indication of lack of worth.

To see Tiru as being impractical, though, is a fallacy. It is not as though Tiru is asking you to value only those who are poor. Nope, what he is saying is that, since wealth can be in the hands of the undeserving as much as the deserving, you should IGNORE it as a yardstick for assessing people. Assess the value of people by their 'Arul' aka 'affectionate benevolence' and NOT by their material wealth.

Now, that's pragmatic as well. What's the point in sucking up to a wealthy man who is, by nature, incapable of parting with a single paisa of his wealth? You are much better off sucking up to a more benevolent, yet, less rich person.

Though Tiru has not intended his Tirukkural as a DIY kit for moochers. His is the intent to tell Society how to value its best citizens. AND, for him, the best citizens are the ones who benefit people around them and not those who amass wealth. To benefit people around them, they should both have the ability to do the things that benefit people and the selflessness to not work only for their own benefit.

After all, if a Society values the best thief, it is bound to be populated mainly by criminals!