The worst sin?

There are times, though, when you would feel that philosophers are not alway blathering fools; that what they say can, every now and then, make sense. You may not agree with them entirely especially when they go overboard with their metaphors. I mean, like, they tend to say that THIS is the greatest virtue but you may disagree simply because they would say the same thing about the next virtue they talk about. ("I bet you say that of all virtues" is something that you could legitimately say to them.) But, there are times when you do agree that what they are talking of IS a virtue (or vice) and, probably, an important virtue (or vice).

Like, when Tiru says this...

Patrullam ennum ivaranmai etrullum ennap paduvathon drandru - Tirukkural

The miserliness that refuses to part with its possessions stands apart as the worst of sins - Loose Translation

Miserliness is not the same as avarice. Avarice is the need to acquire wealth or possessions or position regardless of whether it belongs to another person. AND, in the process of such acquisition, the greedy person does not care for any rules or morality. But, the acquisition of such wealth can also be for the purpose of spending it to lead the sort of life that is coveted by him.

Miserliness, on the other hand, is to keep hold of the wealth that one has and refusing to part with it no matter what the need. The miser will begrudge spending his money on his own food, on the food and health of his own family and, needless to say, not spend a penny to benefit society. If avarice is one side of the coin, miserliness is the other.

Tiru places miserliness as a greater sin than avarice or any of the other sins. THAT comes from a place of pragmatism, one supposes. The avaricious man is still a man of society, willing to engage with the world around him and, thus, capable of being useful to others if only to maintain his ability to acquire more wealth. The miserly man cares two hoots for society; his only goal in life is to safeguard his wealth. Thus, the miser is not even controlled by the pressure of social opprobium.

But, then, since the miser is disengaged from Society, is it not true that he does no harm? Not necessarily true. In the very nature of things, living in a Society entails costs on the individual, especially the rich individual. AND the miser would go to any length to avoid costs. So, yes, a miser CAN do harm. The miser is likely to underpay his employees, make them work in horrible conditions, employ child labor and so on. The distaste to part with his money can cause untold hardship to those who depend on him in one way or the other.

His very miserliness costs society. When wealth is hoarded, that wealth is not deployed in the economy, which leaves Society poorer than it needs to be. AND do not think Tiru has no idea of economics. As I have had occasion to say before, he has devoted hundreds of kurals to economics alone.

Miserliness may or may not be THE worst sin; but we will all agree that it IS one of the sins.

Unless, of course, YOU are yourself that miser!