Society's foundation?

There is this general opinion that India has been the society of mystics and monks; a place where renunciation has been set at such a pinnacle that there is no respect for work. In a way it is true, since the ultimate goal of life is seen to be to renunciation. But that is not the whole truth, is it?

After all, this IS the society that splits life into four parts - Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha and Sanyasa i.e Bachelorhood/ a period of learning, Family Life, Withdrawal from Society and Renunciation of in THAT order. So, one was not pushed into renouncing right at the start. At least (and alas, in my opinion) you  were not given the license to renounce work.

So, yes, when Tiru says this it is not surprising...

Thurandhaarkkum thuvvaadhavarkkum irandhaarkkum ilvaazhvaan enbaan thunai - Tirukkural

The family man is the sole support of the monks, the mendicants and the helpless - Loose Translation

This Grihastha/ilvaazhvaan is not exactly just a family man. As in, I used to say I need all those around me to marry so that I can be a bachelor and still get good home-cooked food. THAT is neither the sense of Brahmacharya or Grishastha, really - that the former is a bachelor and the latter is married. A Brahmachari is one who is a learner and has not started contributing to society in any meaningful manner. A Grihastha is not just a married man; he is a productive member of society. He is indulging in some activity - like agriculture, commerce, whatever - that adds value to Society.

So, essentially, what Tiru is saying is that those who  do economic activity are the mainstay of everyone else in Society. And THAT is probably the basic lesson of economics (What do you think this demographic dividend is? The increasing number of infants and super-senior citizens?) Which also teaches you that if all of Society become renunciates, THAT Society will probably starve to death.

Does that mean, that Indian philosophers preach one thing and practice another? Not really. This wholesale attitude - that, if something is good, it is good for all people at all times - is idiocy. You do not expect the child to work in the fields; why then should the youth necessarily become a renunciate? There is a time to work and a time to withdraw from society. (I mean, after retirement, it is graceful for you to not haunt the office every day, no? Vanaprastha!) And THEN there is a time to renounce your attachment to everything and everyone, and set your mind on the divine. Sanyasa! You are being taught to mature and change with age and not cling on to the attitudes that you ought to out-grow.

So, there! While Tiru is giving credit to the householder for HIS invaluable contribution to Society, he is also setting the yardstick for what constitutes a good householder...that he be someone who succours the monks, the mendicants and the helpless and not someone who pillages the weak and hoards his wealth.

C'est la Tiru! He can never even praise without laying a burden on you! But then is that not the very rationale for praise?