The company you keep

If there is one thing that seems to have found acceptance across the world, it is the idea that you are known by the company you keep. Well, lions move with lions and cows move with cows is the sort of thing that is easy to understand. The wise prey does not cozy up to the predator. AND, of course, much as the predator may love its own captive herd of prey, it probably does not find enough foolish prey to hang around with; not to mention the fact that being taken for prey, because of the company it keeps, by other predators is not something conducive to peace of mind.

Comes to human beings, though, the 'company you keep' does not conveniently divide itself into this predator-prey matrix. Though, yes, to be sure it IS the fashion these days to designate the 'other' as predators and those who are 'gullible' enough to accept the other's views as prey. With you as the hard-working protector of whoever you designate as the innocent. But, in reality, humans are not so conveniently divided.

Thus, Tiru does not only mean this predator-prey division when he says

Sittrinam anjum perumai sirumaidhaan sutramai soozhndu vidum - Tirukkural

The great fear associating with the mean-minded; it is the base who surround themselves with such people - Loose Translation

Ah, you do not need to hark back to the Rajinikant dialogue - 'Pannidhaan koottam koottama varum; singam single-aaththan varum' (It is pigs that come in herds; the lion only comes alone). I mean, yeah, in a way Rajini is saying sort of the same thing. That the mean prefer coming in a crowd of their ilk (AND pigs as a metaphor to mean the 'mean' IS common in most parts of the world so do not blame me for typecasting pigs) whereas the lion dares come alone. The thing, though, is that Tiru is not necessarily praising the noble loneliness of the 'lion' but only saying that it prefers not to associate with 'pigs'.

You also note that the PREDATOR is being lauded in my example rather than the PREY. THAT should serve to let you know to wipe your mind clean of all predator-prey divides and approach the issue afresh.

When Tiru is talking of the great OR the mean, he is not talking of predators and prey. The great in his estimation are people who have noble goals and aspirations and who work towards that with dedication. Where did I get that idea about what Tiru meant? Well, you have been with me on this Tirukkural journey for so long and where did YOU get the idea that Tiru could ever mean jealousy, back-biting, laziness (Alas for me!) etc. as the qualities of the great? THOSE are the people - the jealous, the back-biters, the whingers and the parasites of society - whom he generally calls the 'mean' or the 'low'.

So, the great would find the mean as people who suck away all his positivity and enthusiasm and leave him without the motivation to pursue his goals. It would, further, keep away all those who could actually help him on his journey for, after all, a person is judged by the company she keeps. She would therefore avoid them like the plague. The mean, on the other hand, would love to be in that company because it would make them feel validated and...whole.

In other words, to even be judged great or potentially great, to have the enthusiasm to pursue your goals, to be able to approach those who may help you and to gain their assistance, you need to keep away from the 'mean'. Otherwise, sooner or later, you will end up joining their ranks and start bemoaning the fact that the world is being hijacked by the 'unworthy'.

WHICH has seldom been considered the hallmark of ANY sort of greatness! Not yet, anyway, thankfully.

The true possession?

Even when it comes to possessions, you cannot rest certain that your ideas will find a philosopher nod in agreement. I mean, yeah, one understands that they will not agree with you on virtues. After all, if you and they share the same ideas on virtues then exactly why are THEY philosophers and YOU just a mango person? But...possessions?

And, yet, here is Tiru out to tell you what is a true possession and what is not.

Udaiyavar enappaduvadhu ookkam aqdhilaar udaiyadhu udaiyaro matru - Titukkural

You possess only if you possess zeal; else do you truly possess what you possess? - Loose Translation

Ah! Actually, Tiru is more into defining whether you are a true possessor rather than whether what you have is a true possession. It is more like saying that what you think you possess is not really your possession because to possess anything at all you first need to possess zeal. Sounds sort of like Nityananda in his full glory, doesn't it? Quite unlike Tiru who really does not go in for these Zen type of statements that sound very profound but convey no meaning to you.

But, yeah, glimmers of light pierce that shroud. A simple understanding would be that if you have no zeal, you would take no active interest in your possessions. If you do not take interest in your possessions, do you even KNOW that you possess them? If you do not, does it even matter that some legal document says that you do?

To possess something is not merely to hold onto it. It is also to make use of it. If you own land and take no interest in it and someone else has encroached on it and is putting it to use, who really possesses that land? YOU or that chap who is currently in...err...possession? End of the day, he who is deriving benefit from something IS the guy who truly possesses it, not someone who just has a legal claim to it.

And, yes, that's just another way you will end up truly not possessing what you possessed. I mean, if you fail to take interest in what you possess, sooner or later someone else is going to take it off you without your consent or even, possibly, knowledge.

One can even go so far as to say that the man without zeal does not even possess his own life. I mean, unless YOU have a zeal for life, you are never going to seize the moment and do something with it; never going to live the day. So, then, have you truly lived?

Zeal, ardour, enthusiasm...call it what you will. You get the joy of your possessions only with it; without it all possessions are dross!

Covetousness repels wealth?

The thing about philosophers is that they assume that virtue is a magnet for all good things - including wealth. Quite contrary to the most common lament among us mango people - that it is our virtue that is keeping us poor while the wicked flourish like a green bay tree. But then, come on, do you honestly expect to be taught in your childhood that the path to success is to rob your uncle blind? Of course, they will tell you the virtues of hard work etc. including the benefits of not coveting other people's wealth.

As Tiru does here:

Aranarindhu vekkha arivudaiyaar serum tiranarindhu thaane tiru - Tirukkural

The goddess of wealth comes voluntarily to he who righteously covets not the wealth of others - Loose Translation

Well, so there. If you covet someone else's wealth, you need to do all the hard yards yourself - of finding a way to lining your pockets with his wealth. If, on the other hand, you stay righteous, wealth automatically flows to you. Really? Seems more like the sort of thing you say to keep men righteous.

And yet...maybe it is not like the wealth will just flow your way. Generally, you tend to apply your abilities in the direction of your wishes. So, if you covet someone else's wealth, you will tend to apply your mind to finding ways and means to try to get some, if not all of it, for yourself. That, obviously, means that you'll succeed only when the other guy is more stupid than you and also has no wise advisers.

Whereas, instead of looking around to see whose wealth you can covet, you concentrate on how YOU can make wealth for yourself...then your abilities are applied in that direction. Quite naturally, you could make your success happen for yourself without necessarily picking someone else's pocket for it.

Oh, yes, you are right! Success is not certain and wealth may not automatically flow to you. Poets and, yes, philosophers do tend to hyperbole. But then, do you really know what the success rate is when you try the covetousness route...AND the success rate of evading capture thereafter which you do not need to worry about? Except, of course, if you evaded taxes on that wealth that you earned!

Covetousness may not necessarily REPEL wealth, repulsive though the character of the covetous man IS. But it certainly ensures that you lose your chance of succeeding legitimately.

The temporary and the permanent

It is a tough world to live in, especially when you not only have to live a good life but should also be SEEN to live a good life. It is not enough that you BE happy, you have to be ACKNOWLEDGED to be happy. Otherwise, your happiness is...err...temporary, isn't it? Like, you put up a Insta reel showing how happy you are and nobody reacts to it at all. Are you even sure that you WERE happy when you put it up?

So, then, Tiru has this to say about the temporary and the permanent

Nilladhavatrai nilaiyina endrunarum pullarivaanmai kadai - Tirukkural

To see as permanent that which is ephemeral is the worst of ignorance - Loose Translation

So there. To not even realise something is ephemeral and shall not last is the worst thing for you according to Tiru. Think of it and it does seem logical, doesn't it? I mean, most people tend to work towards their own goals. When you fix those goals without even realizing whether they are worth pursuing is a sure-shot way to becoming a failure without even failing, if you get what I mean. Like, as a kid, if you chase being the best gilli-danda player in your area over doing well at school (OR even cricket) even if you succeed in your goal, you end up becoming a failure in life, no?

To know what is lasting and what is not IS of utmost importance. Like, in the above case, realising that being the best gilli-danda player in your area is not something you can continue to boast of in your twenties OR use to get into college on the sports quota...THAT also falls under this 'what is temporary and what is permanent' thingy. Easy as it is for parents to tell that to their children, it is tougher to recognize for themselves whether something is gilli-danda or cricket/academics when it comes to their own lives. I mean, say, the pleasure of telling off your boss vs your career etc (Where is it something temporary as just letting off steam OR as permanent as maintaining your self-respect?) OR getting a moderate raise vs spending time with your family OR...I mean, really, people find it tough to KNOW whether one more party with their friends is worth losing your spouse so what to talk of tougher choices?

The point IS that one should have a clear idea of what IS temporary to THEM and what IS permanent. I mean, I may feel that a career is worth more than the pleasure of an annual trip to the Himalayas; you may feel that life is short and it is far less likely that you will toil up the Himalayas in your sixties so it is now or never...ALL of that is individual taste and interests. BUT...you DO need to prioritize what IS permanent to you over what is temporary.

Of course, Tiru WILL go on to say 'Life is ephemeral and the soul flits from body to body so you need to seek the permanence of nirvana'. Which also has its kernel of truth if you do believe in the soul but, yeah, unless you ARE pushing my age you'd probably yawn and say, "Yeah, fine, see you later!" and that would be that.

If you fail, however, to properly assess the temporary and permanent in life...Most of those with talent who are unhappy about not having succeeded can look back on decisions where THEY failed to do this.

Regret tastes VERY bitter!