More fearsome than fire?

There are times when what the philosopher says is too tough to follow. AND there are these other times when the philosopher seems to consider as tough what you see as dead easy...simply because he fears what you think of as inconsequential things. Which is why it always seems like the philosophers seem to live in a different world altogether.

Tiru also acts in consonance with other philosophers. As in this...

Theeyavai theeya payaththalaal theeyavai theeyinum anjappadum - Tirukkural

Because evil deeds yield evil fruits, evil deeds are more fearsome than fire - Loose Translation

On face value, it all seems fine. Like the deeds pare 'evil', they yield 'evil' fruits and, therefore, they are to be feared. But, you know, real life is a lot more complicated than that.

I mean, like, what's the harm in bad-mouthing your competitor when that made it possible for you to get the promotion ahead of him? How has the guy got evil fruits when he hoodwinked his neighbor and bought his plot for a song? How does it...well, you get the picture. In real life (IRL, for those who do not get full words), it is a lot more difficult to understand what IS a 'evil' deed; tougher by far to accept that it yields 'evil' fruits; and, so, there is no question of fearing it more than fire.

The fact, though, is that you can earn a reputation for bad faith. It is also true that he who is untrustworthy finds it tough to trust others. You may live by the dictum that it is enough to follow the eleventh commandment - 'Thou shall not get caught' - but the point also is that you could largely be living a life which walks the tightrope of not getting caught. All this makes for a life where your human relations with others is less than satisfactory. Which does not make for a great life.

And, yet, there could well be some whose evil deeds have not yielded evil fruits. Whom Karma has not yet 'got'. Not outwardly where the world can see effects of the evil fruits and not even inwardly where the person could suffer insecurities, depression and loneliness. Maniacs of various sorts live among us after all. Tiru, when he makes his sweeping assertion that evil deeds beget evil fruits for the one who does them, is probably not taking into account these people.

But is it only the maniacs? More fearsome than fire only means the dangers of wild fire. AND humans...we seem to feel confident that we can even maintain tame nuclear fires. By extension, what would we think of 'evil deeds'...that we can evade the 'evil fruits'?

Perhaps there is a maniacal gene in all of us Homo Sapiens!

Patience wins?

The problem with advice is that it, almost invariably, runs counter to what you want to do. (I have said it before? Well, then, the other problem with advice is that it is not that you do not KNOW it. It is just that you find it tough to put it in PRACTICE.) There is no point in crying about it to the philosopher expounding it. He'd only say that, if it were easy, everyone in the world would be a huge success. It IS the difficulty that makes success rare. AND, if success were common, why then, you'd all be calling it failure, no?

So, it should not be shocking that Tiru says this...

Oruththaarkku orunaalai inbam poruththaarkku ponrun thunaiyum pugazh - Tirukkural

The joy of the ill-tempered lasts but a day; the even-tempered achieve everlasting fame - Loose Translation

The literal translation is probably 'the patient' not 'the even-tempered' but, in this context, I feel that the latter is more what Tiru meant than the former. That differentiation between patience and even temper is needed more because of how we visualise a patient person. You tend to see the patient person as someone who gets yelled at and put upon and bears with all that with a smile. AND such a person is seen as a victim, a...loser. Tiru is certainly not lauding the idea of someone who submits to all injustice without demur. No, Tiru is talking of something else.

Have you ever seen an argument between a irate person and a calm chappie? The angry chap gets red in the face, shouts, calls the other names and, in general, is trying to be hurtful. The calm guy talks reasonably, ignores all insults and is capable of repeating his arguments without letting the other guy get under his skin. AND, in the nature of all such arguments, it always ends inconclusively and the irate chap thinks he has won it because he got in the most insults. Neither of the two combatants change their opinions. But if you took a poll of the audience, in the event that they were previously undecided, which point of view do you think would have prevailed? More to the point, which of the two combatants would have gained respect?

Now THAT is what Tiru is talking about. AND he is talking about the sort of character that can stay stable and unmoved in the face of provocation and keep doing its thing resolutely. To get impatient and angry is also to concede defeat if you fail to forge ahead with the speed that you want; to be thrown off by opposition and be unable to persist in carrying people along; to give in to the short term satisfaction of giving the other a piece of your mind instead of bringing him around to your way of thinking. None of that helps you to be successful.

'Turning the other cheek' does not merely mean the physical action. If the physical action is coupled with resentment and suppressed anger, it will only lead to a devastating counter-action later on. What it does mean is the ability to turn the other cheek WITHOUT feeling that resentment, that anger. It is the ability to shrug off the intended insult, to show the other person that they do not have the ability to affect you, to hurt you. For, after all, resentment and anger arise only from feeling hurt, no? (AND, if you are a SAINT, to also feel empathy for the other person and his own hurt, his own anger. But then, if you WERE a saint, you'd not need to read this to know that.)

Lasting success only comes to those who have complete control over their emotions. THAT is what Tiru thinks will lead to everlasting fame. Now, is that what the management gurus call EQ these days?

Blame yourself?

The one thing you can be sure about philosophers is that they will find a way to make YOU the reason for your problems. Not for them the sympathetic posture when you rant about how the world is against you; nor do they lend an enthusiastic ear to how it is your jealous enemies who get in the way of your being feted wherever you go. No, they will always find out how YOU messed things up yourself.

In a way, it is true that it is boring to hear all those rants. After all, if the world IS against you, there must be some reason WHY it is; something about the way you interact with it. (Maybe it is just the fact that you are always whining causing people to scamper away the moment you are sighted at a distance). AND if 'jealous enemies' outnumber friends, is it possible that you are somehow to blame for it? THAT is the attitude that philosophers tend to take rather than agreeing with you about the unjust world or the heinousness of your enemies.

Tiru, being a philosopher, cannot be expected to be any different. Here he goes...

Pugazhpada vaazhaadhaar thannovaar thammai igazhvaarai novadhu evan - Tirukkural

They who fail to achieve success should blame themselves for the lack; why blame those who criticize them? - Loose Translation

In this context, I think 'fail to achieve success' is a better translation than the more literal translation of 'fail to live a famed life'. AND I have also considered 'those who criticize them' as more suited to context than the more literal 'those who hold them in contempt'.

You see, in any endeavour where you interact with the world, there is your action and there is the way the world reacts. OR there is the world acting and you reacting to it. The consequence is your success or failure in what you set out to do. There is no real percentage in blaming the world for what it does. If you want to succeed, you need to think of how to shape your actions in such a manner that you derive the desired reactions from the world. AND to modify your actions if your initial actions fail to get you desired responses. Only the naive or the mad expect the world to react (or act) as YOU expect.

AND, you see, criticism is how you are taught how you should modify your actions. A good teacher would gently point out your errors and help you improve without causing you hurt. The world, however, is not a good teacher; indeed, it is not even setting out to be your teacher. You get feedback and, if you learn from it, the world could reward you with success. If you fail to learn, you will fail, and the world will be totally indifferent to it. If you wait for the world to give you polite feedback and guidance to improve, why then you will likely wait forever.

And, so, Tiru says, a lot more politely, "What sort of idiot will blame the world instead of seeking to find what is wrong in his own actions and correcting them?" 

Take it or leave it or blame Tiru for criticizing you. He doesn't care.

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!