Wasted by saving?

Sometimes, the advice of philosophers seems to be counter-intuitive. Like, your common sense says one thing and the philosopher says the diametric opposite of that. And also claims that the guidance of your common sense will lead to disaster. It is times like this that you feel that they inhabit a different universe where, probably, even the laws of physics do not align with what you know of the world.

Like, who could ever claim that spending conserves wealth better than saving? AND, yet, Tiru says here...

Seyarpaala seyyaa dhivariyaan selvam uyarpaala dhandrik kedum - Tirukkural

Wealth accumulated by not spending on what is needed will end up being destroyed - Loose Translation

I think some such thing has been discussed in these annals before. Not all spending is wasteful and not all saving is desirable. Let us take some truly absurd examples. If you fail to spend on doors, locks and guards, for example, can you hold your wealth safe or will you get robbed? If you confuse investments with expenditure and hoard everything in cash, will you not be allowing inflation to eat away at your wealth?

Wealth HAS to be put to use in order for it to grow, no? If you own lands, do you not have to spend money on seeds, fertilisers and labor to make productive use of it? Is keeping the land fallow, because you prefer not to spend money, the best way to safeguard your wealth?

Or, for that matter, stinting on food for your family...is THAT going to save you wealth or lead to serious expenses later - on medical complications? (Without even arguing about what is the purpose of wealth that does not even get used to feed you.) IF you refuse to spend money on your children's education, will that lead to formation of generational wealth or to the dissipation of it?

Not all spending is wasteful and not all saving is desirable. To keep the balance, without leaning too far in either direction, is the best way to safeguard wealth.

AND what is wealth if it cannot be used to make you happy? But THAT is an argument for another day.

Pat not thine own back?

Philosophers just cannot bear to see you happy. Or so it appears, going by the fact that anything that makes you happy is prominent on their list of things that you should never do. It is like they exist only to rain  copiously on your parade. And, yet, the problem is that once they say something, the dratted advice sticks like a burr in your brain and does not allow you to go about your merry way, ignoring the itch.

Like, Tiru says this...

Viyavarkka ennyaandrum thannai nayavarkka nadri payavaa vinai - Tirukkural

Indulge not in self-praise nor do anything that does not yield benefits - Loose Translation

So, there you go. You are not even allowed to pat yourself on your own back. Of course, it hardly requires saying that doing things that yield no benefits is idiotic but...I mean, a lot of times people DO do things that yield no benefit to their organisation or their families or their community. AND they do such things just to show that they CAN do such things. I mean, like, think of Tiru's times. We are talking of kings and the like and they WERE prone to doing things just to show off.

I think that this Kural is not rambling, like it seems at first sight. It is not a couple of unrelated pieces of advice - about not praising yourself and not doing useless things - bunged into one couplet just to make it a couplet. No, I think that the advice is about not getting too enamoured of yourself and doing things of no use to the community merely to show off your own wealth/power/whatever.

To feel pride in your achievements where the achievements are assessed based on completion of legitimate goals desired by the community is probably not what Tiru is railing against. When you set yourself above the community, feel that you are indispensable, and throw your weight around...THEN Tiru gets in the way of your joy.

But, then, in this day and age, if you do not blow your trumpet loud and often who will even know you exist?

Not just for 'Likes'?

Sometimes, it seems like philosophers define things way different from the way we know and understand them. I do not mean that they say the same things in a Tharooresque manner, leaving us gasping in the dust behind them. No, what I mean is that they seem to have a whole new idea of things that gives this sort of 'We are from Mars, they are from Venus' vibe. Not the 'man' and 'woman' thing but this idea that their thought processes are from a different universe.

Like, Tiru when says this...

Nagudhar poruttandru nattal migudhikkan mersendru idiththar poruttu - Tirukkural

Friendship is not merely to have fun but to reprove when you stray from your path - Loose Translation

Really? Having fun, making you feel happy...is that not the sum and substance of having friends. Isn't that why you gravitate to friends and away from family, especially in your teens? What's the point if friends also start reprimanding you and start giving you advice instead of supporting you, no matter how stupid you are being? If some friend does that, don't you react with, "You are not my dad, so keep that to yourself?" I mean, like, everyone has a role in your personal life and you do not want a friend to be playing your father's role, no?

Well, if you are jumping into a deep dry well, should a friend say 'Don't' or should he take a reel and post it on Insta? When it is starkly dangerous things, it is easier to see the benefit of a 'reprimanding' friend. How about when you want to skip studying the day before an important exam and go to a pub? How about wanting to try narcotics for the first time, say? There are times in your life when you would only listen to a friend and not to parents. There are times when you are intending to do something dangerous and only friends are in a position to know and to try to stop you. AND if all you have are friends with whom you have fun...

Ah, but THAT was Tiru's time. NOW...you merely unfriend the guy who does not agree with everything you say or do; call them trolls and eventually surround yourself only with people with whom you can have fun.

THAT has a name too. Echo Chamber.

Friendships -Waxing and waning

Like motherhood and apple pie (use the culture-appropriate food item. I'm not getting into the 'Idli vs Aloo Poha vs Poori-bhaji' debate), friendship is something that you have to put on a pedestal and worship. You are not allowed to even think of the possibility that friendship is not all that it is cut out to be. If it fails you, it could not be friendship, no? But if more friendships fail than those that stick, does it not argue for the fact that friendship itself is not something you can lean back on with total confidence?

Tiru has this to say...

Niraineera neeravar kenmai piraimadhip pinneera pedhaiyar natpu - Tirukkural

The friendship of the wise waxes like the new moon; that of the foolish wanes like the full moon - Loose Translation

This one seems to have a lot of underlying assumptions, really. You need to understand that the friendship itself is genuine in both cases and what Tiru is talking here is about its stability. Like, a wise man who holds you in contempt is not necessarily a better friend than a foolish man who respects you. So, you need to assume that both are actually your friends to start with. Plus, of course, you need to understand that 'wise' does not mean merely 'clever' or even 'intelligent'; it also means a man with the right character (IQ as well as EQ as well as morality), else he could be someone who could end up making use of you for his own ends. Not really a sign of a growing friendship.

So, then, why is it that the wise man's friendship will keep growing whereas the foolish man's friendship will wither away? Don't you talk out your problems with your friends and seek advice? If you take a foolish man's advice and end up with serious problems, are you going to feel as friendly as before? Don't your friends also seek your help? Would a foolish man not get into a lot more trouble, insistently ask help that you cannot give, and mess up the relationship? Who would be more prone to misunderstand a passing comment, be susceptible to rumours and keep testing the friendship till it breaks? 

With the wise, generally, you reach a point where you tacitly know what can be expected of each other and that builds trust; with the foolish, the boundaries of friendship are perpetually tested leading to a situation where the relationship breeds more tension than comfort. Which is why you'll prefer avoiding the person rather than seeking them out.

There is the tacit assumption that I have not mentioned yet. An assumption that all of us make readily and are never aware of making...

That YOU yourself are not the 'fool' in your relationships!