The best safeguard

There you are again. The 'best' has made its appearance. I think hyperbole is the term in poetry when exggeration is used to make a point. You are not allowed to say 'But...but...in that last poem, you said that something else was the best.'. People will groan and look at you as though you just crawled out from under a stone and did not have the grace to stay unnoticed. 

So, NOW, Tiru says...

Aatruvaar aatral igazhaamai potruvaar potralul ellam thalai - Tirukkural

The chief safeguard against ill is for the guardians to never slight the powers of those capable of implementing their will - Loose translation

In other words, the leaders/kings who have the responsibility of safeguarding the well-being of their community/nation need various measures to do their duty of guarding against ill. The foremost of those measures is to keep capable people happy by not insulting their abilities. Because, without those people applying their efforts, how are the other measures to be implemented?

So, yeah, one of the foremost abilities of leadership is delegation. AND for delegation to work you need capable people to whom you can delegate the work; and for those capable people to continue to be trustworthy and diligent you need to ensure that they know that you know their abilities and appreciate them. Failing which, you will lose their diligence or their presence itself.

Whether or not it is the best safeguard against ill befalling you and your community, I leave it to you.

No better virtue

I have had reason to say this about philosophers, especially philosopher-poets. They have this tendency to exaggerate the specific virtue or vice that they are talking of at the moment. Maybe it is something that is more true of this portion of the world. Like, you know, 'mother of all battles'. So, yeah, at any point in time, whatever we are talking of is the 'greatest virtue' or the 'worst evil' or whatever.

So, Tiru has this to say...

Puththe lulagaththum eendum peralaridhe oppuravin nalla pira - Tirukkural

No greater virtue exists in this world, or in the world of the gods, than benevolence - Loose translation

Yeah, I know, that sounds like a boomer uncle advice. But then Tiru antedates boomers by far, so he has the right to sound even more ancient than them. (I don't really know if benevolence is all that outdated considering that I have seen it in action in as late as the millenials. Though, yes, to be honest, ANY virtue these days seems to be solely expressed by vilifying those seen as bereft of the virtue than by being virtuous yourself.)

But, getting back to Tiru, he sees this attitude of seeking to do good to those around you as the biggest virtue...at least in this kural. Come to think of it, this one thing actually encompasses a whole host of virtues.

Firstly, you need to have empathy. See, Tiru is not talking charity here which can come after help is SOUGHT from you. He is talking benevolence...which does help those who seek help but ALSO sees the needs of others and helps without being sought. That requires empathy. To put yourself in their shoes and do what is needed by them.

Then it requires an element of selflessness. Whatever you give, you need to forego yourself. And, when Tiru places it so high, it is not merely because you would give what you yourself will not miss. It is because you will give even if at some cost to yourself. That willingness to sacrifice is why he exalts it so high.

Quite naturally, you cannot be benevolent while simultaneouly plotting to stab the other guy in the back. THAT would be a very peculiar type of benevolence indeed.

Thus, you see, you will find a multitude of virtues (I am sure you can build up that list for yourself beyond what I have listed) bundled into that single word - benevolence.

Perhaps Tiru was not exaggerating after all.

Destructive words

If there is a thing that almost all philosophers agree upon, it is the importance of controlling your tongue. Not surprising, really, since philosophers deal mainly in words that they should be very wary of how you speak words and the impact of ill-chosen words.

Tiru is no different. Especially when he says this...

Ondraanun theechchol porutpayan undaayin nandraaga dhaagi vidum - Tirukkural

If but one wrong word causes the smallest harm, all the good wrought by him will turn to evil - Loose Translation

Tiru allows for the fact that a misspoken word may not always be interpreted as causing harm. Thus, if in a negotiation, you use a wrong word, it may not always lead to hurt and its consequences. But, if you DO speak something hurtful AND it causes hurt in the other party, it has the potential to lose you the whole negotiation.

The problem with human interactions is that it almost always seems to exist on the basis of mutual mistrust. Each party strives to trust the other but falls back to distrust more easily than it leans forward into trust. This tendency to mistrust is stronger in some interactions and weaker in others...but, overall, it is easier to cause distrust than it is to gain trust.

AND exactly because distrust is easier than trust, a wrong word spoken at the wrong time causing hurt to the other has the potential to swing the entire mood of the interaction to distrust, thereby destroying the painstakingly built trust of all the work that preceded it.

It is not merely when groups of people are interacting with each other in negotiations. At the individual level, too, you build your friendships by building mutual trust. A person with a loose tongue will find it much more difficult to build and sustain good relationships, precisely because of his tendency to utter hurtful words.

Words are powerful. They need to be used with care.

Discardable friendships

You can never take anything for granted, especially with philosophers. I mean, there are these things that are almost holy cows. Things like love; like friendship. And, yet, you will find that philosophers will find a way to apply filters on them, like on everything else.

Like Tiru does here...

Paruguvaar polinum panbilaar kenmai perugalir kundral inidhu - Tirukkural

Enjoyable though the company may be, it is sweeter to diminish the friendship of the characterless than to allow it to flourish - Loose Translation

AND, thus, you can see that translation can be a bitch. I mean, I could have said 'Even if it be as much fun as a drinking bout, it's sweeter to reduce the friendship of the evil than to increase it'. But, then, I'd first of all get into unnecessary arguments about whether a drinking bout is actually fun or not. That's the problem with metaphors...and, these days, you cannot even use 'sweeter' without getting into debates about diabetes and carcinogens and what not.

Not to mention the fact that Tiru may not even have meant 'friendship of the evil' in this context. As in, yeah, it is true that the evil man IS to be shunned. People without integrity, who are undependable, who would cause intentional harm to those around  them either for their benefit or for their pleasure - people like that are to be avoided even if they are fun to be around when they want to be. But THAT is not all that Tiru is warning you about.

You see, how about the friend who loves having fun...and drags you along to movies even on the eve of important exams? How about a friend who loves experimenting on drugs and encourages you to 'live it up' without a care about possible future addiction? How about a friend who causes you to spend beyond your limits on frivolities while denigrating any impulse to caution?

You see, to CAUSE harm, people do not necessarily need to INTEND harm. It is enough that they are people who lack discipline and responsibility. Alas, these are the very guys who seem to be the most fun to be around. Till the time comes around to pay the bill. THEN you will know what irresponsible really means when YOU become answerable for their bills as well as yours. (AND I mean that metaphorically as well since all bills are not paid in money.)

It is best, therefore, to slowly withdraw yourself from such friendships before you get irrevocably dragged into the quicksand.

The priceless gem?

I have always been handicapped by the absence of an ability that people seem to take for granted. Like, if I am told 'Drop in any time', I take that as an invitation; people seem to understand it as a meaningless courtesy. I take words literally for what they mean. People seem to read in different meanings into the same words depending on when it is said; who is saying it; what their tone of voice is and so on and so forth. Never learnt all that, never will and now I have given up on understanding how to parse it and, even, why people do it.

So, yeah, when Tiru goes one step further and says this...

Kooraamai nokkak kuripparivaan enyandrum maaraaneer vaiyak kani - Tirukkural

He who, without words, understands with a look is a gem of this world girded by undrying seas - Loose Translation

I don't think that Tiru meant that such a person is but dross in a desert world like Dune. It's just that he needed to make a decent couplet of it and, so, rounded it off with that 'undrying seas'. So, I do not even have that solace. I mean, I cannot understand WITH words, so what are the odds that I'm going to understand with just a look at the other guy's face? So, yeah, no priceless gem, me!

I CAN understand how I might like that in a subordinate. I mean, there are times when you CANNOT say what you want. Like, you got this boring chap who's droning on and on; who you cannot unceremoniously chuck out; and then your assistant pops in saying that your boss wants you, just so you can give this bore a bum's rush without it appearing so...THAT's a benefit of having a guy who can understand a situation without your having to explain chapter and verse to him in single syllable words.

AND, perhaps, in Tiru's times, the King treasured a minister who could take a look at the frowning Queen's face and divine the cause of her anger AND find a way to redress the situation. (Yeah, yeah, any boss would like it but the Home Office concept does not give enough opportunities as the palace of yore did.) Given the almost congenital inability of men to understand their women, I can quite see how such a person would be counted as a Kohinoor among ministers.

The fact is that such a person will prove himself to be the most congenial of people and, thus, the most priceless. To be able to read the face to read the mood is to ensure that you do not speak the wrong words at the wrong time. That's not necessarily to be a lickspittle. It is to know WHEN to give the advice and how best to put it. The ability to know how the people around you are feeling is also the ability to be convincing because you will know how they are reacting to what is being said.

Alas! I'll be content to know what the words people say actually mean. Reading faces and tones and body postures...too much trouble!

Read the room?

There ARE these times when you really find that Eureka moment where you feel convinced that you can say, 'We did this way back in history'! This IS one of them where something modern has been said way back in history by one of our philosophers. Though, fact be told, in areas like management, nobody really finds out some truly innovative concept. They only find an innovative label. AND, alas, I cannot claim that we found that label way back in history.

You decide. Tiru said this...

Avaiyarindhu aaraaindhu solluga sollin thogaiyarindha thooimai avar - Tirukkural

After assessing their audience, the wise choose the most appropriate words to communicate their thoughts - Loose translation

There! It is not enough that you have the best ideas. You also need to know how to communicate them to the audience in front of you. AND, no, one size does not fit all.

Take knowledge for example. If you want to communicate economic ideas, say. To a bunch of other economists, it is easy to just talk of reducing rate of inflation...that, say, it has gone down from 6% to 4%. When faced with laymen, you are bound to be faced with the attitude, if not the open scepticism, that you are lying because how can the rate of inflation go down and the prices still increase. The idea that reducing inflation only means that the prices are increasing at a slower rate...now explain THAT!

OR, for that matter, trying to explain a policy measure of the Government to the people when the Government is popular is a totally different matter from doing it when the people are hostile. You see, people cannot understand nuanced policies AND, of course, they cannot be experts in all subject matters. So, more often than not, their reactions are based on whether they TRUST the Government and not based on the merits of the policy. (AND, by the same token, when you OPPOSE Govt., calling people blind followers is useless. It IS always the case, no? Isn't that why political speeches are always addressed to the emotions and not to the brain? You are trying to earn trust or seed distrust. AND mostly in language that does not seek to enlighten, only to enrage.) So, in a room of supporters, you just talk the policy up. In a room of opponents, you explain it in a manner that they find difficult to oppose.

So, yeah! Read the room before you speak. Tiru said so, long back. Now, is it the thought that counts or the label?

Laugh in the face of trouble?

Yeah, yeah, you are right. I AM going to start off by saying how philosophers talk of things that, on the face of it, seem insane. I mean, if you come across someone laughing, when something very distressing has happened to him, your first instinct is to say, "There, there, get a hold of yourself" and wave in a paramedic with a sedative injection, if not a straitjacket.

Too late for Tiru who is not around for your kindly ministrations. Here he goes...

Idukkan varungaal naguga adhanai aduththoorvadhu aqdhoppa dil - Tirukkural

Smile in the face of distress; there's no more powerful weapon against trouble - Loose Translation

So there. When you are faced with distress, laughing at it is the most powerful weapon against it, according to Tiru. It's probably not as insane as it sounds. In fact, it seems like the sort of thing you pay good money to a psychologist to hear.

Think for a sec. What happens when you are faced with any sort of hardship? You may grieve or feel hopeless or become depressed. AND...as a consequence of those overwhelming feelings, you give up on living. As in, you give up on actively engaging with the world, working to set things right. The melancholy of distress freezes you into a stasis where you get frozen into that moment - of loss or defeat or pain - without the energy to move on. Which ensures that the distress defines you going forth.

To be able to laugh at it...that probably is hyperbole. Of course, if you CAN, you make the entire problem much smaller and, thus, you find that you have the ability to deal with it with relative ease. You know, that things about holding a stone close to your eyes and seeing it as a mountain vs holding it away and seeing it for the stone that it really is. What's the word? Mmmm...Ah...Perspective! Distance yields perspective. AND to hold onto the pain ensures that you cannot distance yourself enough from the problem to see it in perspective.

Even if the hurt is too high for you to laugh at it, it's better if you can avoid any distress from overwhelming you. To be able to look on a thing rationally instead of letting emotions overwhelm you...THAT's the best way to deal with distress. Once you steady your mind, you'll find that the distress becomes manageable and will eventually disappear.

If you, indeed, have the ability to see the funny side of things, to be able to find truly something to laugh at, THEN indeed are you equipped with the most powerful of weapons against all distress. Though, yeah, you may also invite that sedative or straitjacket!

The easy way to virtue?

Sometimes, very rarely, philosophers do manage to make things easy. Or, at least, things sound easy. Surprisingly easy, because in the normal course, the advice they offer is the sort that is nice to spread around but not really worth applying in your own life. Because, to try doing so will involve the sort of effort that you are incapable of putting forth. If you could, you'd hardly be still needing advice.

Like, when Tiru says this...

Enpadhaththaal eidhal elidhenba yaarmaattum panbudaimai ennum vazhakku - Tirukkural

To be accessible to everyone is the easiest way to become a man of virtue - Loose Translation

Actually, 'man of virtue' is a slippery concept. In this context, it could mean various things - trustworthy man, courteous man, what have you. Tiru, I think, means that you will develop into all of it, perhaps over time.

The thing I object to is the fact that what Tiru thinks as easy is vastly different from what I think of as easy. It sounds simple to 'be accessible to everyone.' But just think...you need to be patient and open-minded with that crank who finds fault in what anyone does; you need to give an attentive ear to that man who consistently needs a shoulder to cry upon; you need to learn to ease the mental burden of someone by listening to their problems which you may not be able to solve. AND, most of the time, you yourself may be under the stress of your own problems but should be able to set them aside for the time being.

Like everyone else, you have only twentyfour hours a day to live in. AND, yet, you cannot see all these others as people who are interrupting your life. Because, that way, you will be impatient with them and 'not be accessible' to them. This accessibility is, in other words, a deep empathy for humanity in general which allows you to treat them like you would wish to be treated yourself if you were in their shoes. IF you can really manage that, you would BE a person of virtue. Because that empathy will not allow you to cheat them; would lead you to help as much as you can; and, thus, to really BE a man of virtue.

Yeah...but to call that practice of genuine empathy easy? Whatever was Tiru smoking?

Subtract your faults first?

And there is this story about how the King asked for a way to achieve something impossible and the Philosopher gave him a magic potion to do it...which would work only if the King did not think of mangoes (slot in anything in the place of mangoes as you please) for the next three days. AND, as you may have guessed, the King, who had never in his life bothered to think of mangoes before, could not help obsessing about them for the next three days. THAT, sometimes, is the way their advice works...ask you to do the impossible if you want results.

Like Tiru here...

Thankutram neekkip pirarkutrang kaangirpin enkutra maagum iraikku - Tirukkural

Faultless is the leader who first assesses and removes his own faults before judging the faults of others - Loose Translation

Of course, Tiru said 'king' and not 'leader' but the advice is about leadership, so...

You can see this multiple ways. If, for example, there has been a failure of governance, it is for the leader to see how his own mistakes had contributed to the failure. Having clearly assessed his own contribution to the issue, he can then see how the failure was caused by others. In other words, you need to see if your strategy was erroneous first. IF it was, there is no real point in getting after the guys who were only implementing it. To rectify things, a clarity of where the fault lies is important and if the fault lies in the leadership, then THAT is what needs correcting.

You can see this as a character issue. IF the leader identifies his own faults - lack of knowledge, lack of specific qualities of leadership etc - and learns how to correct them first before he starts judging others, who can fault him thereafter? Like, when the leader is honest enough to identify and work on his own flaws, it is hard to blame him when he gets after you for your flaws. (You know, the standard thing of 'As though HE is always right' etc does not work very well when you can see him working on what HE got wrong!)

The whole problem with this entire proposition is that you can file it under 'Easier said than done'! I mean, how many people have YOU met who can be clear headed and honest enough to admit that THEY may be wrong? Are we not all made perfect and sent down by God only to suffer failure because of all the imperfect idiots that He surrounded you with? How can WE ever be wrong?

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!

The greatest person?

I had recently read a piece about how we have become a society hunting greatness. That greatness had somehow translated to being the 'best', which makes all 'ordinary' people 'losers'. Such a strange and nonsensical thing to propagate and believe in. I mean, the 'best', by definition is one person or, at best, a few. If everyone else, other than a handful (sportsmen, actors, politicians, Start-up founders, CEOs, influencers, yada yada), is to be considered a loser where does it leave all of us? AND is it even possible for that handful to exist without the rest of the 'losers' doing their bit? Where would all of us be but for the farmers, medical personnel, educators...and how many of them can you name in your list of 'winners'? Why, nowadays, even your vacations and your eat-outs are in a competition to win, so what exactly can you do to de-stress? A rat-race at office, a rat-race on your holidays, a rat-race between your children and the neighbor's...

Tiru has this to say...

Karumam seyaoruvan kaidhooven ennum perumaiyin peedudayadhu il - Tirukkural

There is none greater than the man who says 'I will not cease my efforts to do my duty' - Loose Translation

The context in which Tiru says is about a family man, so that 'duty' translates to duty to his family in this case. So, Tiru holds that man as great who will put in all efforts in the service of his own family. Does it seem like elevating selfishness? Not really, not if you parse the message properly.

How does a man serve his family the best? In Tiru's times, it was not just making it rich but also ensuring that the family was respected in his Society. NOT the times where you lived in cities where nobody really knew you, remember? It was a time when everyone knew everone else in the neighborhood, so it was not just your wealth but also HOW you earned it which mattered.

So, how does a man earn wealth other than by contributing to Society by his efforts? Wealth that will gain respect for him from his neighbors? So, the process of his earning wealth means contributing to society in goods or services. Essentially, these multiple ordinary hands which are the building blocks of society and which prop up the 'winners'.

Tiru, therefore, holds everyone who does his duty with full dedication as equally great...and holds none greater than them.

Nice...but is that the Society we live in? Shouldn't we or should we?

Fear leads to virtue?

I had reason to mention before that Indian philosophers place more importance on motives than on action. The thing is you can hardly ever understand someone else's motives. You can only see him act. So, yeah, if the chap pockets your money or stabs you in the back, you will automatically classify him as untrustworthy. You will not try to psychoanalyse him and determine his motives before hating on him. The thing is (a) not everything is as clear as that. Sometimes, understanding actions depends on context, no? AND why so? Because context determines motives; and (b) What about YOUR own actions? Do you hide behind the fact that your actions were virtues - telling the truth, doing your duty etc - when your motives were false? Pulling down your competitors, following illegal orders for raises and promotions etc? YOU do not claim that you do not know your own motives, do you?

AND Tiru says this...

Achchame keezhgaladhu aacharam echcham avaavundael undaam siridhu - Tirukkural

The base man's virtuous actions are grounded in fear; what remains will be based on greed - Loose translation

So, Tiru holds that an evil man behaves in a virtuous manner only out of fear. Fear of punishment, fear of social opprobium, fear of loss and so on. If that fear does not exist, then his virtues would vanish. Basically, all of fear starts from the fear of getting caught. If you do not get caught, none of the other things can materialise, no? So, then, see the behavior of people when they do not fear getting caught and you can understand how virtuous they really are. How do they behave in mobs? Do they loot in times of disaster? Virtue which exists when there is no fear of getting caught and no material consequences to committing vice...THAT is true virtue.

Tiru also holds that there may be SOME virtuous actions committed by the evil man even when fear does not propel him. AND those actions will be based on greed. Where the acts of virtue will beget him more benefits than the costs. The charity of those who do it only for power in Society, say. The middlemen who help you with what you need from Govt...for a price. And so on.

In fact, most men seem to balance fear and greed. The costs that are inherent in getting caught versus the benefits. THAT calculus runs Society all the time...or so it seems.

Actions, therefore, are no true guide to identify virtuous people. Motives are.

But...does anyone really want virtuous people these days? I mean, between a base man who can get you your license to open a school and a virtuous man who will ask you to do the honest thing and have you run from pillar to post...

Maybe Tiru's times were way different after all.

Ain't it just telling the truth?

AND there are these times that these philosophers take up a concept that you thought you understood very well and turn it on its head. Or spin it in a different direction. Or...you know what I mean. They give it a meaning that you never thought could be applied to it. And you stand in front of them, mouth agape, mumbling 'But...but...but...' like an idiot. Which, I suppose, gratifies them no end.

I am sure Tiru had a smug smile on his face when he did that exact thing when he said this...

Vaaimai enappaduvadhu yaadhenin yaadhondrum theemai ilaadha solal - Tirukkural

Honesty is that which says nothing that will cause evil - Loose Translation

So there. You thought all you had to do was to tell the truth to be held honest? Not so. Or so Tiru says.

I don't really think that Tiru means to call you dishonest or blame you merely because your telling the truth caused inadvertent harm. Note that word 'inadvertent'. If you did not SEEK to do harm or cause hurt, Tiru probably thinks of you as honest.

BUT...if your intent WAS to cause harm or to give hurt and you used the truth to do so then Tiru does not think you are honest. What you SAID may be true but WHY you said it makes you dishonest. Like, say, calling someone a fool in public, for example. Truth? Perhaps. Honest? Tiru says no. All the back-biting, the trolling, and so on may all be true but are they honest?

Indian philosophy places a great deal of importance on the motives for actions; not the actions alone. When Krishna says Arjun should do his dharma and killing his relatives will not stain him, what he means is that when Arjun does what he has to do with his mind devoid of personal motivations, he will not be stained by sin. A person is judged for WHY he did what he did. (Oh, yeah, and do not come with ANYONE will say that he did it for his dharma. I mean, we are talking SIN here and you accept it, so go that one step further and accept GOD will know the truth. I mean, if there is no GOD there is no concept of SIN too, no?)

AND so if your motives for saying the truth is to cause harm, then what you said may still be the truth. But YOU will be counted as dishonest!

Austerities - Easy?

Have you noticed how philosophers seem to find it so simple and easy to do what is needed for whatever problem you want them to address? You want success? Simple, they say, and give you a six word mantra - like six Hs of success - Honesty, Hard Work, Humility, Helpfulness,  Hearing (You know, listening to others, to experts and so on. I NEED a word starting with 'H', don't I?) and Holding Fast (I'd call it perseverance but it does not fit into the six 'H' thingy). You go off nodding, eager to try it all out, and find that each one of those is oh-so-difficult to practise. Almost all advice seems to belong in the easier-said-than-done category.

So, when Tiru says this...

Utranoi nondraluyirkkurukan seyyaamai atrae dhavaththir kuru - Tirukkural

To patiently endure his own suffering and to cause no pain to others is all there is to Austerities - Loose Translation

You know those ascetics who lead an extremely simple life eschewing all pleasures and live with a mind focused on God? What they do is what is meant by 'Dhavam'. Whether the entirety of that meaning is captured by 'Austerities' I leave it to you but, in this post, THAT is what 'Austerities' mean.

Tiru says that all you have to do is to endure your own suffering without complaint and to avoid giving any pain to others...THAT is the essence of dhavam. So simple, no?

Think, then, of the word endurance. It means that you just live with your pain/suffering without ranting and raving at someone who you think is to blame for it. Easy, yeah? When you cannot even withstand the weather without cursing the Sun, those responsible for climate change, the current government, yada yada. Think then of going out for alms and having someone refuse it with contempt for you? Can you see yourself smilingly bless him still? Think of someone trolling you when you are giving a speech? Can you avoid reacting to that hurt? Think of...you get the point.

You can patiently endure the weather only as long as the power is on and the airconditioner functioning. So, this patient endurance is not as simple a thing as it seems. It involves a total revamp of your character.

As for not causing hurt to anyone...of course it is easy. You are no sadist and only wish well for everyone. Till, say, someone tells you that the other guy is getting the promotion which you were aspiring to get. Or your neighbor says something that hurts your ego. Or when you can retain your job prospects only if you blame that other person. Or when the other guy shows contempt for your leader...

See, more often than not you always have reason to say that the other guy hurt you first. But does Tiru say that you should not cause pain only to those who do not cause you pain? Nope...and therein lies the problem. To adhere to the second requirement of 'Austerities' you need to necessarily be able to patiently endure suffering first. AND, also, be mindful of not causing hurt inadvertently which means you have to live a life of empathy. THAT means completely eliminating your own ego and live a life where everyone and everything is as important to you as your own self.

Does not seem as simple to do these Austerities, now, does it? These philosophers, I tell you...

The light of life

There are times that one thinks of philosophers as being dry as dust. You know, most times they are talking about hard work and dedication and so on and so forth. All things of the brain and you see them as having made no allowance for emotions at all. Yeah, they scatter around words like love or affection but those are rare occassions and, almost invariably, they tie it in to success and things like that. So, I'm sure you see 'light of life' and you think that, at last, there is a glimmer of emotion here.

Well, in this Kural, Tiru does talk of emotion but...

Olioruvarku Ulla Verukkai Iliooruvarku Aqdirandhu Vaazhdhum Enal - Tirukkural

What lights up your life is your enthusiasm; to even think of living without enthusiasm is shameful - Loose Translation

See what I mean? Enthusiasm MAY be an emotion but it is not exactly what you and I think of as an emotion, right? I mean it is not love or hate or joy or sorrow or...I know you know!

But Tiru does have a point you know. You need a reason to want to get up in the morning. If you have never had a time in your life when you go to sleep eager for the dawn, then you have hardly lived. I mean, at least because of those emotions - to want your next meeting with your significant other, you should have had those days. AND, if those days WERE there in your life and ARE no longer, life must be feeling drab.

To want to get back such days, to strive to find some interest that makes you jump out of bed...THAT's living. (NOT in the SAME way, thank you. To chase after a disinterested ex is not living.) To give up on life and just meander from day to day...that's mere existing, not living.

Animals only exist cos that's the way they are made. To be human and to live no better than an animal - that's what Tiru calls shameful. So, one should pick up the light of enthusiasm and brighten the rest of your days.

The pillars of goodness

There is a problem with some philosophical concepts. Goodness, for one? I mean, do people still seek to be good? Or is it all sunk in the cynical attitude that being rich will automatically cause you to be seen as good? When one goes around scattering advice, it is important to know whether the goals to which your advice ostensibly leads are even considered as desirable these days. Or will it be like you telling what to do to become a great coder when the other chap thinks that coding is for AI.

So, yeah, Tiru said this but is it worth it for me to say it too?

AnbuNaan Oppuravu Kannottam Vaaimayodu Aindhusaal Oondriya Thoon - Tirukkural

Love, shame of sinning, benevolence, helpful friendliness and integrity are the five pillars of exemplary people - Loose Translation

Let us get rid of words and meanings, first. Love here is not romantic love but the sort of love that you can have for all people around you. AND this 'saal' which is a form for 'saandranmai' is a toughie really. Sandraanmai can mean the wise, the great etc. I have called them, in short, the exemplars - people who can be held up as an example to Society at large.

To be an exemplar, you need to love your fellow human being. Which is another way of saying that you cannot be self-centered but open to care for all others. Even the idea of sinning should cause you to feel shame. You need to be benevolent to Society at large and a helpful friend to those close to you. Above all, you should possess personal integrity. THAT, in short, is what Tiru says. The sort of easy five steps that rolls off your tongue easily but is infinitely harder to practise.

But, then, whoever said that becoming great was a cakewalk?

Burden seeks the strong?

You often hear that God does does not burden you more than you can bear; when life keeps throwing curveballs at someone it is because he has the ability to hit them for home runs. (Hmm! WHY do you do this? No clue about baseball and you want to use baseball metaphors?) It is not only God, apparently, who does this to you. Even Society behaves in like fashion apparently.

Tiru has this to say about it.

Amaragaththu Vankannar Polath Thamaragaththum Aatruvaar Metre Porai - Tirukkural

Like the soldier who takes the responsibilty in the battlefield, the man with the strength to handle responsibility is handed the burden - Loose Translation

In any social circumstance, have you seen most people jump up to handle responsibility? Especially when they do not have the legal or moral obligation to take it on themselves? (Like, you cannot really skedaddle when the problem relates to your job or your child, no? Unless you can shove it off on a colleague or your spouse, respectively.) More often than not, even people who claim to take on the responsibility only want the authority. Other people are content with the right to criticize. Most people, though, are happy to not be noticed when the problem crops up or when it is getting solved.

AND, thus, the chap who volunteers for it OR has proven his ability in sorting problems in the past IS the chap who the community shoves the job on. Much like you push that soldier into the van of the army to take the brunt of the attack. In a way, the reward for handling responsibility well is, almost invariably, more responsibility.

This, then, means that Tiru is not exactly enthusing people who do the hard yards. It seems more like a warning about being the strong pillar of society. Except, yes, if you want to become a leader, and have the misfortune of not being born in the right family, the way to get noticed is to be the man who seeks responsibility.

Otherwise, you can see this Kural as merely a warning. THAT a display of strength could end up as an invitation to be burdened!