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!

The greatest honor

Philosophers, as I have had reason to say before, have the habit of using 'greatest' lavishly. Not just philosophers, these days. After all, one sees 'Greatest Of All Times' scattered around like confetti these days. Virat Kohli is GOAT, simultaneously Suryavanshi is GOAT and so on and so forth. So, yeah, I think that we have no real cause to laugh at philosophers for calling one character trait great today and another tomorrow, do we?

So, Tiru says this and I will not listen to anyone talking of what he said yesterday or day before...

Karumam Seyaoruvan Kaidhooven Ennum Perumaiyin Peedudaiyadhu IL- Tirukkural

Nobody deserves the highest honors more than he who unceasingly persists in his duty to his family and community - Loose Translation

Well, Bhagavad Gita probably has something to say on similar lines. Though, the Gita inclines more to telling a person how to achieve spiritual heights than honors on Earth. This 'doing his duty to his family and community' would translate to doing his dharma in the Gita.

The 'unceasingly persists' part requires some understanding. When would you want to 'cease'  the most? Is it not when you despair of succeeding in goals? I mean, when you cease to see it as your duty - your dharma - and start looking to measuring the goals...THAT's when the thought of ceasing enters your mind, no? Do you, for example, think about 'ceasing' eating; get bored with breathing? When dharma is a part of your being, an instinctive set of actions that you do not think about exercising a choice about...IS that not what the Gita says in 'Karmanyeva adhikaraste...'? So, to persist in doing something regardless of obstacles...THAT is extremely laudable, no? (AND do not start off on stupidly doing things over and over without considering if it is workable. Your 'duty to family and soceity' does not mean stubbornly doing unproductive things. You'd see your duty as 'logistics', say, and not as driving a bullock cart.)

Tiru, in a way, is indicating that what works for Nirvana would as well work for honors in the mundane world. Who am I to oppose him when he is backed by the Lord of the Universe?

Restraint and Virtue

When philosophers get to talking about the prerequisites for virtue, you can expect one of two reactions. The 'So what else is new?' reaction is more common. Because, you have heard it from childhood and from people who, in their actions, seem well versed in ignoring that advice. The other one, more polite perhaps, is where the person says 'Oh! THAT may have been true in your times. The world has changed now' where you are actually being given the credit for not exactly being wrong. Only out of step with the times.

Tiru says this...

Kadhamkaaththu katradangal aatruvaan sevvi arampaarkkum aatrin nuzhaindhu - Tirukkural

Virtue enters the life of the man who controls his anger, possesses learning and practises restraint - Loose Translation

Actually, this is where the modern chappies pop in and asks, "Who really wants virtue? It's success we want and, if virtue happens to come in, fine. Otherwise..." The problem, though, is that people forget that 'success', in any time, happens to involve social recognition.  And THAT, it so happens, is a function of how people view you. Of course, it is also true that even other forms of success - money, power, what have you - will require people helping you along the way and for that to happen you need to be looked upon as...err...virtuous, though they will not exactly use that term. 'Good team man', 'has leadership qualities' and so on...what's all that but people seeing you as possessing the necessary virtues?

So, yeah, you do need to possess learning, that's almost a given. (Call it skill-set or whatever, if it makes you feel all modern). But you need also to ensure that the learning does not give you a swollen head. Restraint, in this sense, also means that you should keep a rein on your tendency to go all 'I know more than you do'. In a sense, restraint is a leash on your ego. Being confident is one thing, being arrogant is another. So, alongside the learning, you also need to practise humility.

Now, actually, if you succeed in controlling your ego, controlling anger is almost redundant. Most of anger arises out of hurt ego and, well, that's exactly what is less likely to happen if your ego is controlled. But since the whole thing is a process and you ought not to allow your anger free rein till such time as you control your ego....

AND, really, controlling your ego till such time as you end up losing it altogether is what Indian spirituality is all about. So, of course, virtue walks in if you succeed.

Equanimity

Freedom from the pair of opposites is a phrase that resonates specifically through Indian philosophy. The most common opposites that are mentioned are Pleasure-Pain, Comfort-Discomfort, Victory-Defeat, Honor-Disgrace, Attachment-Aversion etc. AND, yes, to those who would contend that happiness IS a goal for humans, and to be indifferent to Joy and Sorrow is ceasing to really live, the reply is that the goal is Bliss in the form of Nirvana. Sort of like, if you had to give up the pleasure of drinking today in order to become the CEO tomorrow, what would you choose? (YOU could choose to drink. The point, as I have mentioned before, is that Philosophers guide you to what THEY think is the desirable goal.)

Try to understand what Tiru says, given this context...

Atremendru allaR padubavo petraemendru ombudhal thaetraa dhavar - Tirukkural

Would he who clung not to his wealth grieve if he lost it? - Loose Translation

Yeah, yeah, I can hear that jeering laugh. If you fail to cling to your wealth, obviously you are going to lose it to some Nigerian millionaire or digital arrest or some such. (These days, nobody considers the possibility that you may lose it because of your generosity. If I suggested it, I'd end up becoming the subject matter of memes.) Then what would be the point in grieving it?

Tiru, though, has other meanings for that 'clung not to his wealth'. What he means is that you have not made your wealth your identity; not made it the core of your self-respect; not surrounded yourself with only those who respect you for your wealth. In other words, if you had considered your wealth as merely a possession and not the core of your personality OR your social position, you'd not grieve the loss of your wealth.

Think of, say, an author or a composer or a painter or a sculptor...their art is their identity, not their wealth. AND, if such a person, embraced the act of creation as his identity and not the successes that come out of it...would losing wealth cause him grief?

Think, then, of wealth as a metaphor for anything external that earns you social position. Your official position, your professional popularity, whatever. As long as you keep that at arms length from your own sense of identity; as long as you can understand the difference between people who like and respect YOU and those who respect your POSITION and treat the latter as unimportant...THEN you can retire without feeling a vacuum; lose that popularity and still be happy.

THAT, then, is what Tiru means. True happiness lies within. To cling to what you get from the world leaves you open to the grief that inevitably follows when the world denies it to you.

Vanishing obstacles?

Sometimes, phlilosophers seem to attribute magical powers to character traits. It's as though they think that, say, perseverance is like a magic wand that can blaze a path to success; that politeness is a trick of mesmerism that will convert foes to friends; that...oh, well, I suppose you know all that. The fact that almost ALL philosophers do that leads you to think that there must be some method to this madness; some reason why it is done this way.

The thing is that, as I may have mentioned before in these annals, that there IS a certain element of exaggeration to philosophic advice. Like, for example, they seldom say that 'Hard work is ONE of the contributors to success'; they will always say 'Hard work is THE path to success'. THAT is not to say that they lie; they just know that you and I, given a list of traits that are needed for success, will see no harm in skipping a few of them if they seem too hard. We'd think that there is no harm in leaving out a couple when we are doing all the rest. Somehow, the thought that, though ONE of that list may not guarantee success, leaving out one of them can guarantee failure does not cross our minds. AND so, these wise men have to exaggerate every time.

So here Tiru goes...

VeLLath thanaiya idumbai arivudaiyaan uLLaththin uLLak kedum - Tirukkural

A tsunami of troubles vanish when a wise man resolutely assesses and faces them - Loose Translation

See what I mean? Miracles. You stand up to a tsunami of troubles and, presto, they vanish like the morning mist. Does that even seem credible?

Well, look at it this way. When troubles come at you from all fronts and you see them as a tsunami, you have put yourself in a state where you have already decided that they are insurmountable. So, you are not even seeking to find a solution for them. If, on the other hand, you face up to them with the resolution to solve them, you have ceased to see them as a tsunami and are rationally trying to analyse them and solve them. So, yes, in that sense, the tsunami has vanished leaving behind problem(s) to be sorted.

When you do analyze, you may find that there are multiple small problems to be sorted...not one giant tsunami which is drowning you. That leaves you with what you will see as several manageable issues that can be readily sorted. Which can relieve you of the stress that the 'tsunami' caused in your mind. Ergo, there never WAS a tsunami except what your own mind conceived.

AND, yes, there ARE times when what happens IS a tsunami. But facing it resolutely will ensure that you come through the other end without getting drowned. The tsunami would have vanished leaving you a stronger person in its wake.

THAT, then, makes it seem less like Tiru is promising miracles. He is only telling you that the easiest way to getting drowned in problems is to see them as a tsunami of obstacles. The best way to tackle them is to, first, APPROACH them as something to be tackled and not as a sea of troubles.

After all, there is such a thing as self-fulfilling prophecy.

'Motive' power?

The point of all philosophy is to motivate you in the right direction. (What is the right direction? The direction that the philosopher prefers, of course. I mean, really, do you expect a Karl Marx to teach you how to become a Warren Buffet?) Quite naturally, they have a very high opinion of motivation...as in, the importance of your being motivated to do what you set out OR what they push you to do.

And, thus, Tiru says...

Pariyadhu koornkottadhu aayinum yaanai verooum pulithaak kurin - Tirukkural

Despite its large body and sharp tusks, the elephant fears the attack of a tiger - Loose Translation

Despite its seeming advantages over a tiger in battle, the elephant fears the attack of the tiger because (and the because is implicit) the tiger is emboldened by its inner motivation (to eat? Yeah, that primarily). It is its motivation and, thus, its enthusiasm that makes it the stronger warrior than the seemingly invulnerable elephant.

In other words, if you can attack the obstacles in your route to success with unflagging enthusiasm, you will defeat them. No matter how insurmountable they appear when you first encounter them. And THAT unflagging enthusiam comes out of the strong motivation to reach your goals, no matter how difficult they seem at first. If, however, you slink away when you see the size of the elephant and the sharpness of its tusks...

So, you see, the extent of your motive power is determined by the power of your motivation.

Ship of destruction?

Like I keep lamenting, philosophers very seldom give pleasant advice. Much like dieticians. I mean, ever heard of a dietician tell you that the route to a size zero figure lies through a pastry shop? That gorging on cakes would help you to a slimmer future? Much like that, if you go to a philosopher hoping that he'd say that a 'eat, drink and be merry' lifestyle is the mantra for success, you are doomed to disappointment.

Tiru, unfortunately, is no exception. Here he says

Neduneer maravi madithuyil naangum keduneeraar kaamak kalan - Titukkural

Procrastination, forgetfulness, sloth and excessive sleep form the ship transporting those destined for ruin - Loose translation

You know, you actually can see why these habits will lead to destruction. To keep postponing vital jobs is a good way of inviting trouble on your head. To FORGET what needs doing is even worse...if a job done late creates problems, the same job not done at all could cause havoc. Laziness, the lack of any enthusiasm to do what needs doing...that ensures that the procrastination and the forgetfulness is not a one time aberration but a rule by which you lead your life. AND excessive sleep...well, if you have fewer waking hours, there is actually scant little that you can really do. Where is the time?

All these, though, are the outward manifestations of something that is lacking inside. A lack of enthusiasm, of inner motivation. I mean, let's get back to that dietician. IF, indeed, there existed such a dietician whose diet plan started with pastries...so you really see yourself procrastinating on starting that diet plan? The whole point about all this 'procrastination, forgetfulness, sloth and sleep' cycle IS the fact that you do not WANT to do what you NEED to do. Hence you postpone, thus you forget, therefore you avoid by laziness or sleep. The thing to do is to develop that enthusiasm...either for the job or for the fruits thereof.

What, then, if neither attracts you? Really? If neither attracts you, you'd not be hanging around here lamenting. You'd either be fast asleep or lolling in bed with a bowl of popcorn staring pop-eyed at the latest offering by Netflix. Get out of here.