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.

The biggest disability

There is always something uncomfortable about philosophers. They tend to hold uncomfortable mirrors to you and seem to revel in your embarrassment. It is especially true of long dead philosophers. You don't really know enough about them and cannot say,"So what about you? YOU do not measure up, too, because of this that or the other." AND, of course, they are not around to be trolled and feel hurt or shamed, even if you know enough about them. (There is always this thing that they are not around to defend themselves either. Which is very handy when you are poking at someone w

by using their own words. It is no help, however, when you are trying to deflect the shame you feel while reading their words and knowing that you fall short.)

So, yeah, when Tiru says this...

Poriyinmai yaarkkum pazhiyandru arivarindhu aalvinai inmai pazhi - Tirukkural

There is no blame on someone who has ill-fortune; to be intelligent and knowledgeable and yet not exert oneself is disgraceful - Loose Translation

Ill-Fortune, here, needs interpretation. You see, if you say 'good luck' you relate it to the success of efforts. HERE, Tiru is talking about the mere putting in of efforts. So, the ill-fortune he means here is causing the inability to put in efforts. As in, a physical inability or the lack of intelligence or knowledge to know what needs to be done. So, essentially, what he is saying is that a person who does nothing because he knows not what to do or is incapable of actually doing it due to physical disability carries no blame. (In fact, poriyinmai can also literally translate to physical disability...lack of organs.)

The chap who has the intelligence to understand a situation and the knowledge of how to tackle it and, yet, chooses to remain idle is a disgrace, according to Tiru. Let us put it in a simple example. You see a fire starting in a house. Others around you also see it but are either disabled or children, say, who know not what to do or cannot do what is needed. YOU know it and, yet, instead of taking efforts to put out the fire, you stay idle and allow the house, with its occupants, burn. Are you, or are you not, a disgrace?

The extent of how much disgrace you deserve may depend on the effects of your negligence. The fact remains that a person like that will disgrace himself sooner or later.

THAT is what Tiru says.

Munificence and productive efforts?

I have seen a lot of 'either-or' types of arguments especially in the recent past. The sort of things that existed exclusively in debating competitions has seeped out into Society at large. The subject of today is also likely to be a subject of such 'either-or' debates. What is important - benevolence or productive efforts?

Tiru, as you probably know, has in a Kural already said that the 'sanyasis' depend on the 'grihastas'. After all, a sage is supposed on subsist on alms and it is the householder who is the giver of alms. So, what does he have to say on this debate topic, then?

Thaalaanmai ennum thagaimaikkan thangitrae velaanmai ennum serukku - Tirukkural

The pride of munificence rests on the foundation of persistent efforts - Loose Translation

There is no benevolence without efforts is what Tiru has to say. He does not deny that there is reason for 'pride' in benevolence. But he does say that benevolence itself cannot exist without persistent efforts. In the context 'vidaamuyarchchi' could be seen as referring to persistent BENEVOLENT efforts. Like, say, the persistent efforts of NGO heads and volunteers in achieving the benevolent goals of the NGO. The kural does ring true in this interpretation as well.

But the tone of the kural is as though it IS addressing an either-or question rather than a prerequisites for success question. In that context, 'persistent efforts' is not an answer to how to succeed at benevolence. It is an answer to the Persistent efforts vs Munificence question. AND Tiru firmly says that the former is a foundation stone for the latter. Thus, it is persistence in the productive efforts of the concerned person that makes him capable of benevolence. Going a step further, it is confidence in his own efforts that makes a person be benevolent even beyond his current means since he is sure to make the wherewithal necessary by dint of his own efforts.

Read it in that sense and it is the person who KNOWS himself to be capable of successfully making money who is capable of sustained charity.

The vice versa may not always be true though. He who is most sustainably charitable has also to be he who is confident of making the money necessary, yes. (Else, of course, the charity WILL stop once the concerned person runs out of money.) But can you consider every person who is capable of making money as someone who will necessarily be charitable?

THAT is a moot question.

Finish what you started?

To be honest, it is easy for people to say 'Do what you love and you will never work a day of your life'. You think that you love music and if you become a musician, life will be a bed of roses from then on? Like, a Taylor Swift or Rihanna or whomsoever never faced a day when they thought of abandoning what they were doing and running away? Composing music in your attic (Well, you know, businesses start in garages but the arts somehow gravitate to attics) is one thing. The business of putting together an album, getting someone to take you to the world, doing concerts and so on and so on...NOBODY does ONLY what they like. The moment you try to make a living out of ANYTHING you invite in a whole chunk of things that you'd rather not do, along with what you love doing.

Tiru has this to say for those times when you want to run away...

Vinaikkan vinaikedal ombal vinaikkurai theerndaarin theerndhandru ulagu - Tirukkural

Abandon not your efforts midway; the world abandons those who abandon their work - Loose Translation

To conceptualise something is one thing. To dream of implementing your concept is another. To actually implement it...that gives you experiences that you are seldom prepared to face. Like, with the music metaphor, you compose and when you dream of putting it out, you do not expect to sit with agents and music labels hammering out contracts. You do not expect your guitarist to get temperamental on the day of the concert. In dreams, things are all smooth, people love your music, nobody tries to cheat you on your royalties, no obscure chap sues you for plagiarism...you get the picture. Any or all of these can happen AND if you give up because of that, you are not ever going to be the face on the billboards.

It is not only a story for celebrities. It may be a matter of putting together a stall in an Industry exhibition or a project report for a new venture or your own attempt at, say, learning AI. ANY venture should be thought through BEFORE you attempt but not abandoned midway unless as a last resort. (Be sure that it IS the last resort) There are many who do not make anything of themselves because behind them lies a litter of half-done things which are never carries to completion.

Remember, you are a serial entrepreneur ONLY when your past enterprises have been carried to completion; not when all you have is a series of half-done and abandoned projects behind you.

Conquer the impossible?

In the days when I was avidly looking for and reading those self-improvement books (Till I decided that I cannot improve myself? Yes. So?), I was looking for that magic pill that would make me into a whole new me without much effort on my part. What I now think is that this whole business of self-improvement hinges on the idea that people are always looking for a magic wand type of solution to the problem of sorting themselves out. AND, no honest philosopher or psychologist HAS that magic wand. The most that they can do is make it SEEM easy.

Tiru does not even bother to do that, generally. HIS were the times which did not seem to believe in sugar-coating. OR, as some would like to argue, we had already discovered the ill effects of sugar consumption. Anyway, here he goes...

Arumai udaiththendru asaavaamai vendum perumai muyarchchi tharum - Tirukkural

To persist in your efforts, without giving in to feelings of inadequacy is the greatest strength - Loose Translation

Too often you would come across those who would claim that they were by far more talented than the other guy who did better than them in life. For every one case where that success was unjustified, there will be three where the failure of the the former and the success of the latter is merely a question of persistence.

Talent is the ability to think up ideas and solutions AND to implement them. But...think of it this way. UNLESS you think of yourself as CAPABLE to become an entrepreneur, you will not even be thinking up ideas for start-ups OR you will only give them away to someone else to implement it. Whether you are only an adviser or employee OR the owner of the business depends upon your own feelings of the adequacy of your abilities to handle what is needed to handle the pressures of entrepreneurship.

AND, if you think of something as impossible for you to do, do you even apply your mind on solutions to the obstacles in your way? When you see an obstacle as insurmountable, the only solution you think of tends to be to abandon the project with the least loss possible. It is only when you start thinking of overcoming the obstacle that you devise ways for surmounting it. AND you think of overcoming obstacles only when you cease thinking of yourself as being inadequate to the task.

This is how people who are talented can lag behind...by being overcome by thoughts of inadequacy. People with lesser talent, perhaps, but who do not allow a sense of personal inadequacy to stop them from persisting with their efforts...such people succeed.

In short, it is not a magic wand that leads to success. It is indomitable persistence that does.

Remember the fallen?

There are such a lot of things that will bring about your downfall if you forget them. The way things are, there seems to be no joy in achieving success. I mean, it is all very well to succeed but all these guys cluster around you screaming about how difficult it is to retain the success you have achieved with such difficulty. What's the point in huffing and puffing up the mountain only to be told that you need to keep running on a treadmill in order to stay on the peak?

Tiru is as much a disappointment as the others in this.

Igazhchiyin kettaarai uLLuga thantham magizhchiyin maindhurum pOzhdhu - Tirukkural

Remember those ruined by their neglect when you fail in your duties due to the joy of success - Loose Translation

Actually, though, most success IS like that. I mean, like, if you want to become CEO of Microsoft and you do become the CEO, it is not like you can then lie back and enjoy life, right? Most of what you count as success is only to reach a position where you need to work more, not less. So, if a Satya Nadella or Sundar Pichai decides that his life is a long series of beach vacations...well, that CAN be true. ONLY, those long vacations cannot run concurrently with being CEOs. The joy of success has to be succeeded pdq (pretty damn quick in Boomerese) with the nose pressed harder against the grindstone than before.

AND, if you are looking around for 'those ruined by their neglect' and are not finding them in your vicinity, hark back to our laddie, Aesop. It is just for people like you that he created his fictional characters. In this specific case...the hare of the hare and tortoise fame. THAT bunny assessed his success half way down the race course and enjoyed his success with a nap. Whereby...I'm sure you know the story.

You can run like a hare and still lose the race if you allow the joy of success to so intoxicate you that you forget to do your duties. So, there.

Identity

A man is known by the company he keeps. This seems to be a common belief in almost every society. After all, it is easier to identify a person as belonging to a community than to assess his individual character. AND if you assess a community as having a certain type of character, then you just merrily judge the individual based on his community. Voila, it obviates any need to judge the individual which would be for YOU to do. Instead, you apply a rule book developed by others which allots a certain character to a community AND assess the individual's worth based on the community to which he belongs.

Tiru says here...

Manaththaanaam maandhark kunarchi inathhaanaam innaan enappadun chol - Tirukkural

Though a person's own mind determines his attitudes, his character will be assessed by the company he keeps - Loose Translation

'Inaththaanaam' could well be taken to mean his community which then would translate to the community that he was born in. This then could be Tiru's tongue-in-cheek commentary on the fact that, though people may have their own mind and character, Society will assess them based on their community.

OR, even, a practical shortcut to judging people. Like, on the average, people will imbibe the characteristics of others around them. Thus, someone born and brought up in a mercantile community is more likely to grow up with the knowledge and mores of a merchant. Someone who's surrounded by bookish people is more likely to respect books. And so on. Therefore, a person is likely to be assessed as being a representative member of that community even though he is vastly different.

AND, yes, there is always the company he chooses to be in. Which, perhaps, is a more reliable guide to his character. After all, you'd not choose people around you whom you dislike. Thus, the character of the people around you can be seen as a more reliable guide to your own character. IF, however, you are weak enough to not be able to free yourself from unwanted companions, whose fault would it be if you are assessed by the company you keep, even though your own mind holds different attitudes to those of your companions?

Your company becomes your identity. It behooves you to choose wisely.

The company you keep

So what else is new? You are known by the company you keep. If you surround yourself with a bunch of thieves, you'll be known for a thief. If you merge with a bunch of happy-go-lucky wastrels, you'll be known for a useless layabout. If you like to be around intellectuals, you'll be known for one. AND so on.

Tiru, though, goes one step further. In this one...

Nilaththiyalbaal neerthirin dhatraagum maandharkku inaththiyalba dhaagum arivu - Tirukkural

Just as water takes on the characteristics of the land it flows, people adopt the characteristics of their company - Loose Translation

So, according to Tiru, it is not merely that you will be ASSUMED to be like your companions; you will actually BECOME like your companions.

In small ways, you will recognise that fact yourself. You will find that your whole group use some words and phrases in common, for example. Just like, say, you use some jargon in common with your Gen, you will use jargon specific to your group. Your attitudes will also tend to align - there are groups that like studying, say, and there are those who make fun of them. Some of those attitudes may not be yours to start with but peer pressure IS a thing, no? I mean, if you are all liberals and the others are anti-abortion, can you be pro-abortion. If it is only an intellectual position and not something that you have to DO yourself, would you not flip?

Your attitudes drive your actions. You cannot BE a nerd while making fun of nerds, can you? If you are atheists, can you make a weekly visit to the temple or pray for a good result in today's interview? One after the other your words, thoughts and actions are bound to change. The longer you keep the company, the less likely you are to be different in any major way.

No, you do not all become clones. In other matters than those considered important by the group, you can be as individualistic as you please. Even in those matters of importance, the extent of your buy-in will vary. But if you do not buy in at all, you'll not be in THAT group for too long, will you?

I mean, after all, if you ARE in a echo chamber, you ARE bound to echo those in it, no?