Confusing proverbs

It may only be me (which, as we all know, means 'Of course, it is not only me') but I really do think that there are these proverbs put in primarily to confuse people. It is almost like two people with diametrically opposite views started firing proverbs at each other. AND, instead of organizing it in two separate 'isms', people put it all together higgledy-piggledy and peddled the whole thing as wisdom.

You see, I was always a great believer in 'Haste makes waste'. Which accounts for why, whenever a job came my way, I kept looking on at it, like Jerome K Jerome, admiring the complexity of it. I mean like, if I did not make haste, a lot of times the need for doing the job goes away so I avoid a lot of wasted effort. (A lot of THAT happens in corporate life, let me tell you, with urgent humongous jobs being thrust on unwary subordinates only to be forgotten before the end of the day.) And if it does not, why then I bloody well have to get down to doing it in a hurry but, hey, I did not make haste after all so it is all good, isn't it?

And then someone comes and screams at me for 'leaving everything to the eleventh hour'. Unfair, I tell you, and untrue as well since my general procedure is to leave things for the thirteenth hour. But, apparently, this is a bad thing because...well, mostly, these things end up on the basis of 'because everyone says so'. I'd like to meet up with this 'everyone' which invariably seems not to include me. Makes me feel quite a pariah, let me tell you, to find myself outside of this 'everyone' who says things that run contrary to my own inclinations and mess up my life. It is like I am the only guy who has no vote on what rules get made. (Funny thing is everyone I met feels the same way, so exactly who is this 'everyone' which seems to include no one?)

Anyway, between 'haste makes waste' and 'not leaving everything to the eleventh hour', life is thoroughly mucked up. Which am I to believe in? If I do things fast, I am making haste; if I delay, I am leaving everything for the last minute. There seems no way to win.

Someone said that this is a very digital way of looking at things. To not be hasty does not mean that you need to delay things till the last hour, apparently. And he threw in a third proverb the mix - 'Slow and steady wins the race'. Ah! Well! As if I needed any further help in getting confused.

Me, I think it is only the way you present what you are doing that matters. I mean, if you said 'A stitch in time saves nine' instead of 'Haste makes waste', there you are, being wise and virtuous.

And never say 'Leaving things to the eleventh hour'. You are only 'taking things deep'.

Steadfast?

Kedum perukkamum illalla nenjatthu kodaamai saanrorkkani - Tirukkural

Losses and gain come and go; to remain steadfast in principles is the hallmark of the wise - Loose Translation

Of all the things that Tiru said, this one must rank very high as being totally impractical. I mean, come on, the chap really thinks that my own value systems should be unchanged regardless of what happens to me in life? Really?

But, then, what exactly are principles? That, of itself, is a big question. AND, being analytical, I have always managed to find that principles are as elastic as I need them to be. Like, say, this honesty thing. I mean, come on, if I made a muck-up of a computation by mistyping some figures, and the decision turns wrong thanks to that, who does it injure if I merely blame the change in some circumstances instead of admitting my error? Well, even if I DO blame the guy who gave me the figures, what of it? HE can always blame the telephone system for my mishearing him.

Or, take compassion. I mean, this neighbor of mine created such a ruckus when I parked my car in his spot by mistake. Why the hell should I drive him down to hospital in the middle of the night, because he had a heart attack. Am I my brother's keeper? It is not as though I am the only neighbor, there are others. So why is it my responsibility?

You get the point. Principles are easier to alter to suit, somewhat like sizing down clothing. To keep steadfast in them, regardless of loss or gain...now THAT is like trying to size UP clothing. You run out of material sooner or later.

Tiru, though, would want you to disregard the cost to you and remain steadfast. He also probably means that you should not use the losses or gains in life as an excuse to abandon your principles OR to blame your principles for those losses and gains. Somewhat like the devotee blaming God for not ensuring that his life is a path of roses, despite his devotion.

In one way, Tiru's advice can make things easy. You do not have the stress of identifying what your current principles are, every now and then. Somewhat like the way you feel when you get back to math after a day of trying to figure out how to use your new mobile. You know the feeling of 'Thank God there is something I do not have to relearn every time. 2+2 is still 4!'

But the real comfort of Tiru's advice comes when everyone around you is 'wise' in his terms. THEN you can be sure of them for their principles would be unchanging, making it easy to trust them.

To paraphrase Julius Caesar

'Let me have about me men and women who are wise in the way Tiru defines it!'

Balanced?

Samanseidhu seerthookkumkol pol amaindhorupaal kodamai saanrorukkani - Tirukkural

Like the needle of a balance, the wise should be impartial in judgment - Loose translation

The thing about Tiru is that he expects the impossible from people. Well, in this case he probably is right to expect the impossible. After all, to expect wisdom from an outright irrational species like humans IS to expect miracles.

There was some chap whom I read recently who sort of claimed that objectivity is impossible for humans - or did he go so far as to say that it was not even desirable? Yet, THAT is precisely what Tiru says is the hallmark of wisdom. That a wise man assesses things impartially without regard to his own biases.

The problem, though, with people like that chap is that they tend to mix up things. I mean, yeah, it is sort of impossible for you to disregard all your biases in setting up the standards for assessment. Like, given two courses of action, one of which would decimate the human population but would be greatly to the benefit of cockroaches, and the other that would benefit humanity at the cost of our unwelcome multi-legged house-guests, a human being is bound to be unable to see that the Universe could well be better off with more roaches than more humans. THAT, though, is a bias inherent in setting up desirable GOALS based on which you intend assessing options.

Bias in setting up the yardsticks based on which you evaluate different courses of action is, probably, impossible to eliminate. So, yes, someone may feel that losing Freedom of Expression in pursuit of a Society aligned with the morality of the past is worthwhile; someone else may feel that the morality of the past needs to be modified to suit the present; and a third person may see FOE as a prime constituent of any morality.

Your personal belief system could well be the reason for a bias in determining the desirability and priority of goals. THAT is a given and that is not even due to the irrationality of the species. It is precisely those differences in individual value systems which make humanity so creative though, yes, the creativity can sometimes be cruel.

But to confuse bias in setting yardsticks  and bias in assessing options even by your own yardsticks, and to consider the latter impossible or undesirable to aspire for - that is stupidity. I mean, it is one thing to say that a course of action is incorrect because it sacrifices right to property in pursuit of economic growth (when the other may feel it is worth it because such is HIS yardstick). It is quite another to say that the course of action is incorrect merely because so-and-so proposes it without even bothering to assess it by your own yardsticks OR despite the fact that it serves the purpose for a goal that you yourself find desirable. THAT is not even worth calling a biased analysis, it is just knee-jerk reaction.

The Tiru-style wise man would probably go a step further in his impartiality. He would say, 'I assess it this way BECAUSE my yardsticks are such. Others may see the priorities differently and, for them, this would seem a good option.' But, then, as I have often said, Tiru is possibly dated. AND, of course, he was setting up a standard to shoot for, a standard which people could aspire to reach even if there were none who had actually reached it.

But, then, 'Nobody can be like that' was probably not a statement which excused people from not even trying to reach those standards in his day. Thank God we live in more lax days. It would be SO difficult to outrage on Social Media otherwise!

The seeds of happiness?

Nandrikku vitthagum nallozhukkam theeozhukkam endrum idumbai tharum - Tirukkural

Good behavior/thoughts/habits is the seed of happiness; bad behavior/thoughts/habits leads to sorrow - Loose translation

You know, I really hate these words that seem so simple and peel off in layer after layer of meaning. I break out in tears much like I would when I peel that pungent vegetable which also has so many layers.

You cannot blame Tiru much though for using them. For some weird reason, he HAD decided to give all his advice in couplets (for those of my compatriots who prefer the foreign to the Indian one may call them sort of haikus) and if he had to cram so much meaning into so few words, he had to squeeze each word for meaning till it cried 'Uncle'!

This 'Ozhukkam' is one of those words. AT first sight, it means discipline. The problem is that it does not stop there. It means morality, behavior, attitude (NOT the attitude that teens so love. It means the way you view and interact with the rest of the world, not color streaked hair and tattoos) and what not. You need to read it to mean the sum total of your character - thought, word and deed - rather than merely a list of dos and donts that you need to stick to.

So, essentially, Tiru says that the seeds of happiness lie in being a good person, in thought, word and deed. AND not being good always leads to unhappiness.

Very questionable, isn't it? I mean, we live in a world which largely equates being good to being a loser. Though, yes, in Tiru's time they had a sort of long view of happiness - they tended to see it as something as applied both in life and in the after-life, so perhaps they meant that overall being good would equate being happy. Largely in the afterlife, maybe.

But, then, I am not too sure, overall, that Tiru is wrong about the happiness while you live. Yeah, to be sure, being wealthy seems a better prescription for happiness than being good, so one tends to see the latter being sacrificed in pursuit of the former. The issue, though, is...

Well, there is this story about Duryodhan and Yudhishtir. The former was asked about the people in Hastinapur. He said most of them are knaves who would do anything in the pursuit of their own goals. When Yudhishtir was asked the same question, he said that they were all good people pursuing dharma. The moral (yes, that damn thing does tend to crop up in such tales) being that each saw others as a reflection of who they themselves were.

THAT is the issue. I mean, if I am bad, I live life in suspicion about all those around me. If I am good, I am more willing to trust, more likely to make meaningful relationships. (AND, thank you, being good does not mean being STUPID, so it does not always mean that I would end up becoming a pauper). Which of the two is a happier life is left to you to decide.

The most vexed thing about this whole issue is the definition of good and bad. Right from the clothes you wear to the food you eat, there is always someone ready with a classification of good and bad...and willing to kill for it. As far as I am concerned, anyone who only lives up to HIS classification is good; anyone who tries to impose his classification on others is bad. Period.

I tell you one thing for sure though. If all the people around me were 'good' THAT is not merely the seed of MY happiness, it is a whole ORCHARD!

Educated idiots?

Ulagatthodu otta ozhugal pala katrum kalladhaar ariviladhaar - Tirukuural

He, who knows not how to get along with the world, is an idiot, no matter how well-educated - Loose Translation

Well, well, well...and I thought that this Emotional Quotient thingy was something that the West kindly developed only recently and handed over to the rest of the world to marvel over. This chap, Tiru, seems to have got on to it centuries back. Though, to be sure, he fails miserably on the only count that matters. He does not realize that what is said is unimportant. What is important is to label it nicely. This bloke never bothered to label it at all and see...nobody knows he even said it.

Nice, though, to find one thing that has quite a modern ring to it. There he goes saying that you could be a genius at Physics but if you cannot get along with people, you will only count as a fool. True, you can get that warm feeling that the rest of the world is wrong and you are right. The essence of discovery or invention, though, is how far it advances the knowledge or well-being of mankind, not merely in your own opinion of your scintillating genius. If the latter were the only criterion, you can always have the opinion without necessarily having the genius.

Actually, with all pithy sayings, this does not mean that a successful quest for popularity trumps all knowledge. Though, to be sure, it does seem that such is the case these days. The point Tiru makes covers the gamut of social interaction...to get along with people, to be able to communicate effectively with them, to even lead them. Essentially, all those abilities that are packaged under the so-called EQ.

Tiru was a wise chap. HE did not think that if someone is a great warrior, he would also be a great orator, a great farmer... Of course, HE did not live in the days of TV where, because he wrote Tirukkural, he would be interviewed on his views about which crop to grow at which place, whether Raag Yaman Kalyan was more mellifluous than Raag Hamsadhwani, which of the various court dancers was the best exponent of Bharatanatyam, yada, yada, so he could hold the view that expertise in one area did not mean expertise in all areas. So, it is unlikely that he expected phenomenal EQ in someone with phenomenal IQ to not consider him a fool. But, yeah, he certainly considers a minimal competence necessary.

Me? I am safe. Let them bother who have the IQ and are worried about not having the EQ. When you do not even have the IQ...

To do or not to do?

Seithakka alla seyakkedum seithakka seyyamai yaanum kedum - Tirukkural

To do what you ought not do and to not do what you ought to do both lead to disaster - Loose translation

I have always been a master of 'Strategic Inaction'. Oh well, for all you non-management chappies with no real appreciation of jargon it is what you would call the 'Ostrich syndrome'. (I? I call it that only when OTHER people indulge in it. When I do it, it is always strategic) You know the thing. 'Bury your head in the sand and hope that the problem will go away' strategy.

To be sure, it is a big help when adhering to the first half of Tiru's sage advice. If you do nothing, there is no way you will be doing what you ought not to do. When I read this one, halfway through I was patting myself on the back and giving myself high fives in the mirror for having avoided disaster. And then, Tiru ups and spoils it all.

There is such a thing as what I ought to do? And not doing that will also lead to disaster. Ye Gods! Is there no way an ordinary man can escape disaster in this vale of tears? (Not an ordinary man? Me? What do you mean? That all you ordinary guys go leaping and bounding, joyfully doing things all the time, and I am the lone guy who is attached to his bed with Fevikwik? Nonsense. If you did not have spouses chivying you out of bed and making you do all sorts of things I'd like to see what you would do. Opening a beer-can, a bag of popcorn and switching on the TV is about all you will manage before collapsing in inartistic poses onto the Lazy-boy, totally exhausted by all that strenuous action.)

But, yeah, I should not take all this advice personally. Impersonally, as applied to other people in the world, I can see what Tiru means. I mean, like the government does not build good roads in time, there will be traffic jams and accidents. If I do as I ought not, as in not maintaining any sort of lane discipline, there will be traffic jams and accidents. If I do not do what I ought to do...like not stopping at a red light when I ought to...there will be traffic jams and accidents.

(What?? Why this obsession with a traffic jam metaphor? Well, THAT means you have never traveled on Bangalore roads. Take it from me, for someone who has, it is a telling metaphor.)

So, yeah, perhaps Tiru does have a point after all. To do and to not do can both lead to disaster.

Now, if only I can rub out that sneaking suspicion that Tiru meant it for me to apply as well...

Look before you leap

Ennitthuniga karumam thunindhapin ennuvam enbadhu izhukku - Tirukkural

Consider well before you decide on a course of action; to decide first and consider later is folly - Loose translation

Tiru has generally been considered a wise old bloke. Yeah, to be sure, I have had reason to believe that his advice suited his times better than they suit ours. But, even in his times, I doubt that people would have lauded his wisdom if he had asked a fellow to think long and hard before tossing his pants off if they were on fire (Veshti, if you want to be too literal about it, given that pants were not what a well-dressed Tamilian of his times was used to wearing).

So, yes, I am sure he really did not mean that you had to hold a round table conference and chart out a full project report before you reacted to an emergency situation. He would not have wagged a finger at you and called you a fool if you ran out of your house in your underwear if the roof was falling down.

What he probably did mean with this wise old saw is about those things that you did have the time to think about the options. THEN there is a point to actually studying the pros and cons, to decide on a course of action, to anticipate possible problems and be prepared with ways to tackle them and all that rigmarole BEFORE you set the ball rolling. You know, just like that English proverb about looking before you leap (Yeah! I know, there are those very wise people who come out saying 'I did look. It still did not help when I fell into the well. I'd have been better off learning to swim.' THAT comes of taking things too literally. Of not understanding that to look before you leaped did not mean that the leaping should inevitably follow the looking. That you could choose not to leap if the looking showed you that you would certainly fall into the well if you leaped.) Tiru, though, goes further and says you need to think and plan, to not merely come to a 'Yes' or 'No' decision but also to know how to carry out the action in case you decide on 'Yes'.

The problem, though, is what I would call 'Other-Handitis'. I am a major sufferer from this dread disease. Any time I need to take a decision, I am like 'On the one hand, it will help me in this' but 'On the other hand, there will be this problem' but...you know how it goes. My head keeps oscillating between this hand and that hand till it goes all dizzy and the decision gets taken for me because the time for action is long past and I am still vacillating between hands. (What? People call that 'Analysis-Paralysis'? Let them. I call it 'Other-Handitis'. So there!) So, if anything at all gets done by me, it is only when I leap first and then tackle issues as they come.

Quite naturally, my work ends up full of sticking plaster. I mean, it is like I start building something, there is a leak there so I apply sticking plaster on that, go on finding something else has developed a crack, apply sticking plaster on that...and so on and so on. Which, essentially, is what Tiru warns of. But, hey, however rickety it is, I did build the damn thing, even if it all falls apart within a week. Otherwise, nothing would have been done.

Bully for me, yeah, but that is not exactly the sort of person organizations should look for, is it? I mean, like, you would not really love a mobile, say, which breaks down every other day, redirects your GF's Whatsapp messages to your parents, drops calls whenever it is not in the mood. Not even if the operator says 'Hey! Count your blessings. You do have a mobile, don't you? It has still not burned to cinders, has it?' You kind of expect the guys backing it to have 'looked before they leaped'.

Tiru is spot on. Except, of course, that he expects ME to do it as well! If only advice applied exclusively to other people...

The unhealing hurt

Theeyinal sutta pun ullaarum aaraadhe naavinaal sutta vadu - Thirukkural

The body heals from the burns caused by fire; the mind, when burnt by words, does not - Loose translation

This one, I am sure, Tiru wrote after a heated argument with Vasuki. I mean, after hearing from her about how he hurt her by what he said twenty years back about her sambar, how he derided her dress eleven years back and so on and so forth, he must have been convinced that the hurt caused by words linger forever while burns heal sooner or later.

But, then, is it not really true of everyone? The male sex may not be able to pull it out like that in an argument but is it really because the wounds have healed or is it just that the data retrieval jams at crucial times? Or is it just that ideas differ on what is truly hurtful and what is not?

Be that as it may, I know very few people who do not have a few hurtful incidents which they cannot get over all through their life. The wounds seep blood every time they are reminded of it. AND, you know what, MOST of those incidents have to do with words, not action.

For once, Tiru got it spot on. But, then, in THIS case that mental orientation thing does not get in the way. Here he is talking of the hurt YOU feel and THAT is something that we all vibe with. We prefer to think of ourselves and our own well-being, so when he talks of THAT, he can never get outdated. It is when he seems to think that we need to consider moralities or other people that he sounds quaint.

But then, maybe, what he was saying here is YOU should be careful not to cause OTHERS hurt with YOUR words.

Let us give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was only talking about how others should not hurt you with THEIR words. Can't have the poor chap feel all depressed about failing to strike a chord every single time!

Sweet speech?

Allavai theya aram perugum nallavai naadi iniya solin - Thirukkural

If speech be sweet, motivated by good intentions, your vices diminish and virtues flourish - Loose translation

Aha! At last. This is one of Tiru's sayings which vibes with the modern world. Flattery gets you everywhere as we all know. I mean, what earns you more friends on Social Media than 'Likes', 'Shares' and praise in comments, all of which is the modern equivalent of 'sweet speech'? Perhaps, Tiru is not totally outdated, after all.

But...wait! What exactly did the chap mean when he said 'motivated by good intentions'? I mean, yeah, I go wholesale praising people all over facebook and Instagram because I want them to come back to do the same to me. Does that count as 'good intentions' and will that diminish my vices and allow my virtues to flourish?

Knowing Tiru, I am afraid not. The chap probably knocked off flattery with that phrase, counting any intent for back-scratching as a 'bad intention'. For that chap, the only good intentions that would probably count are ones that benefit THAT other guy who is getting praised, or society or some such thing. Really, he is harder taskmaster than any boss of mine ever was.

So, yes, Tiru actually wants me to be a sweet spoken chap for the sake of the happiness of others. Yeah, if I were careful with my words, using them only to benefit others or make them happy, obviously I would really have no bandwidth to indulge in any vices. I mean, come on, is it possible for you to simultaneously want the happiness of the other guy AND stab him in the back? Really, how self-deluded could you be to think that poking around a knife between the shoulder blades is calculated to make him happy?

Got to agree with Tiru there...that WOULD diminish vices and allow virtues to flourish all right. Which of you is aiming for it, now? You can practice it on me.

The Blame Game

Edhilar kutrampol tan kutram kaangir pin theethundo mannum uyirku - Thirukkural

If you could see your faults in the same way as you see others', you will be safe from evil - Loose translation

I think that there is a problem of mental orientation when it comes to Tiru. Like I have had occasion to muse before, maybe it is that the people of his day all suffered from the same problem.

You see, when Tiru says that seeing your faults in the same manner as you see those of others will keep you safe from evil, there is a problem of exactly what evil he is talking about. What do you think of immediately? Yes, right, you are thinking of the evil that others can do to you and wondering how this attitude will keep you safe from that.

It is like saying that, if you are involve in an automobile collision, you should see that you turned right without indicating the turn and that was as much a problem as the other guy traveling on the right lane when he wanted to go straight. And you should not barge out of the car screaming, "Dimaag hai ki nahin. Seedha jaanaa thaa tho is lane mein kyon aa rahe ho?" ('Do you have any brains? If you wanted to go straight, why were you driving on this lane?'). Instead, you should admit, "I should have indicated a right turn. And you should not have been traveling in this lane." And THAT will keep you safe from evil? Fat chance!

But then, what Tiru sees as evil is, you see, a totally different thing. He is talking of a mental state of virtue. Of YOUR mind being free from evil, free from anger, hatred, greed and the likes. He talks of your ability to see your own faults with the same clear eye as you see those of others as a remedy for feeling superior to OR angry with others for their faults; as a barrier against unreasoning hatred, since hatred arises when you see your 'pure and innocent self' assaulted by vicious others; and as the first step to redressing your own shortcomings.

See what I mean? The chap, and possibly the people of his period, actually seem to think that the evil that you need to cure is the one within you. When any sane modern person can tell you that the only important thing is to ward off the evil that others can do to you.

After all, ALL the evil in the world is caused only by other people!

Holiness?

Vaanuyar thotram evanseyyum thannenjam thaan ari kuttrappadin - Thirukkural

What's the use of acting and appearing holy when your mind dwells on what you know is sinful? - Loose translation

There are times when one truly despairs of Tiru. I mean, yes, he lived in a different age and all that but, really, were people not more interested in appearances than in the truth, even then?

Take this one for example. If a man is steeped in sin in his mind, Tiru would have it that it is no use to appear like a holy man. When everyone knows that, in modern India, appearing like a holy man is exactly what has helped so many people to actually be able to indulge in their sins. To the extent that the holy men, who actually ARE holy in and out, are now being tarred with the same brush. And Tiru would have it that it is no use to appear holy if you are really a sinner in your mind.

But, then, perhaps he was not talking of 'usefulness' so much in terms of what you can get out of it. Maybe what he was talking about of is that a external acts of virtue, when the mind steeped in sin, would be useless in actually MAKING you virtuous. Maybe, in those weird old days, people were really concerned about whether they were really moral and virtuous people. If so, things have changed rather radically since then.

First, we said - in the metaphor of Christianity - "'Though shalt not get caught' is the only commandment', thereby ensuring that power and/or cleverness is all there was to morality. Then, we expanded the ambit of the only morality we respected by converting it to 'Though shalt not be caught AND legally or morally convicted' which essentially meant that you are moral as long as you are caught but your crime is not proven OR your crime is legally proven but you are not caught. Either way, you are still good.

Then, of course, we realized the essential stupidity of adding 'morally convicted' when the whole of morality is a question decided based on whether you are caught and legally convicted. After all, as long as there is wiggle room, there will always be people who will believe and vehemently uphold your innocence, especially if you are rich and/or powerful. So, of course, we binned that too.

So, yes, it is rather cruel to be blaming Tiru for it. His advice was probably good for his times, when people still wanted to BE moral themselves. It is dated nowadays, now that we have decided that we are as good as we have made the world think us to be.

Even if we have to buy or beat that opinion out of those who cohabit this planet with us!

Friendship defined?

Udukkai izhandavan kai pole; aange idukkan kalaivadhaam natpu - Tirukkural

A true friend extends help in need with the same instinctive speed as your hand stopping your robe from slipping off you in public - Loose Translation

That is one metaphor I really love. I mean, you can really GET what the chap means. Like, if you were wearing a towel around your waist and have to answer the door and the towel starts slipping off, it is not like you have to issue a request in triplicate to your hands saying, "There is nothing on below the towel and there is this delivery boy in front of me, not to mention the auntie in the opposite house. It would be embarrassing to have the towel fall off now, so kindly go over and hold it in place." AND, of course, have a return reply, saying "This is an automated reply. Your complaint has been registered. Our service representative will be in touch with you shortly."

No, the moment the towel shows signs of slipping off, and even before you have seen who is at the door, your hands are holding the towel in place. So, Tiru says, that a true friend is one who helps you with the same sort of instinctive speed, not waiting for you to express your need and seek him for help.

No, I really don't think that he meant that, when you press 'Like' the moment you see it is your friend's post, you are being a true friend. That sort of instinctive speed can be a problem, especially if the said friend has put out a message saying his mom is ill, say. The point is about doing the help that is NEEDED at the moment, not just any action. Like, it is not really the time for the hands to toss off the towel, as it would be if you were preparing to dress.

Pretty demanding on the friend, though. I mean, it requires both a continuous empathy and observation for the friend to realize WHEN you are in need of help and WHAT help is needed. More often than not, it is not like YOU understand HIS needs naturally. Like, you may stuff yourself with sweets when you are hungry, he may be a diabetic; you may laugh off some issue and the same issue may cause him to feel suicidal. To see the world from his point of view, to do what HE needs, whether or not YOU would need it in his place - that is tough.

But then, whoever said that being a friend is easy. I mean, like if all you had to do was keep liking and commenting on social media posts, you could maintain thousands of friends, easily. (And lose them as easily, if you are sick for a week and unable to do all that? Yes, of course.) Tiru probably had a more demanding idea of friendship.

You know, what? THAT's the sort of friend I love, really!

What about me? WHAT??? You mean you expect ME to be that sort of friend? Ye Gods!

Destructive speech?

Yaakaavar aayinum naakaakka; Kaavaakkaal sokaappar sollizhukku pattu - Tirukkural

Control your tongue even if you control nothing else; Else your ill-said words will come back to bite you - Loose Translation

When I first heard the first part of this, I was shocked. I mean, I LIVE for my tongue, for the taste of all sorts of food and this...thankfully, the second part kicked in. The man was only talking about speaking, not eating! Thank God!

Or, perhaps not. Diplomacy and I have ever been strangers, the former skulking out of sight whenever I appeared on the horizon. You know that story, the one about the King calling in an astrologer who predicts that all his relatives and friends would die before him? Thrown in jail for giving that terrible news? Followed by the second astrologer who predicts that the King would live longer than all his friends and relatives and is rewarded handsomely for being the bearer of such wonderful news? Yeah, I'm sure you have heard of it. Well, that first astrologer...he reminds me of myself so much that I shudder every time I hear that story.

But, yes, I do understand that this is not one of those things where Tiru's advice is dated. I mean, you actually can give offense just because you are not careful with your words even when you had no intention to hurt the other person. Like, say, saying 'Your work is error-free today' and leaving the other guy feeling that on all other days you were going mad correcting his errors. And, then, there are all those times when you shoot from the hip and repent later, taking offense where none was meant, and creating life-long enmities where silence would have allowed a small misunderstanding to blow over in no time. It is not like you can just say, "Oh! I am short-tempered and say things that I don't really mean" and expect it to sort out the issue. Your subordinates may have to act like they believed you but...well, just think how often YOU have believed it when your boss acted so?

And, then, later when it comes to bite you back you start feeling all outraged and rant at the world for not controlling ITS tongue! 

Ideal forgetfulness?

Nandri marappadhu nandrandru; nandralladhu andre marappadhu nandru - Tirukkural

Never forget a favor; immediately forget any injury - Loose translation

This thing about gratitude really vibes with me. Who does not like receiving a benefit that one had no right to expect? And a favor is not something that you have bought and paid for, and can complain to customer service if you do not receive it. To forget favors received is to take them for granted, as something that you receive as your right - somewhat like the Government collecting taxes and hounding you if you fail to ante up.

But that other part - this forgetting injury the very same day...that seems sort of crazy. You know, like that 'good man' of yesteryear movies, who is cheated by someone, takes him back and signs over a power of attorney to him thereby becoming an overnight pauper. Yeah, seems like the sort of thing that made being good the same thing as being too stupid to live.

It is not so, apparently. Or, at least, Tiruvalluvar was not particularly inclined to be giving moronic advice. So, it is not like he would be asking you to forget the past villainy of people, give them a knife and turn your back on them, trusting them not to test the sharpness of the knife by pushing it between your shoulder blades.

What he was saying is, probably, more the normal things that break up friendships and cause schisms between loved ones. Things like a harsh word in an off-mood, or not coming over to an important family function, not showing empathy when you needed it (or not Liking your social media posts, not Sharing your Instagram pictures...? You mean it matters that much to you? Well, then, that too.)...stuff like that which you keep trotting out every now and then in your mind, every time you feel that you want to resent the other person. Tiru feels that it is best to forget it the same day, if not the same hour, instead of carefully storing it in a corner of your mind and taking it out and viewing it like it is some beautiful piece of jewelry which you wish to rejoice in, over and over again.

It is things like this which make me wonder whether Tiru really belonged to the Human race at all. I mean, we all know that Humanity is known for its irrationality. We know how happy it makes us to remember people being good to you and how it painful it is to remember people hurting you - and, so, we duly forget all the good that people did to us, and remember with absolute clarity every nuance of when we were hurt by people. And this chap actually thinks that people can do the reverse and choose to be happy.

Or, perhaps, he did not. After all, nobody goes around telling people to breathe because it is important to do so in order to live. You only give advice when you know that people are not already doing it.

And, as with all good advice, people nod in acceptance and duly pass it on. Without ever applying it themselves.

As I am doing now!

Love only supports virtue?

Aratthukke Anbu Sarbenba Ariyaar; Maratthukkum akdhe thunai - Tirukkural

The ignorant think love is only a support for virtue; it is also a support for ridding yourself of your vices - Loose Translation

You know what, this chap Tiru really had ALL his marbles. In his time, at least, and for quite a few decades after that, this 'destroyer of vice' thing has been of great use for all the so-called 'bad boys' of the world. Or so, at least, popular literature would have had me believe.

There was this thing, then, about women preferring to love the 'bad boy' because they wanted the high of having their love 'redeem' him. How true it is I would not know, never having been a bad boy OR having had a woman in my life. And, yes, I was also of the 'ignorant' who thought that love would support the virtuous, though my definition of virtue was rather elastic. Alas, even so, it probably did not get into the really interesting territory of being a 'bad boy', perhaps!

If that is true, this idea of women loving bad boys because their love can then be a destroyer of vice, I suppose that the bad boys of the day had strong reason not to be redeemed. I mean, yeah fine, so the love kicked in to destroy their vice but, once the vice was destroyed, could they bank on it to stay on to be a supporter of virtue or not? If not, what was really the point in losing both the vices and the love?

But, yeah, all that in popular literature is probably so much gas...and patriarchal, let me say before others jump on me screaming it. Tiru was not all that much into this sort of exciting speculation, nor does his life history say anything about his wife Vasuki marrying him to 'redeem' him.

So, it is more than likely that what he means is that if YOU love a person, as in really love which means that you really take pleasure in making that person happy rather than in seeing what they will do to make YOU happy (Yeah! Think mothers and their children, if you find it tough to think that of spouses), THAT love will ensure that you not only stay virtuous but will also cause you to rid yourself of your vices. For your virtues and your vices will also reflect, in the eyes of Society, on those you love, even when they do not directly affect them (You know the sort of thing - she is that thief's mother, that drunkard's wife...things like that).

Well, he was living in more ideal times, of course. At least in his mind. It has been ages since your virtues or vices had anything to do with your social standing.

It is all about money, now!

Nothing succeeds like Success

There I go, searching for the route to success and someone pops up with this one - Nothing succeeds like success. Indeed! So, if I want to succeed, I must have already succeeded? Eminently sensible and easy to do, of course. Now, why didn't I think of that?

As a route TO success, it is about as useful as cold water is to start a fire. But...it is not entirely senseless as most such aphorisms turn out to be when you think of them.

Talk of success and, as a Tamilian, Rajnikant sort of pops up in you mind with the inevitability of the night following day. There, possibly, was a time when a director may...MAY...have told him that his Kannada-accented Tamil was a handicap. (Said director would stoutly deny any such accusation today. Lynch mobs are not exactly the sort of spectacle that you want to wake up to in the morning). Today...I am sure that, somewhere in Tamil Nadu, there are elocution classes for wannabe actors training them in THAT wonderful manner of dialogue delivery.

I also wonder about how much the going rates were for the bribes to get to be a conductor on the same bus route in Bangalore that Rajnikant once sold tickets on - as a surefire way to break into stardom. The point about all this, I hasten to add, is the fact that when someone succeeds, it is automatically assumed that ALL that he was and is are necessary characteristics of success. So, Success means that you can successfully get social respect for ALL your characteristics as well. (Actually, though, I must also hurry to say that all this was before he was deified. Today, to even dream that ANYONE could emulate Rajnikant is a one-way ticket to the nearest cemetery, if someone can patiently gather together all the pieces.)

THAT, though, is not the end of it. You succeed in one thing and, presto, you are the fount of wisdom on ALL things. Your views on politics, on society and on history will ALL find takers; and, even those who deride your views, will...well...actually deride your views instead of merely ignoring them. If you chose to write a book on the String theory or Einstein's General theory of relativity, it would probably outsell Stephen Hawking - so what if you consistently flunked every physics exam you were forced to attempt, not to mention that the fact that your physics teacher did not commit suicide after one tuition session with you can ONLY be because he was an abnormally strong character?

Unfortunately, though, the day has not come when people start doubting Hawking's views of the Universe on the grounds that 'Trump says the stars are God's daisy chain' or some such, but it is on its way. The physical sciences are so obdurate...so unwilling to change, unlike the more forward looking social sciences. THERE we have successful businessmen, actors, and whoever having THEIR opinions treated with appropriate seriousness - on politics, sociology, history - and without piddly considerations about whether they have the knowledge to make those comments. Why should these physical science guys be any different?

Soon, the day will come when Hawking WILL have to defend his physics against such critics. We have made a start with Darwin...we will get to Einstein et al as well.

THEN will come the day, like someone once said of someone else, when Trump can repeal the law of gravitation.

And THEN we can indeed say...

Nothing succeeds like success!

Proverbial cliches?

The problem with people is that they label some things as cliches and think that, therefore, they are useless. A cliche becomes a cliche ONLY because it is true and, thus, you ignore it at your peril.

Take "The Boss is always right", for example. Most people seem to think of it as a joke. Why, the damn thing has morphed into so many humorous sayings like "I am the Boss in this house and I have my wife's permission to say so" and the like. I trace back the stress, that today's subordinates go through, to the fact that they have not understood the absolute validity of this saying.

Your boss may be the biggest fool ever born and with a capacity to be unerringly wrong. But, if you point out his errors every time, there is certainly a bigger fool in the office than your Boss - YOU! I have heard a lot of people - bosses - say that they understand the value of adverse criticism. They may even be honest about it BUT I have never yet heard anyone tell me, with any conviction, that they liked the person handing it out. Your advice may - I repeat, MAY - be valued but, rest assured, YOU will be disliked and, sooner or later, will face the fate worse than death - acquiring the reputation of 'not being a team player'. SO - start the day with this mantra - The Boss is always right - and, if he is wrong, let him discover it himself. You do not need to act the retriever dog for him - well you can if you are only finding his socks or hanky but not his faults.

"Squeaking wheels get oiled", everyone shrieks and goes off into peals of laughter. Then they go out into the wide world and think hard work will get them rewards. The problem, there, is that employers tend to think 'Work is its own reward' and end up handing out more work to these sterling folks. If you need oil, by God, you need to tell them that you need oil (Do not forget that, in most places, you also need to be a wheel and not merely a squeaker). Keep laughing at the 'Squeaking wheels get oiled' business AND you will soon be moaning around about "If you pay peanuts, you will get only monkeys", not realizing that THAT is exactly what your employer thinks you are, and also that they are perfectly happy with 'performing' monkeys.

Of course, you can always say "When the going gets tough, the tough get going", after you find your office becoming a tough place to work in. Well, the wise also 'get going' - AWAY! One more of the cliches that you ought never to ignore is that 'The first impression is the best impression'. It takes a lot of effort to change this impression of 'not being a team player', if you have been fool enough to create it in the first place, and you are better off trying to make a better first impression elsewhere.

Talking about the wise 'going away', I think it is time to make a rare show of wisdom and bid 'Au Revoir' to this series on proverbs so that you can say, "All is well that ends well'. Or, maybe, all you want to say is "All is well since it has ended"?

Truncated Proverbs?

What a proverb actually has communicated can only be ascertained from the results upon Society. If a proverb purports to describe Society, then what it describes can be known from the realities of the society it describes. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. (Hmm! That this proverb should have been said in the days before Facebook is surprising. It is a truly amazing indication of prophetic tendencies in the past that that someone should have thought to say that the proof of the pudding lies not in how good it looks in a FB status picture OR how many 'Likes' the pic got, in the days when even photography did not exist, leave alone Facebook.)

From the ways of Society, it seemed to me that some proverbs are now available only in their truncated version and some words at the end have gone missing. Even this "The proof of the pudding is the the eating" can benefit in clarity by the addition of " or the spitting out" but that still ends up communicating the same meaning. Some proverbs, though, seem entirely misleading because some words at the end seem to have gone missing.

Take "Absence makes the heart grow fonder", for example. The World War II soldiers receiving those "Dear John" letters, which indicated that their spouses had decided to donate them to the service of their country and take up with someone else, would have been far less shocked had the full proverb been available to them - "Absence makes the heart grow fonder - of someone else". (Yup! There IS that proverb which suits the extended version better - "Out of sight; Out of mind")

There are a lot of people who say, "They also serve who only stand and wait". Others seem to think that these are people, who are slavering to really do something, but are reconciled to serve only by standing and waiting - only to be rudely shocked when they call on these people for service and find them VERY recalcitrant, indeed. If only the others knew that what they meant was, "They also serve who only stand and wait - for someone else to do the job." A rather neat way of getting the mantle of service without having to really serve.

I also find a lot of people getting irate about some people who appear god-fearing but are totally untrustworthy. I do not agree with casting aspersions on the god-fearing nature of these people, even if their acquisitive habits do not seem to see the difference between 'mine' and 'thine'. You see, it is just that their version of the proverb is extended version, "God helps those who help themselves - to other people's property".

I hear this clamor from you - "Silence is golden". Ah! If only you knew that I can always extend it with another proverb - '..but all that glitters is not gold'!

P.S: Thanks, Anita, for that 'they also serve who only stand and wait'

Proverbs requiring interpretation

Then there are those proverbs that really yield no meaning unless you spend time on interpreting them. Probably invented by the sort of people whom we all know. The sort who, when asked for advice, tell you something so ambiguous and esoteric, that you certainly feel that they are wise but have no clue about the wisdom that they have imparted. Like those books you proudly proclaim to have read and enjoyed, merely because you could not understand a thing and are too ashamed to admit it.

Take this "The pen is mightier than the sword", for example. It seems sort of ludicrous to assume that you can successfully repel someone attacking you with a sword by using a pen to parry his sword-strokes. So, what exactly does it mean? THAT you can wound a man far deeper with words than with a sword? Like you think being beheaded is better than being insulted? Then, what do you have to say to "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never harm me"?

There are only three possibilities that I can think of. One is that a man wielding a pen can propagate ideas that can cause more destruction than a sword can. That, I think, has been proven amply in the past. A rabble-rouser is a far more evil person and capable of far more destruction than a mere armed bully. Especially bad are those who also believe that they are in the right and, more to the point, the ONLY people entrusted with the ONE great truth.

The second, of course, is that a man can, with a pen and, maybe, a helpful lawyer, can plunder more than he can with a sword. You doubt that? Even after all those numbers, the zeroes in which you are not yet done counting, representing the money that went down the maws of people, whose greed far exceeds your imagination?

The last possibility is that soldiers may win wars but it is the man who writes of the battle that ends up claiming the victory for who he pleases. If the facts are indisputable about who won the battle, the trick lies in making the winner win by cheating - and, thus, handing over the moral victory to the loser. So, yes, the pen proves mightier than the sword.

As you can see, this seemingly innocuous statement needs interpretation and, at the end of all that serious thinking, you still do not know exactly what the correct interpretation is. To compound the problem, we have the other proverb, that thumbs its nose at this proverb - "Action speaks louder than words". What now?

Well, of course, they explain that this means, for example, that someone professing friendship is one thing but someone displaying friendship is quite another - and the latter is a more dependable proclamation of friendliness than the former. What an idea! I would say that this is on the lines of "Empty vessels make the most noise" - which means, since Action speaks louder than Words, Action is more empty than words, since it makes more noise. No? So, you actually are happier with a person who 'Likes' your Facebook status (Action) than the person who writes a complimentary comment (Words). If you do, you belong in a museum and shall be sent there forthwith, the moment we find time to create a Museum app.

So, you see, there are always those proverbs which end up being "Six of one, half a dozen of the other". AND that sort of confusion between choices is, precisely, where you started out when you decided to take recourse to proverbs for advice. If this is not 'running all you can to stay in the same place' I do not know what is!

P.S : The Moonstone is, again, responsible - through her comment - for this bit of lunacy. She contributed the proverb, I contributed the lunacy!

Proverbs of convenience

Sometimes, it seems to me, that a person pushing his case using a metaphor ends up creating a proverb. Like a certain Goebbels is reputed to have said, 'Keep repeating a lie and it will be taken to be the truth' or some such thing. So, what may have started as a self-serving statement ends up becoming received wisdom due to constant repetition.

Apparently, people believe that "Too many cooks spoil the broth". Looks to be quite possible, since I have never seen any two people being perfectly confident about whether the other will do what is necessary. So it is quite possible that one cook dumps a truckload of salt in the broth assuming that the other is obviously a nincompoop who cannot be relied upon to add salt. In a rare show of unity of thought, the other would do the same on the same assumption. (One of those inexplicable wonders of the human brain is that this "Two minds with but one single thought" thing applies mainly to pejorative impressions about each other). Naturally, the broth turns out to be a gourmet's delight - for gargling.

What, then, do we say about "Two heads are better than one"? Do not ask me "Better for what?" The proverb is conveniently silent on that. It seems to me that this must have been the sales talk of a number two in the organization, who has given up on the number one either retiring or dying. So, he goes with this spiel to his boss to ensure that he also becomes the 'head' without having to indulge in such medieval pastimes as assassinations to create a vacancy. No broth gets spoiled in the process, since our man only wants to get the Chef's hat and perks, but has no intent of entering the kitchen. (You have doubts? Even after all those Deputy Prime ministers and the like? I think the original doubting Thomas can take your correspondence course) As a matter of fact, it seems to me that neither 'head' wants to enter the kitchen these days, and the broth gets made on auto-pilot, thereby proving that 'No cook can also spoil the broth'.

Of course, you do have a doubt here. Why is it "Two heads is better than one" and not any more? Well, as they say "Two is company, three is a crowd" - and, therefore, we developed Boards of Directors, Cabinets and the likes to ensure that we have enough people for those rare occasions when we prefer crowds. You know the net impact of that, since "The IQ of a mob is equal to the IQ of its Lowest Common denominator" which, invariably, tends to the single digits.

And, yes of course, in any crowd of which I am a part, you know who THAT Lowest Common denominator is!

P.S : Owe this to Ilakshee's comment though she may not be particularly pleased by my (mis)interpretation!