A time to decide

Management is full of jargon that peps up knowledge that seems to be commonly known through the ages. There are times that this reductionist view of management education seems to me to be a vilification of a degree which has endowed people with enormous earning power. At other times, though, it seems to be absolutely true. (Which, I suppose, IS necessary for ANY criticism - that small kernel of truth.)

So, yes, I read this Kural by Tiru and I find that this is yet another of those times when management clothed old knowledge in a three-piece suit and sold it as new wisdom.

Soozhchchi mudivu thuniveydhal aththunivu thaazhchchiyul thangudhal theedhu - Tirukkural

The proper function of analysis is to come to a decision; and that decision should be timely else it is criminal - Loose translation

Now THERE. The idea of analyzing something is not to be endlessly discussing it in circles. There is NO point in analyzing anything unless there is a clear intent to come to a conclusion. AND unless you have come to a decision based on the analysis, the analysis has to be deemed to be a waste. I mean, otherwise, everyone sitting in a bar and arguing about politics could call himself an analyst. (AND does, going by what goes on in TV debates? I wouldn't know about that!)

Not only is a decision necessary from out of analysis, that decision should also be timely. I mean, it is all fine to wait for a perfect conclusion and the pluperfect solution but...well, if a car is about to collide with yours, there is no real point in identifying the most optimal path by which you can avoid the collision AFTER you have gone through the windshield, is there? Decisions have to be timely after all, unless you are only doing a post mortem of the situation at a later date.

Now, we management chappies have a pithy way to say that same thing. We ask you to avoid 'analysis paralysis'. Keep analyzing a thing from so many different angles that you fail to come to a conclusion. See what I mean. Management IS a sort of shorthand to commonsense.

But then, if commonsense were not SO uncommon, you'd probably not need a degree in it, would you? Now...

Better than an ascetic?

You generally expect an ascetic to be placed above everyone else whenever a philosopher does the rankings. The idea, perhaps, finds widespread acceptance as well because you see the poor chap doing without so much in life that you feel that it is only right that he gets something out of it. Such, generally, has been the way ascetics have been ranked in most cases.

Tiru, though, seems to swim against the current in this issue. At least when it comes to this Kural.

Aatrin ozhukki aranizhukkaa ilvaazhkkai norppaarin nonmai udaitthu - Tirukkural

The householder, who upholds his virtue while helping others uphold theirs, is worthy of greater respect than the ascetic - Loose Translation

Tiru was quite understanding of the interdependence of people as, indeed was Hindu Society. No ascetic could sustain himself, however meagerly he consumed, unless there was someone who not only produced what he consumed but was also willing to give some of it away in alms. So, you'd see that the duties of the householder (Grihasta dharma) include giving alms to the ascetics. Thus, the householder (the regular joe who works for his living and has a family) is the person who enables the ascetic to BE an ascetic.

So, Tiru holds that the householder who lives up to his dharma, including charity to ascetics, shines brighter than the ascetic. The ascetic, himself, is the person who has given up all worldly pleasures; sacrificed his status in society; given up his ego sufficiently so that he can beg for his living and leads a life devoted to worship. (Oh! Yes! He was not just a lazy vagabond who found it easy to live off others. People in those days were not THAT gullible to be accepting indolent no-goods as ascetics.) How, then, can the householder who lives a life of relative ease and pleasure be better than the ascetic?

To live up to the dharma of a householder, while surrounded by the temptations of a normal life, is not given to everyone. You see, the dharma of a householder in those days meant, for example, placing the needs of hospitality above the needs of the household. Is that a call that you can see yourself readily taking when you have just enough for feeding your family and a guest lands up? Or, say, living with the jibes of your relatives about the relative 'poverty' in which you keep your family because you refuse to take bribes? It is not for nothing that you exalt a Raja Janak as a Rajarishi AND place him at par or above the sages of his day.

You know, net net, I realize one thing. That, no matter what you choose to be, Tiru does not grant you respect unless you live up to the dharma of THAT thing. And, boy, the conditions that THAT dharma imposes on you...

True duty?

This duty thing is very vexing. I mean, if there is any saying that is much over-used (AND most popular) from the Bhagavad Gita it is...YES! THAT is it! 'Karmanye vadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachana.' OR, in English, 'Do your duty, look not to the fruits thereof' or some such. See, it is not enough that this duty thing involves DOING, instead of lolling around, but you are also supposed not to expect anything out of it.

About the only thing that keeps your nose to the grindstone is the fact that, at the end of it, you'll benefit from it. AND here these guys come, telling you that you are not to expect anything out of it at all. And Tiru is certainly no ray of sunshine when he talks of the same subject.

Dhavam seyvaar than karuman seyvaar matrallaar avan seyvaar aasai utpattu - Tirukkural

Only he whose mind is free of desire truly does his duty; the rest waste their efforts being distracted by desires - Loose Translation

You know, these words like 'Dhavam' are a tough nut comes to translation. People sort of call it 'meditation' and dust their hands off thinking that they have done a good job. Not really. Dhavam is a mix of worship, the mindset of meditation, the renunciation of a sage, yada yada. Which is one of the reasons why the West finds it impossible to GET Indian philosophy - the fallacies of complacent translators. In the instant Kural, the mind free of desires IS the most apt attribute to use for Dhavam.

Where the Gita tells you to avoid concentrating on the fruits of your actions, it is seen more as a philosophical construct. That if you do anything as a duty, without being driven by the desire for the fruits of the action, you are free of the sins of that action. (AND, yes, that 'duty' IS an imperfect translation of 'Dharma'. Every human being is supposed to adhere to multiple dharmas - as a human, son, a husband, a neighbor, a citizen, an employee etc. etc. SO, 'duty' as in Indian philosophy is not the simple thing of saying that "I was obeying orders therefore I am free of sin"! There is a hierarchy of dharmas to live by, not just one. Especially when you are supposed to acted while being free of desire for the fruits - promotions, desired transfers OR even escaping being shot at dawn.)

Tiru is not merely being philosophic here. What he, in effect, is saying is that you WILL be doing whatever you set out to do only if you free your mind from desire. If your mind is always set on your desires, then your effort will go waste because you are not taking interest in the job itself. Sweeping assertion, yes, but is true to a greater or lesser extent in all jobs. How good a job you do of ANYTHING is a function of how much interest you take in doing it. And if your desires rob your concentration on the job, the results are likely to be less than good.

What, then, if you conceive of YOUR job AS satisfying your desires and nothing else? As most of us seem to do. Point to ponder? Not really IF your desires are to be satisfied by others and not exclusively by yourself. THEN your primary objective IS to satisfy those others, even if the final goal is to satisfy yourself. Therefore, you still need to do a good job which means you need to focus ON the job, and not on your desires, at least WHILE you are doing it.

Sad! No philosopher ever seems to project a decent shortcut to success. What's the use of philosophy if I still have to work, I say!

The sure path to Heaven?

This thing about a Heaven after death is, I suppose, something that people may have their doubts about. I mean, yeah, it's nice to believe that there IS a Heaven where all is bliss and that you could earn a place there by what you do down here. But...you see, the issue IS about what you have to do down here. Like not being greedy, not lusting yada yada. It's almost like you got to live a Hell on earth in order to get to Heaven after death.

I daresay that there would be a lot more believers in Heaven if only the path to it on Earth were a shade more...joyful, shall we say? I have always found that belief in the existence of a certain goal is directly proportional to your belief in your ability to achieve it. OR, in simpler terms, grapes are seldom pre-judged to be sour if they are within reach.

Tiru's path to Heaven, in other kurals, may have been equally as terrible. But, in this one, he makes a point that is not really so off-putting.

NallaatraaL Naadi AruLaaLga pallaatraal therinum akde thunai - Tirukkural

To study and assess morality and be kind to all around you is the only path to Heaven even in the light of the conflicting tenets of various sects - Loose translation

Yeah, yeah, that 'morality' bit does not seem too much like it will be a easy thing but being kind? Is that too much to ask? Yeah, I know, it sort of kills all your social media popularity because where is the fun in reading kind things? So, bang go your chances of going viral which, other than for things like Covid, seems to be the most sought after social media nirvana. Hmmm! So Tiru, also, is asking for some serious sacrifice then.

Though, Tiru seems to echo what everyone pays mouth service to these days. That, despite what each religion varies on, the bottom line is that Kindness IS the passport to Heaven. All that fighting for the morality of my religion's tenets etc. etc. do not seem to cut much ice when it comes to your aspirations for whatever you think is Heavenly Bliss. Not if you go by Tiru. You can study all the morality you like, you can choose to live by it but when it comes to others you need to comport yourself with kindness first and THEN comes whatever preaching that you choose to do. Sans the kindness, the rest is useless in transporting you to Heaven or so Tiru would have it.

Now THAT I suppose is something every sect will agree on. That all this is nonsense, that kindness be damned if it gets in the way of propagating their own idea of morality. Alas!