The worst sin?

There are times, though, when you would feel that philosophers are not alway blathering fools; that what they say can, every now and then, make sense. You may not agree with them entirely especially when they go overboard with their metaphors. I mean, like, they tend to say that THIS is the greatest virtue but you may disagree simply because they would say the same thing about the next virtue they talk about. ("I bet you say that of all virtues" is something that you could legitimately say to them.) But, there are times when you do agree that what they are talking of IS a virtue (or vice) and, probably, an important virtue (or vice).

Like, when Tiru says this...

Patrullam ennum ivaranmai etrullum ennap paduvathon drandru - Tirukkural

The miserliness that refuses to part with its possessions stands apart as the worst of sins - Loose Translation

Miserliness is not the same as avarice. Avarice is the need to acquire wealth or possessions or position regardless of whether it belongs to another person. AND, in the process of such acquisition, the greedy person does not care for any rules or morality. But, the acquisition of such wealth can also be for the purpose of spending it to lead the sort of life that is coveted by him.

Miserliness, on the other hand, is to keep hold of the wealth that one has and refusing to part with it no matter what the need. The miser will begrudge spending his money on his own food, on the food and health of his own family and, needless to say, not spend a penny to benefit society. If avarice is one side of the coin, miserliness is the other.

Tiru places miserliness as a greater sin than avarice or any of the other sins. THAT comes from a place of pragmatism, one supposes. The avaricious man is still a man of society, willing to engage with the world around him and, thus, capable of being useful to others if only to maintain his ability to acquire more wealth. The miserly man cares two hoots for society; his only goal in life is to safeguard his wealth. Thus, the miser is not even controlled by the pressure of social opprobium.

But, then, since the miser is disengaged from Society, is it not true that he does no harm? Not necessarily true. In the very nature of things, living in a Society entails costs on the individual, especially the rich individual. AND the miser would go to any length to avoid costs. So, yes, a miser CAN do harm. The miser is likely to underpay his employees, make them work in horrible conditions, employ child labor and so on. The distaste to part with his money can cause untold hardship to those who depend on him in one way or the other.

His very miserliness costs society. When wealth is hoarded, that wealth is not deployed in the economy, which leaves Society poorer than it needs to be. AND do not think Tiru has no idea of economics. As I have had occasion to say before, he has devoted hundreds of kurals to economics alone.

Miserliness may or may not be THE worst sin; but we will all agree that it IS one of the sins.

Unless, of course, YOU are yourself that miser!

Chasing the ephemeral

There are times when philosophers actually seem to live in a totally different universe from the one you inhabit. (I have said that before? Privilege of age to keep repeating oneself. After all, one needs some compensation for being called names like boomer and so on.) In fact, there are occasions when you feel that the time to follow philosophers once you reach their universe. Yet...they are also like an itch that you cannot scratch. They stick like a burr in your mind.

Take this thing from Tiru...

Nillaadha vatrai nilaiyina endrunarum pullari vaanmai kadai - Tirukkural

Those who take the ephemeral to be permanent live the basest of lives - Loose Translation

Now, what IS this transient thing that you should not take for permanence? THAT is open to interpretation. In Tiru's times, even life itself was considered a transient thing and, thus, all that you achieve in THIS world is ephemeral; the only permanent thing that you should aim for is Nirvana or the equivalent thereof. So, that could be what Tiru means in this Kural.

Those were the times when wealth was not given the exalted position that it now has attained. So, it could well be that Tiru means that the acquisition of wealth is ephemeral and not to be compared to other goals in life. Remember, though, that Tiru IS the chap who devoted hundreds of kurals to the ways and means to acquire and distribute wealth. So, it is not like he looks down upon wealth per se. IF this is what he means, about wealth being transient, it is probably a more nuanced view. To treat the acquisition of wealth as the goal of life is to chase the ephemeral; wealth can come and wealth can dissipate as readily. (In his times, export meant depending on sailing ships which could be lost at sea and ruin the merchant. No marine insurance, see!) The worthy man concentrates on what he DOES and treats wealth as a byproduct; OR concentrates on wealth as a MEANS to achieve his real goals.

But, then, Tiru did not live in modern times, so his world-view is dated and, possibly, useless. I mean, how can he even know the transcendent importance of 'Likes' and 'Shares' and having your posts go viral on Insta or X? He would treat this whole thing as chasing the transient and mistaking it for the permanent.

I mean, come on, what's good for the president of the USA is good for all of us, no? Who cares what some sort of super-boomer uncle said in his ancient times?

Maximising success?

Now and then, philosophers pay attention to the fact that men may not possess immense talent. You lose hope about their ever paying attention to people like us what with their lofty requirements of leadership and all. And then they turn their attention to you and you feel all is well with the world.

Like, in this instance, Tiru says...

Olva dharivadhu arindhadhan kanThangich chelvaarkuch chellaadhadhu il - Tirukkural

He, who knows he can do a job; knows what is needed to do it; and applies himself with determination to doing it, cannot fail in whatever he does - Loose Translation

The first requirement is that you should know what is doable for you. This does not mean that you can just give up on everything as being beyond your limits. It is just that you ought to know what you are truly incapable of doing. If you are tone-deaf, say, there is no point in your trying to master music. But if you ARE capable of mastering music, then you ought not to give up trying to become the best at it. THEN you need to identify what is needed to acquire that mastery and diligently apply yourself to it.

The point is to have the self awareness to know your insurmountable limitations and stay away from wasting your energy in endeavours where you have no way of succeeding. Then to know what is needed, by way of training or support or materials, to succeed in your choice of endeavour. And then to diligently acquire what is needed and push forward to complete that which you have taken up.

Come to think of it, it really does not seem like the aam-janta kind of thing, all this self-awareness and determination. But, then, to achieve success in whatever you seek to do is not really an aam-janta kind of thing, is it?

Silence can be really golden?

Yeah, yeah, it is true that when someone is riding his hobbyhorse he would prefer that his audience keeps quiet. After all, nothing pleases a speaker more than what he would think of as a respectful silence. So, it is but natural for a philosopher to praise the virtues of silence? THAT may well depend on the philosopher but, when the philosopher is long dead and gone, it may well be better to assess what he has said rather than dismiss it. After all, there is no real pleasure in trolling a dead person. AND, when it is a philosopher, it is unlikely that he is celebrity enough to give you the pleasure of irritating his ardent fans. So...

Anyway, Tiru has this to say in favor of silence...

Kallaa dhavarum naninallar katraarmun sollaa dhirukkap perin - Tirukkural

Even the ignorant may seem worthy if they keep silent in the company of the learned - Loose Translation

Now, I shall have to issue a caveat. It IS reasonably unlikely that the ignorant get to be in the company of the learned in social media, which is seems to be the only place that people interact these days. I mean, of what use are algorithms if not to weed out the blatherings of the learned from polluting the conversation of the ignorant? Since we all end up in our own echo chambers, this piece of advice is...irrelevant.

But, yeah, there is this pesky real life. So, one can see this as possibly useful only in what we like to call IRL. In real life, which is so messy that it does not neatly filter out the 'others', one can see that we may need to take some heed of this behavioral aberration. (Why aberration? I mean, really, the IDEA that one should keep silent merely because one doesn't know the subject! Pathetic Boomer nonsense!)

So, yeah, Tiru says that when, say, a bunch of physicists are discussing, say, the String theory, it would do well for you to just keep quiet and listen. If a bunch of economists are discussing the effect of reducing interest rates, do not butt in with your 'knowledgeable' comments about the benefits of inflation. AND so on. Why? For one, people like listeners and prefer to think of that chap as more intelligent than he really is. (I mean, which speaker would like to think that his listeners are fools? Reflects on him and his speech rather badly, no?) For another, WHAT you speak may end up reflecting on you and, since you are admittedly ignorant of the issue...(You are NOT? Then you are not the subject matter of this discussion. Did you not read that Kural? It is meant FOR the ignorant.)

In the more recent but admittedly boomer times, we had this saying...'It is better to keep your mouth shut and be taken for a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.' OR, as I have said in the past, "It is better to admit your ignorance than to display it." Yeah, yeah, it is ONLY in this pesky real life where your boss or some such chap with power may be around to hear you...and kick you out on the pavement. (Why? Because that bunch of knowledgeable chaps around ignorant you could well be discussing the future use of AI in your company around ignorant you. To butt in there with ill-informed comments...) In Social media, especially after looking around to see that your boss is not lurking around, you can feel free to say what you want where you want. (I believe, though, that all sorts of people check out your social media presence - employers, potential and current; government; and so on. So...)

Tiru is actually going one step further. Keeping quiet, according to him, does not get you to be taken for a fool. It actually makes you seem to be a person of worth. Now THAT is an offer you cannot refuse! Or...can you?