34.2 Impermanence

 34.2 Impermanence 

Question:

Is there a soul? Is it permanent? 

Answer:

Death is like sleep, and birth is the awakening from sleep.                (Couplet - 339) 

The fledgling flies away, abandoning the nest; such is the

soul's relationship with the body.                                                            (Couplet - 338) 

Is there no permanent place for the soul which leaves the body at the time

of death like the fledgling that flees its nest when it is ready to fly? (Couplet - 340) 

உறங்கு வதுபோலும் சாக்காடு உறங்கி

விழிப்பது போலும் பிறப்பு.                                     (குறள் – 339) 

குடம்பை தனித்து ஒழியப் புள்பறந் தற்றே

உடம்பொடு உயிரிடை நட்பு.                                   (குறள் -338) 

புக்கில் அமைந்தின்று கொல்லோ உடம்பினுள்

துச்சில் இருந்த உயிர்க்கு.                                     (குறள் – 340)

 

Explanation:

Major religions like Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity have the concept of a soul that is permanent and distinct from the body. Even ancient Greek philosophers like Plato believed in the existence of a permanent soul that temporarily resides in a human body when the body is alive. Despite the widespread belief that there is a soul and that it is permanent, there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of a soul. So, the fact that the soul exists and is permanent is a belief rather than a fact. 

Valluvar also subscribes to the idea that every human being has a soul, and it departs from the body when the body dies. According to Valluvar, the body and the soul relationship is like sleep and awakening. He also says that the soul departs from the body like the fledgling, abandoning the nest and flying away. He wonders whether there is a permanent abode for the soul which temporarily resides in the body like a tenant.

33.1 Avoidance of Killing

 33.1 Avoidance of Killing

Question:

Is killing inconsistent with virtue?

Answer:

Sharing your food with other living creatures and protecting them

is the best of all precepts in all the books of the world.         (couplet – 322)

 

Non-killing is the highest virtue; whereas the killing of life

will bring in its wake all evil.                                                         (couplet – 321)

 

பகுத்துண்டு பல்லுயிர் ஓம்புதல் நூலோர்

தொகுத்தவற்றுள் எல்லாந் தலை.                       (குறள் – 322)

 

அறவினை யாதெனின் கொல்லாமை கோறல்

பிறவினை எல்லாந் தரும்.                              (குறள் – 321)

 

Explanation:

           Almost all religions and ethical codes consider that sharing one’s food with other living beings is a compassionate act and recommend it. However, they differ in their position on non-killing. For example, the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” in the Ten Commandments is generally interpreted as one should not kill another human being. Killing an animal for the purpose of eating their meat or hunting as a sport is not condemned in most religions. Only Jainism insists on the non-killing of any living being as its cardinal principle. The Vedic religion, the forerunner of modern-day Hinduism did not prohibit animal sacrifices. Even now, animal sacrifices are routinely carried out by the devotees of some Hindu Gods. Valluvar condemns the killing of any living creature for any reason. He says that killing is inconsistent with virtue and it is evil.

 

32.1 Nonviolence

 32.1 Nonviolence

Question:

What is violence, and how can we avoid violence towards others? 

Answer:

What one has realized as causing pain to oneself, one should

not inflict on others.                                                                                   (Couplet - 316) 

இன்னா எனத்தான் உணர்ந்தவை துன்னாமை

வேண்டும் பிறன்கண் செயல்.                                                                          (குறள் – 316)

 

Explanation:

Generally, violence is defined as the use of physical force to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy another living being. In fact, violence is much more complicated than that. A more comprehensive definition of violence given by the Old Testament Scholar Professor Terence Fretheim seems more appropriate and comprehensive. He says that violence may be defined as follows: any action, verbal or nonverbal, oral or written, physical or psychical, active or passive, public or private, individual or institutional/societal, human or divine, in whatever degree of intensity, that abuses, violates, injures or kills. Since violence implies a multitude of actions caused by words and deeds, it is difficult to know which actions should be avoided.

Consistent with Professor Terrence Fretheim’s definition, violence against other human beings would include verbal as well as physical violence. Verbal violence refers to harsh and unkind words, slander, and lies that offend and hurt another human being's feelings. Physical violence would include any physical attack which may cause pain, injury, or death to another person. Valluvar condemns verbal as well as physical violence. According to him, one should avoid any violence through the use of words or deeds.

There is a rule known as the Golden Rule, also referred to as the Law of Reciprocity. It refers to the principle of treating others as one would like to be treated. It is a maxim that is found in many religions and cultures. The Golden Rule is often attributed to the Chinese philosopher Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC). This Golden Rule has two versions. One is the positive version, and the other is the negative version. The positive version of the Golden Rule states, "Do unto others what you would want others to do unto you." The negative version states, "Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you." The positive version stresses what a compassionate person should do, and the negative version emphasizes the actions one should avoid. Valluvar has a simple and elegant form of the negative version of the Golden Rule, which can guide what actions should be avoided. So, according to Valluvar, anything that one has realized as causing pain to oneself should not be inflicted on others.

32.2 Nonviolence

 32.2 Nonviolence 

Question:

How to handle others' violence towards us? 

Answer:

The best punishment for those who do evil to you is to shame them by returning good for evil and after doing good in return, forget the evil that was done to you as well as the good deed you did.                                                                                     (Couplet – 314)

இன்னாசெய் தாரை ஒறுத்தல் அவர்நாண

நன்னயஞ் செய்து விடல்.                                                             (குறள் – 314) 

Explanation:

Valluvar has a profound idea about what to do with those who harm us. He says that if someone has harmed you or hurt you somehow or the other, then the best thing to do is to return good for evil. That is, do something good for someone who did evil so that he will be vexed at his own actions.

Doing good in return for evil is very difficult for most people. If someone does good in return for evil and continues to harp on the evil deed that was done to him and the good deed he did, then the person who did the evil deed might feel humiliated, and the purpose of doing the good deed will be lost. That is why Valluvar says that the evil deed and the good deed must be forgotten.

Valluvar's idea that evil deeds should be reciprocated with good deeds is somewhat similar to the statement in the Bible which says, "You resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other (King James 2000 Bible, Luke 6:29)." The dictum in Couplet 314 is far more profound than the statement from the Bible or the Golden Rule of Confucius. Therefore, it is apt to refer to Couplet 314 as the Platinum Rule of Valluvar.

Valluvar's ideas on nonviolence have impressed people like the famous Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi adopted the principle of nonviolence and applied it to obtain India's independence from British rule. Later, Rev. Martin Luther King adopted the idea of nonviolence to obtain civil rights for African Americans in the USA, and Nelson Mandela used nonviolent protests to abolish apartheid in South Africa and establish a democratic government in that country. So, Valluvar's idea of nonviolence has historical significance. 

32.3 Nonviolence

 32.3 Nonviolence

Question:

Is there an example of doing good for evil? 

Answer:

It is a lofty notion to do good to those who have done evil to us. An incident in Gandhiji's life is an excellent example of doing good for evil. During Gandhiji's struggle for the rights of South African Indians, General Smuts was in power in South Africa. He imprisoned Gandhiji several times. While in prison, Gandhiji made a pair of sandals with his own hands for General Smuts. Before Gandhiji left South Africa, he presented the pair of sandals to General Smuts. A few years later, General Smuts returned the pair of sandals to Gandhiji. He also sent a letter along with the pair of sandals. The letter said, "I used the pair of sandals you gave me for a few years. The thought that I was not qualified to wear them always haunted me. So, I am sending them back to you. " The pair of sandals returned by General Smuts is now in the Gandhi Museum in Mumbai. Like Gandhiji, not everyone can do good to those who have done evil. But the lesson we must learn is that it should be our goal to do so.

31.1 Anger

 31.1 Anger 

Question:

What is anger? Is it acceptable to get angry at someone? 

Answer:

He who controls his anger where he can afford to be angry is the one who really controls his anger. What difference does it make if one does not control one's anger where one cannot afford to be angry?                                                                                                                                   (Kural – 301) 

Anger is destructive in situations where one cannot afford to be angry.

There is nothing worse than that, even where one can afford to be angry.             (kural – 302) 

Only evil consequences arise out of anger. Therefore, forget about

getting angry at anyone.                                                                                                     (kural – 303)

 

செல்லிடத்துக் காப்பான் சினங்காப்பான் அல்லிடத்துக்

காக்கின்என் காவாக்கால் என்?                                                                                            (குறள் – 301) 

செல்லா இடத்துச் சினந்தீது செல்லிடத்தும்

இல்அதனின் தீய பிற.                                                                                                                (குறள் – 302) 

மறத்தல் வெகுளியை யார்மாட்டும் தீய

பிறத்தல் அதனான் வரும்.                                                                                                         (குறள் – 303) 

Explanation:

Anger is a common emotion. According to psychologists, "Anger is a strong emotion often caused by some form of wrong-doing, ill-treatment, or unfairness. We experience the feeling of anger when we think we have been mistreated or when we are faced with problems that keep us from getting what we want or attaining our personal goals. Everyone experiences anger, some more often than others." Researchers have observed that an average adult experiences anger about once a day and becomes annoyed or peeved about three times a day. Although anger is a common emotion experienced almost daily by almost everyone, depending upon the intensity and the frequency of experiencing anger, it affects our mental and physical health and our ability to have positive social interactions with others. It also affects our personal, family, and professional lives. 

Valluvar has several interesting and profound observations regarding anger and its impact on human beings. There are occasions where one can afford to express one's anger. Although the child psychologists may disagree, it is not unusual for the parents to express their anger at their children when they misbehave. Invariably, the children tolerate the parents' anger or occasionally react with their own anger. In any case, the parents can and do express their anger at their children. On the other hand, it is unusual for an employee to express his anger towards his superiors. If he does so, he will be subjected to punishments. So, there are occasions when one can afford to express one's anger without severe consequences, and there are occasions when one cannot afford to do so. 

Valluvar says if one is trying to control one's anger, one should do so in situations when one can afford to be angry. For example, if a parent tries to control their anger, they should restrain from getting angry at their child. In general, it is better to control one's anger in all situations. The Greek philosopher Plato is said to have mentioned that there are two things a person should never be angry at, what they can help, and what they cannot. In other words, anger should be completely avoided in all situations.

 

31.2 Anger

 31.2 Anger

Question:

What are the consequences of anger? 

Answer:

He who considers anger an important quality to have is sure to hurt

himself like the one who slaps the ground with his hand.                               (kural – 307) 

Is there anything else that destroys laughter and joy like anger?                   (kural - 304) 

Anger destroys the one who gets angry and one's kith and kin who

support him like a lifeboat.                                                                                     (kural – 306) 

If you want to protect yourself, guard against your anger. If you do

not control your anger, your anger will kill you.                                                 (kural – 305)

 

சினத்தைப் பொருளென்று கொண்டவன் கேடு

நிலத்தறைந்தான் கைபிழையா தற்று.                                                                     (குறள் – 307) 

நகையும் உவகையும் கொல்லும் சினத்தின்

பகையும் உளவோ பிற.                                                                                                  (குறள் – 304) 

சினமென்னும் சேர்ந்தாரைக் கொல்லி இனமென்னும்

ஏமப் புணையைச் சுடும்.                                                                                                 (குறள் – 306) 

தன்னைத்தான் காக்கின் சினங்காக்க காவாக்கால்

தன்னையே கொல்லுஞ் சினம்.                                                                                        (குறள் – 305)

 

Explanation:

The American poet and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson is quoted as saying, "For every minute you remain angry, you give up sixty seconds of peace of mind." Undoubtedly, the loss of peace of mind leads to restlessness and unhappiness. Anger and happiness are diametrically opposite of each other. One does not coexist with the other. Valluvar is convinced that anger destroys laughter and joy, and thereby the angry person hurts himself like the one who slaps the ground with his hand and inflicts pain on oneself (Couplet – 307). Also, Valluvar believes that nothing else destroys the laughter of an individual like his own anger (Couplet – 304). The angry person hurts himself by destroying his own happiness and hurts others at whom his anger is aimed. Because of his anger, his relationship with his kith and kin who support him will also be affected. In turn, they might also become angry and suffer the consequences of their anger(Couplet – 306).

 

In addition to destroying one's peace of mind, laughter, and happiness, anger also causes several catastrophic consequences for those who are in the habit of frequently becoming angry. Medical practitioners and psychologists believe that anger increases stress levels and blood pressure. Researchers have observed that there is a three times higher risk of having a stroke from a blood clot to the brain or bleeding within the brain during two hours after an angry outburst. For people with an aneurism in one of the brain arteries, there is a six times higher risk of rupturing this aneurism following an angry outburst. Due to anger, there could be additional consequences such as sleep disorders, anxiety disorder, depression, respiratory problems, weakened immune system, and even heart attack. All these consequences arising from various levels of anger tend to reduce the life span of the angry individuals. Valluvar would have had no way of knowing all these complications arising from anger. But he was sure that those who exhibit angry behavior are likely to die because of their anger (couplet – 305).