Feeds:
Posts

Failing to Act Like a Man

பொறி இன்மை யார்க்கும் பழி அன்று; ஆள்வினை இன்மை பழி.

Pronounced as: poRi inmai yaarkkum pazhi anRu; aaLvinai inmai pazhi.

In English : “One cannot be blamed for bad luck; one can only be blamed for failing to act like a man”

Pronunciation and interpretation courtesy of Kevin R. ( Present and Past Affiliations: UCLA Linguistics , UC Berkeley Linguistics )

Thirukkural is one of the oldest works on ethics from ancient India dated somewhere around the second century B.C, a collection of couplets on almost everything. Some aphorisms are just too wonderful. I have been thinking of reading some of the Thirukkural (in translation) for sometime, but alas! I have it in my plan to read it by the end of this year and compile my favorite aphorisms from it. Though it is pointless to compare, the aphorisms from the Thirukkural are way more insightful and on a much broader range of subjects as compared to aphorisms by Neitzsche (i am a HUGE fan of his aphorisms, though not really  of all his ideas) or Kabir (A personal opinion). I’ll surely read it by the end of this year, point noted!

[A statue of Thiruvalluvar at Kanyakumari]

PS: I am not a Tamil, so a mistake in the above couplet in Tamil (if any) would be unintentional. Please notify me if there is any.

I will be writing something on science/technology the next time for sure. No more quotes for at least four weeks! :)

Also apologies for the hiatus from writing here. I have been into a lot of interesting things lately (Some of which might soon make it to this blog) which haven’t given me any time to write.

Resources on and Translations of the Thirukkural:

Disclaimer: The above translations are subject to variations.

Onionesque Reality Home

11 Responses

1. hi Shubendu, being a tamil, i was excited at seeing u write abt thiruvalluvar. I used to visit ur web site to check the links for video lectures. It was a sweet surprise to see a thirukural couplet here.

let me take this oppurtunity to briefly introduce thirukural to u and ur readers. Thirukural is a magnum opus in tamil of 1330 couplets ( a two lined poem exactly of 7 words- these are often combos, 4 in the fst row and 3 in the next) written by thiruvalluvar some 2000 years ago.

The work is divided into 3 broad sections (called pal in tamil) where he discusses about Virtues ( aram); Governing affairs – both at a societal and a personal level ( porul); and thirdly about love ( kama ).
Each section has chapters that consist of 10 couplets each.
That much abt the structure of the work.

Thirkural is spl bcos of its simple language and the depth of meaning that resonates so much wisdom that Thiruvallur is considered divine. reading a thirukural couplet u can jus loose urself in appreciating the depth of the meaning conveyed by those two simple lines, just as evinced by the couplet u have cited here.

2. Thank you very much Vj for a terse introduction to the Thirukkural! :)

I know of Thiruvalluvar since my class (grade) 6 because of a chapter on him in my Hindi textbook.

However I discovered him in the real sense only about a year back (March 2007) when I met a linguist who was trying to explain me the syntactical/morphological/grammatical beauty of Sanskrit (especially Panini) and classical Tamil and the possible usage of such (though not really analogous) grammers to use in robots (with speech synthesizers) to produce sound by defining in them a minimum grammer (including for sounds). Before that i had only heard of people saying that Sanskrit and Tamil are beautiful languages but without ANY ACTUAL theoretical backing on why they said so. Later however the talk simply diverted to the Thirukkural.

I have been planning to read all of the Thirukkural for sometime, and by the end of this year i will definitely read it. At least right after my present stack of “books to be read” is exhausted!

3. The quote is universal and calls for bold decision making in the background of whatever luck is in store.
Thank you for introducing Thirukkural and Thiruvalluvar

4. “One cannot be blamed for bad luck; one can only be blamed for failing to act like a man”

I am not a guy who tries to critisize everything or find faults with everyone…….but I want to mention a serious point here….

Above meaning is really great…wonderful…excellent…but but but…

there are two loop holes here….loop holes which basically came from inefficiency of communication…loop holes are “bad luck” and “man”…
One can raise debates of why only “man” whynot “woman”??…and go on with radical feminist theories but I am not on to them….

Understanding what “bad luck” is and understanding of what “man” is really really important here…

communication involves two people….one who is a communicator and other who listens to him and understands him…if it is context dependent,it is easy to understand…like the response I am writing…since this reponse I am writing is after the post…whoever reads the post might understand response I am writing down here…

But in case of context-independent communication or communicating understanding of nature which is time-independent,it is difficult to get the real meaning of it….

here,the writer Thiruvalluvar wrote it in tamil….and it is translated to english,there itself we lose some stuff about actual meaning of the writer because of inefficiency of translation from tamil to english/translator to understand tamil or understand meaning of writer…negating first obstacle of understanding tamil…we can think of a good tamil scholar interpreting it…..even then we have problems….in interpretation and applicability…..

I personally think…works like Thirukural have to be understood as a whole…not as parts….though parts give us understanding,we cannot apply it everywhere or we may apply it inappropriately….

Works like these have such truth/strength similar to sunlight….strength of fade sun-lightlight we see in winters should not be interpreted to be real sun-light(atleast from the referance frame of where you stand),one can see real sun-light or sun only when clouds get cleared….here clouds can be compared to ignorance…then what is ignorance?…I cannot go on….

I saw structure of this work…if I am allowed to go to extreme perspective…..if one understands this work completely without any doubt in him,he needs no other book to read or he doesnot feel to read anyother book….especially on these matters reality/life/society/nature/ethics/truth etc….

5. The usage of “man” and “badluck” is clear. The open nature of the meaning of “bad-luck”increases the profoundness. It is easy to find loopholes, however “act like a man” is not a derogatory connotation. It represents a deep ingrained cultural attitude. “Act like a man” is used to this day by people. In many articles “man” is still used to represent all of mankind including women and not just men. The word mankind is an example of that in itself. Or consider the usage of “man learnt the use of fire rather late”. What is to be understood is that it represents a deep ingrained cultural bias and the thirukkural is for the people so it is in most practical terms. Though i never use words like “man” myself in a general sense. I don’t see any flaw in terms of meaning in the above and i also think that it is narrow minded to point out such a flaw because the person who wrote it might not have even meant it beyond using as a sense of expression. It should be noted that it was written 2000 years ago, women did not even have suffrage till the end of the last century. It is nothing more than an expression.

No book can teach you anything about reality in the above sense. It can only serve as a catalyst (or reverse catalyst whichever applicable).

6. I will just say that there is a lot more structure to it than you wrote in above post….I was referring to that whole structure….to understand the whoe structure,you might need many cases to study,think alot,observe alot,use other works littlebit etc….

If you try to search for reality in books,you can never find it…it is soo obvious for me that I didnot write it down…

if things were soo easy to explain in words…or to put in words….it would have been really great…..but it is not soo….

These kind of works have great structure in them…they have to be understood step by step….questioning every word….to gain understanding,you need a lot of time….

Some N arguments cannot convince you till you see my point….when you see my point,then you will understand what I am talking about….

I will explain you how I look at it…

“One cannot be blamed for bad luck; one can only be blamed for failing to act like a man”

You have taken this from Thirukkal…2nd Section named Wealth….1st chapter named Royalty…24rth part named Manly Efforts….

In the order of 1330….the aphorism u mentioned is 618….

I took translation from this site…

in which

Kural – 618
‘Tis no reproach unpropitious fate should ban;
But not to do man’s work is foul disgrace to man!
Adverse fate is no disgrace to any one; to be without exertion and without knowing what should be known, is disgrace.

Is there any difference between the translation you have and the above translation??….I have asked one of my friends who knows tamil to compare both the translations and he said the translation I am pasting here suits much more better than translation you gave…I am just giving his opinion….you can read translations of both and if you can see subtle differences in both translations, you can understand Thirukkural in a better way….

Letz read Kural 616,Kural 617,Kural 618,Kural 619,Kural 620 in an order…

Kural 616….Labour will produce wealth; idleness will bring poverty.
Kural 617…They say that the black Mudevi (the goddess of adversity) dwells with laziness, and the Latchmi (the goddess of prosperity) dwells with the labour of the industrious.
Kural 618…Adverse fate is no disgrace to any one; to be without exertion and without knowing what should be known, is disgrace.
Kural 619… They who labour on, without fear and without fainting will see even fate (put) behind their back.
Kural 620…They who labour on, without fear and without fainting will see even fate (put) behind their back.

I get a picture of laziness being key issue being described here…..
Issue is some people donot even know what laziness is in our modern times….forgetting everything and passing away time without any activity(all kinds of activities you can think of)….forget the whole world around us….to let things go by themselves for sometime…just to eat, sleep, sit silent or enjoy nature’s beauty for a long time(for hours)….

How can one misinterpret the translation of the words??…”“One cannot be blamed for bad luck; one can only be blamed for failing to act like a man”…

One might have enough food to eat, good shelter, good clothing….but he still wants more and more interms of name/fame or money for too much of pleasures or some costly stuff or whatever….for that he makes effort and then he faces troubles…then how can he apply the aphorism you gave??…if he continuously apply this, he begets damage to his own health…thatz y we see physical/psychological problems even at a tender age of mid-twenties…heart attacks/high-low blood pressures or whatever….thatz y I say these kind of quotes are not applied properly in life….I am not criticizing work…I am questioning/criticizing the perception the translation gives in our modern times with rubbish definitions of success or about life……

“What is to be understood is that it represents a deep ingrained cultural bias and the thirukkural is for the people so it is in most practical terms”….

there is nothing like cultural bias here….you talk asif you have much more wisdom than Thirukkural….woman at those times might have been given more respect than what you think of…

Use analogies to have better understanding..
Man—Purusha part of Sankhya Philosophy…
Woman—Prakriti part of Sankhya Philosophy..
Wealth—Pleasure and Pain business we have in our mind for our sustainance….just for sustainance and managing desires but not allowing desires to take control…
Desire—this part is discussed in third section called Love though he discussed it in the form of “man-woman” relationship,we can generalize it to anything which drags us too much….

U can draw more and more analogies like these….better donot underestimate feelings of such great person who loves everyone and who doesnot think of harm to anyone….by ascribing some cultural bias…

7. there is nothing like cultural bias here….you talk asif you have much more wisdom than Thirukkural….woman at those times might have been given more respect than what you think of…

U can draw more and more analogies like these….better donot underestimate feelings of such great person who loves everyone and who doesnot think of harm to anyone….by ascribing some cultural bias…

I am not referring to the condition of women as I am well aware of the condition of women in ancient India. I am talking of language.

ALL I AM SAYING THAT:

When i say cultural bias i am only referring to usage of words like “man” as general for mankind. Or as another example, the word mankind in itself to represent all humans and not just men. It represents a certain bias that has accumulated over the ages. It does NOT imply ANY discrimination. I don’t understand what is your problem. You always jump to conclusions without trying to understand my point like in the previous post. I am not even talking of what Thiruvallaur was biased towards if he was then i would not have mentioned his aphorism here. I am only talking about the development of the words like “man”, “act like a man” and that they are nothing more than sense of expression developed due to a cultural bias in that regard. This is accumulated in language over the ages and it simply becomes a expression. The usage of the same by a person does not represent any bias on a personal level, it becomes part of the way expressions are made.

For the translations, there are many translations to the Thirukkural because of the archaic nature of Tamil. I have the thirukkural with me now so i don’t have to use the electronic versions.

Tis no reproach unpropitious fate should ban;
But not to do man’s work is foul disgrace to man!
Adverse fate is no disgrace to any one; to be without exertion and without knowing what should be known, is disgrace

This and the above mean essentially the same thing. Except for the verbose nature of it. Secondly this translation is not an aphorism. The Thirukkural is a collection of aphorisms . The lengthy nature implies that is more of an interpretation than an aphorism.

And also since you mentioned your Tamil friends. I not only asked my Tamil friends, but also this translation given here is the result of years of research to try to get English aphorisms after trying to minimize two things 1. the linguistic deficiency of the English language and its difference as compared to Tamil constructions and 2. Minimizing the elements “lost in translation” from the seven word Tamil aphorisms from the Thirukkural done at the UCLA linguistics department. Your version is not an aphorism, it is more of a somewhat elaborate meaning to what it means in heavy English, as far as that is concerned one can write a book on a single line and elaborate on its meaning. I don’t contest the meaning of what you said. However the beauty of an aphorism is something else. The idea here to make an English one from the Tamil ones (again it should be kept in mind, that archaic Tamil is so different that there are bound to be multiple translations of the same thing in modern times)

8. whether it is aphorism or somethingelse….I am not interested in it at all….I was interested in how best the line you have said can be understood/interpreted and applied in our daily lives….I am highly bothered about application part….there are many things which seem good but give us bad results because of not applying properly….and I was trying to show you that….my method of showing is not giving me results and I have to re-think about that…

If I try to show you large structure in it,you catch me at small points or it becomes trolling….

I can understand you when you perceive me as arriving at some bad conclusions for some of your points…but what about my points??…you also do the same….I wasnot even thinking of man-woman issue when I first wrote down the post and I clearly said that I am not on to the debates of radical feminists debating on which word to use man or woman….

““Act like a man” is used to this day by people. In many articles “man” is still used to represent all of mankind including women and not just men. The word mankind is an example of that in itself. Or consider the usage of “man learnt the use of fire rather late”. What is to be understood is that it represents a deep ingrained cultural bias and the thirukkural is for the people so it is in most practical terms. Though i never use words like “man” myself in a general sense.”

man referring to all of mankind….I donot agree to this…not for the reason of whether we have to use man/woman but he meant something more than just “man/mankind” with courage facing “badluck” and to show you that I used those lines along with some stuff I wrote…..underestimation or thirukkal being cultural bias….YOU LIKED APHORISM OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT AND THATZ WHY YOU POSTED THIS,I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BUT THE PERCEPTION ONE GETS BY THIS APHORISM AND APPLYING IN HIS/HER LIVES MIGHT BE TOTALLY WRONG!!!….AND I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THAT….at those times,it might have been easy to interpret/apply this because of that social structure but it is not soo in our present social structure….

One cannot be blamed for bad luck; one can only be blamed for failing to act like a man

one can only be blamed for failing to act like a man and before that we have ‘one cannot be blamed for badluck’….

it is quite obvious for me that one cannot be blamed for bad-luck(I saw definition of luck just now and meaning became obvious for me)…and the next statement,there are two key words…failure/man….
If we assume that someone has failed to act like a human (to prevent any misunderstanding)…questions we can ask are…
what is failure?….what does acting like a human mean?….what shall we call those who failed to act like human?….
How shall we recognize something to be failure?…
why should man act? and when does he need to act?….

As per cambridge Dictionary…failure might mean….not to succeed, not doing which you should do…
If we assume that failure is not doing/completing some task…

Here,”acting like man” is the task….

So we come to place where we have to define “acting like man”….

Acting like man…since there was bad-luck being mentioned in first line….if you tell acting like man to be being courageous, he might as well have used the word courageous but he used the words “like man”…soo there is something he wants to show us in the usuage of the word “man”….

If we assume someone to be a failure, he is not human though he is human…which might be like human(who thinks positive) or human(who doesnot think) or human(who thinks negatively)…if he (human) has to be compared with animal(opposite of man who “thinks” abstractly) and if we consider animals, I do not see any point of topic courage in animals…so he did not mean human(who behaves exactly like animal…usauage of word animal not in a derogatory sense)….we have two options now…human who thinks positively…human who thinks negatively….then issue boils down to thinking positively(courageous/fearless) or thinking negatively(not courageous/with fear)….
Two issues arise….area of thinking and issue of defining positive or negative…
Here comes much more broader area of thinking….
Thoughts arise due to desire, duty/responsibility
We can think for(positive) or against(negative) the aspects of desire and duty/responsibility….

Now issue boils down to what desire is and what duty/responsibility is…
To see both desire and duty/responsibility…one has to have an understanding of purusha concept of sankhya philosophy…

If one does not have much knowledge or not bothered about too many issues, one’s self automatically sits in position of purusha and hence one interprets the correct meaning and differentiate desire and duty/responsibility and act against desire and for duty/responsibility when they face bad luck…

If one has too much knowledge or desires without understanding of concept of purusha,their self cannot easily go to the position of purusha and hence they mixup both desire and duty/responsibility which manifests itself in the form of man acting for desire and against duty/responsibility….this is the reason why brilliants commit suicide when they fail eventhough they know very well that they can perform their duties/responsibilities easily and commiting suicide is wrong…

Since the writer has great wisdom and highly knowledgable…words come with a large bit of analysis in his mind….and hence my analysis is correct in getting purusha concept of sankhya philosophy…

In our present world, many people have half knowledge about issues which is much more dangerous than having no knowledge…here I am referring to knowledge which matters but not whether some set of words can be called aphorism or interpretation, they seem soo silly for me that I donot bother about using one for the other….soo there is a high probability that the quote you mentioned might be misinterpreted more than interpreting it in proper sense though the intuitive feel for words like badluck or man seem same or simple in the way I described but when we apply we might do the mistake of mixingup desire and duty/responsibility….

Even after this,if I am unable to take my point, then I have to change few things of mine not for the reason that my feelings went wrong but for the reason that I am not able to communicate the structure I see…

9. whether it is aphorism or somethingelse….I am not interested in it at all….I was interested in how best the line you have said can be understood/interpreted and applied in our daily lives….I am highly bothered about application part….there are many things which seem good but give us bad results because of not applying properly….and I was trying to show you that….my method of showing is not giving me results and I have to re-think about that…

Well but I am interested in an aphorism interpretation after having understood what the couplet means because
1. It would be interesting.
2. It could show if 7 word constructs from archaic Tamil could be written in English in a more or less similar form.
3. It would be even more interesting when there is minimal loss of meaning even after trying to construct an aphorism.

And I thought that this English aphorism comes very close to what it means. The Thirukkural I have more or less gives about a 4-5 lines meaning of it also. However I found this version of the same couplet very attractive (as I like aphorisms) and with minimal loss in meaning at the same time.

I also said categorically that i don’t contest the meaning of the meaning version you pasted. Nor do I think there can’t be any mis-interpretation of the above lines. However I don’t think I misinterpreted it (that is one reason why i saw your version as an equivalent) and i was attracted to this version so i mentioned it.

Complete Sidenote: After consulting a very brilliant linguist (who I have also now cited in the post above):
“The words poRi (luck, good fortune, lit. the mark) and aaLvinai are hard to translate, but I think “act like a man” is a good translation of aaLvinai that fits with English idiom. aaL is “man” and vinai is “action” (it also means “verb, effort, work, karma”). “inmai” means lacking. So the phrase is “lacking man-action,” i.e. “failing to act like a man” (in better English).” The multiple meanings fortify the subjective nature of interpretations. However this bit is not pertaining your comment just an additional bit of information.

If I try to show you large structure in it,you catch me at small points or it becomes trolling….

I can understand you when you perceive me as arriving at some bad conclusions for some of your points…but what about my points??…you also do the same….I wasnot even thinking of man-woman issue when I first wrote down the post and I clearly said that I am not on to the debates of radical feminists debating on which word to use man or woman….

About trolling, i am not saying you are trolling here. For about two posts back yes you were trolling. If i made a statement analogous to this there:
“IF a boy kicks the football by his RIGHT FOOT it goes about 80 meters”.. you don’t try to get why i mention something and raise questions like :
“Are you trying to claim that his left leg does not exist? Are you trying to say his left leg is weak? he could have used his chest”
When that is not my point, i mention a big IF at the start. And you continue to argue for the points ignoring that. And then say you are talking of your own version of something and I am talking of some other understanding. Since that is the case it amounts to trolling after a week of clarification from my side. If i would have put some $\LaTeX$ stuff there you probably might not even have commented there.

About you saying that “.I wasnot even thinking of man-woman issue when I first wrote down the post ”

Then what does this italicized text just below imply?

there is nothing like cultural bias here….you talk asif you have much more wisdom than Thirukkural….woman at those times might have been given more respect than what you think of…

U can draw more and more analogies like these….better donot underestimate feelings of such great person who loves everyone and who doesnot think of harm to anyone….by ascribing some cultural bias…

And for you saying that i miss the larger point and catch you at smaller points. For the previous post i think the reverse for you. I have no opinion about this post however as i am yet to form one. I also believe that contesting the interpretation is indeed a very good thing.

man referring to all of mankind….I donot agree to this…not for the reason of whether we have to use man/woman but he meant something more than just “man/mankind” with courage facing “badluck” and to show you that I used those lines along with some stuff I wrote…..underestimation or thirukkal being cultural bias….YOU LIKED APHORISM OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT AND THATZ WHY YOU POSTED THIS,I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BUT THE PERCEPTION ONE GETS BY THIS APHORISM AND APPLYING IN HIS/HER LIVES MIGHT BE TOTALLY WRONG!!!….AND I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THAT….at those times,it might have been easy to interpret/apply this because of that social structure but it is not soo in our present social structure….

1. I appreciate your concern for clarifying meaning as there indeed can be doubts no denying that.
2. I am not saying either that he is just meaning “man/mankind”, look first. However I said only that the usage of “man”, “mankind” as general expressions in language are due to cultural evolution over the millenia and their meanings should be understood. I was driven to clarify that as you mentioned about women there, you can read that for yourself. It is only now that you talk of a more profound meaning.

I appreciate the rest of your comment.

10. ……………………………………………………………………………
“.I wasnot even thinking of man-woman issue when I first wrote down the post ”
…………………………………………………………………………….
The first post I am referring to is..post number 4….and then you gave a reply of culutural bias and for that I wrote a reply…

……………………………………………………………………………
there is nothing like cultural bias here….you talk asif you have much more wisdom than Thirukkural….woman at those times might have been given more respect than what you think of(you mentioned about …

U can draw more and more analogies like these….better donot underestimate feelings of such great person who “loves everyone and who doesnot think of harm to anyone….by ascribing some cultural bias…
…………………………………………………………………………….

See carefully…I said “feelings”…not words…and that is the key issue here….there are feelings and then there are words for them…when feelings are converted to words,we have few problems….words are time-dependent and social structure dependent/perception dependent….words change their outlook over time and hence the perception we get through words to the original meanings/feelings change…I mentioned woman issue to show man-woman equality and it is just not about man used to represent man/woman and it has more to it like the way I described in my last post…
Regarding the issue “you think of”..you thought about women as “women did not even have suffrage till the end of the last century”…I donot see suffrage as such a great issue and since you pointed it out,I wrote that statement of woman at those times…..whereever social relationships as a whole are not strong or there is very less social awareness,it is better not to involve everyone in suffrage….

when you wrote your opinion down,I had not even thought about it at all….I was just trying to show you that there is something more than you have interpreted…

……………………………………………………………………………….
However I said only that the usage of “man”, “mankind” as general expressions in language are due to cultural evolution over the millenia and their meanings should be understood.
……………………………………………………………………………….
I understood your usuage….and I think you thought that I didnot understand this…even after understanding this,we can ask the same questions…I was trying to show you something more by making you think why I ask such questions evenif things appear soo simple…..but perceptions you get are like these…narrowness in the way I think….

“And for you saying that i miss the larger point and catch you at smaller points. For the previous post i think the reverse for you.”

if I had such narrow mindedness,things should have become soo clear for you that you could have termed my post as spam or stopped replying to it…..but you had some doubt and hence you reply but that element of doubt itself is what drives everyone orelse it would stop then and there itself because they got confirmed with truth….

and I am questioning your assumptions….more or less in similar form…minimal loss of meaning…

to me the more you compress usuage of words,the more we have to think and associate stuff to reach itz actual meaning that can be expressed interms of words or to apply it well…and these kind of books have such character,they compress their feelings alot in a small set of words….then why do we feel these to be great??…at one point of time,we have some contradictions in our mind and they get resolved with simple but yet powerful perspective this combination of words gives….whereas that combination of words might mean different and not applicable to such perspective…how do we know about it?…that is a different issue…

why did you get interest in this particular stuff…why you got attracted to this particular version…I donot know and thatz why these posts….if I had known about you/your feelings,I wouldnot have posted at all….it would be like raising unnecessary doubts in the minds of those who liked it based on his state of mind(which I know)…

Regarding trolling…
I used to question like that to show you somethingelse which might have been seriously connected to that….and now I changed the way I communicate but more or less I am saying/questioning similar stuff…you mentioned about big IF…I donot understand that….I donot understand how you applied your analogy to my trolling issue…that would be totally different issue and I am not even bothered about it at all…past is past afterall…I was just afraid that my present posts also might get labled as trolling…this was my fear…

“It is only now that you talk of a more profound meaning.”….
I would have given you this stuff in my first post itself but I am not interested in such ways or I cannot do that…that would be like making you more dependent….orelse the way would be like writing 10-20 books with whatever constructs and publish them,propogate them,impose our own reality,make people more dependent on some structure and stuff…..this is what i thought way before…and evenif you ask me my profound meaning on something,I cannot tell you because that is the way I strucutured myself…..I might debate/give different meanings for the same set of words based on the person I am talking to….
then you might question “objective truth” in it…that would take some time…

I want to make people think on their own about why other talk/question the same evenif they know about it….it is because the perceptions of same question is different at different levels….

catching me at small points….they are large points for you and small points for me….small points for me might be large points for you…I had very less data about “how others think”,so it is quite obvious for you to feel so…it might seem that reality is subjective but I still say reality can be objective….

you can find some stuff in my argument vague….it should be also…for I am just showing you a small patch connected to a whole…..

11. Hello Shubhendu,
I know this reply is to a post most you made 8 years ago. I can see that you are a scholar in Thirukkural. Therefore, I am sending you this bilingual audiobook link of Thirukkural that has become available last month in the hope that you might be still active on this blog and will be interested in this topic.
[audio src="https://archive.org/details/tiruvalluva_1807_librivox/tiruvalluva_086_thiruvalluvar_128kb.mp3" /]
Do share the link with likeminded friends.
Regards
Jothi