I have seen a lot of 'either-or' types of arguments especially in the recent past. The sort of things that existed exclusively in debating competitions has seeped out into Society at large. The subject of today is also likely to be a subject of such 'either-or' debates. What is important - benevolence or productive efforts?
Tiru, as you probably know, has in a Kural already said that the 'sanyasis' depend on the 'grihastas'. After all, a sage is supposed on subsist on alms and it is the householder who is the giver of alms. So, what does he have to say on this debate topic, then?
Thaalaanmai ennum thagaimaikkan thangitrae velaanmai ennum serukku - Tirukkural
The pride of munificence rests on the foundation of persistent efforts - Loose Translation
There is no benevolence without efforts is what Tiru has to say. He does not deny that there is reason for 'pride' in benevolence. But he does say that benevolence itself cannot exist without persistent efforts. In the context 'vidaamuyarchchi' could be seen as referring to persistent BENEVOLENT efforts. Like, say, the persistent efforts of NGO heads and volunteers in achieving the benevolent goals of the NGO. The kural does ring true in this interpretation as well.
But the tone of the kural is as though it IS addressing an either-or question rather than a prerequisites for success question. In that context, 'persistent efforts' is not an answer to how to succeed at benevolence. It is an answer to the Persistent efforts vs Munificence question. AND Tiru firmly says that the former is a foundation stone for the latter. Thus, it is persistence in the productive efforts of the concerned person that makes him capable of benevolence. Going a step further, it is confidence in his own efforts that makes a person be benevolent even beyond his current means since he is sure to make the wherewithal necessary by dint of his own efforts.
Read it in that sense and it is the person who KNOWS himself to be capable of successfully making money who is capable of sustained charity.
The vice versa may not always be true though. He who is most sustainably charitable has also to be he who is confident of making the money necessary, yes. (Else, of course, the charity WILL stop once the concerned person runs out of money.) But can you consider every person who is capable of making money as someone who will necessarily be charitable?
THAT is a moot question.