Don'ts in life - a poem

You don't want to watch laws being created,
sausages being packed and a house constructed.
You don't want to watch a baby being born.
So, you don't want to disturb me while I am working.

A poem by Bhartrhari

You can catch a tiger running in a forest.
You can catch a bird flying in the sky.
You can catch a fish darting through a river,
but you cannot catch a woman's drift.

Some goal

The vehicle I am riding to reach the goal I have chosen in this life, has only one seat. It's so unfortunate that I can not accommodate you on this journey. Pity I don't have a choice in this matter, honey. As a Hindi song goes, I know how you feel: "I'm forgoing my promise to you for the sake of a promise I've made to myself."

But don't lose heart, my dear. There is always hope, however temporary, however fleeting, however unfulfilled and however intangible. Let's enjoy this moment together as long as we are with each other. Let's revel in this world where even gods grow jealous of us, for, as Achilles in Troy says, "Gods envy us because we're mortals. Any moment might be our last. We will not be here again." I have received blissful love from your heart in the purest form and my soul will be grateful for the entirety of it's wretched and lonely existence. I can never forget you. I do not want to let go of you. I know that I am forgetting how your beautiful face looks like, but I can not lose the feelings I had felt in your company. I am so thankful for those serendipitous events that brought us together, and those moments that kept us together. I am so thankful that I got to experience your companionship.

The monologue written above can be appropriate in two different contexts: romantic and spiritual. I don't think I need to explain the former, for it's easily understood. The latter context needs a little deeper diving into the meaning of the phrase 'I am that (Nisargadutta)', which I suppose not everyone can normally understand, unless they've got true leadership qualities in themselves.

Trapped

The world is a jailhouse,
the body a jail cell.
Trapped you are till you die
nought can you do but dwell.

Trust whom?

Trust not one that makes
a generalization from his condition.
Bow to one that cures
his condition with a generalization.

A fact is a fact

A fact, interpreted logically,
will lead to another fact.
A fact, interpreted emotionally,
may lead to a falsehood.

Giant shoulders

Stand on them
you are at an advantage.
Tread on them
killed you are in a rampage.

For her

When she is in a slump,
I want to be there.
When she is happy,
there I am to share.

One of the LiFes

Life is juggling two balls: Freedom and responsibility. The former is a golf ball, the latter a football.

Number judgment

Judge not his knowledge by age,
when we know there are old dolts
and we know there are twit tots.

Too happy to want to live

A young boy who found his first love would surely like to say these words to his new-found companion.

"Do you know how I am feeling right now? People usually say that there can never be a happier moment in their life, or that they are the happiest man on earth right now. That is an extreme understatement. There is no other word to describe how I am feeling right now: suicidal. I know you are horrified at such a thought, but that's how happy I am at this moment. All other moments before have been miserable than now. I am more than confident that all other moments in the future will also be less happy, no matter how much I wish this happiness lasted. I do not want to let go of you or this moment. I do not long to live any further, because this must be the end, the true purpose of my life. Maybe this is what poets mean when they say - 'Joy hidden in joy'. Maybe this is what they mean when they talk about not being able to sleep or eat, no matter how ridiculous and cliched it sounds to everyone else."

Daily news, TV serial shows and movies

Most of these have a very large correlation with our daily emotional fluctuations and small correlation with what actually happens in our daily lives. I agree that this does help us connect with and converse with our colleagues, friends, relatives and even perfect strangers, but how many of us keep in mind the drops of emotional trauma that might one day lead to a flood in each of our lives? How many of us draw the line during these conversations - the line that divides banter and arguments, the line that divides conversation from confrontation, the line that divides our responsibility from someone else's?

Alas! There are very few who do, including me. I might be aware of this line every time I cross it, but I can hardly dream of achieving perfect control over my desire to toe it. This disaffects our happiness. This affects our psyche and consequently our health and quality of life. One can hardly think that banning the bringers and causative agents of these emotional spikes could be a practical solution. Of course, we even have no right to stifle these expressions of human emotions.

What is within our right and ability is to ban our reactions and exposure to these agents of trauma-drops.

Recognition

Just when I thought I was an excellent person, this occurred to me. People don't recognize you for what bad thing you did not do, but they recognize you for what good thing you did. Possibly only in rare cases do you find yourselves being recognized for not doing something bad, but even that needs you to take action because the sheep around you are telling you to do that bad thing.

Maybe being so silent doesn't work after all.

Oh, the pain!

The heart says one thing,
the mind says another.

Why can't I listen to one,
while happily ignoring the other?

Is this why I was born,
just to see myself being torn?

This pain is so unbearable,
catching you when most vulnerable.

I wish I could simply decide,
I wish I could otherwise hide.

But as long as I am here,
this I should always fear.

To do or not to do and
To be or not to be?

These I am trying to answer,
and I can not go any farther.

Pain and pleasure cycles and how to overcome them

I remember during my childhood when one of my classmates and I were arguing about the particular line-type to be used to demarcate one country from another on an international political map. According to the legend, the line-type for state boundaries was a thin dot-dash line, and the line-type for national boundaries was a thick dot-dash line. My classmate had failed to notice the difference in thickness of one type from the other and argued this way:

The line type for state boundaries is a dot-dash line that begins with a dot, and that for national boundaries is one that begins with a dash.

I didn't know how to respond to this, but I remember even until now how funny it sounded when he explained it. But upon very recent introspection, I found that I could have been just as easily mistaken about his argument too. He might have been drawing them that way (one beginning with a dot and one with a dash) but may be I missed to notice the difference in thicknesses of his lines.

This misunderstanding has been very useful to me because it helped me understand how the human mind interprets repetitive cycles.

Let's come to the pain-pleasure cycles in life. It can not be argued that they are inevitable even though in your life they might be controlled to make a straight line without any ups and downs. Maybe you are a yogi. So, given that the most miserable person in the world, the happiest person in the world and a yogi have these cycles in their lives, we question, "What is it that differentiates one from another one of them?"

Here is my answer: The miserable person is on the dash of the cycle. The happy person is on the dot of the cycle. The yogi, because he is enlightened, separated himself from the cycle because he had understood long ago that the cycle is not a part of reality. The miserable person will next be on the dot and the happy person will next be on the dash. What changed? Just the moment of our observation. Note that our labels "miserable" and "happy" themselves are given based on where the person is on the cycle. The yogi realizes the circularity of this labeling method, and transcends the limitations of language. Thus he separates himself from the cycle and is at equilibrium with the world.

The Trinity of human groups

After lots of thinking, I came up with a model to explain whatever people as groups do to each other, whether or not they are aware of their collective consequences.

I define three entities: the Ruled, the Ruling and the Unruled entities. Remember that these are ever-changing. (Nilekani moved from the Unruled to the Ruling entity.)

Most people like jailed criminals, taxpayers, children, servants, government employees, the army, navy and airforce and many more which I am sure I missed fall into the Ruled category. This entity is where everybody's self lies. Whenever an individual is by himself, irrespective of his actual entity (the Ruled, the Ruling or the Unruled entity), his mental self falls into the Ruled entity. When he cannot clearly identify a particular entity to associate with, God becomes the unity of the three entities and the individual recognizes his self as part of all these three entities. But let us not get into individual spirituality during a discussion about collective human interactions.

The Ruling category is the one that people tend to think about whenever they openly discuss their collective problems and hold the entity responsible. They are the one who have to solve their problems. One should never forget that one rule does not govern all sections of people and no rule is universal or ever-lasting. Rules are ever-changing with time and space. The Legal authority falls into the Ruling entity.

Interestingly, the Unruled entity of human collection is where the most change and exciting action takes place. This is what should be truly held responsible from within, but alas, it is not the case so often. Otherwise, what would be the fun in social life? Anyway, the Unruled entity is comprised of groups like the drug market, the entire sales/corporate market, civilian entertainment, social reformers and crazy people, newspapers and media, agents of change and awareness like leaders and ghosts of fame past, unrestrained criminals, etc. Ideally, this is what people should listen to and hold responsible directly, but with collective self-restraint. But as per my observation, most "holding responsible" happens not directly between the Ruled and the Unruled, but almost always through the Ruling entity. The flipside to the Unruled entity is that enormous sacrifice is needed on the part of the Unruled, whether it is before or after they face the consequences of their actions.

This collective interactions give rise to a need for a common language, culture and normality. What one should particularly note is that the individual understanding of what is "normal" arises from these collective interactions.

Mind, concept and application

One should apply the mind to the concept. If he applies the concept to the mind, the concept will remain unchanged and the mind will rot. But if he applies the mind to the concept, amazing and fruitful results will be obtained. There lies the power of the mind. Here, the mind is the tool, not the object. (However, if you are practising raja-yoga, the mind becomes the tool and the object. That is not relevant here.)

Let's take an example. If you have an immersible water heater and a bucket of water, you would be ill-advised to pour the water over the heater, wouldn't you? The water will not only remain unheated, but the heater will be damaged (Your circuit-breaker might trip, too!). If you want to use the heater properly, put it carefully in the water and you will get what you want or need.

Getting the answer from the escapist

I have read and also observed from my private experience that you can more often than not get the answer out of someone who is trying to avoid the question by persisting and being understanding. You might have to say, "I completely understand your concern, but I really need this information to help you effectively". Or you might have to say, "Can you be more specific please? It would be very helpful if you can give me some numbers."

Many a time I have seen that you one get what you want at the second or third attempt. You are lucky if you get it right away, but if you don't, this is one way to go about it.

Swine flu - a poem

Neither you nor I created it,
neither you nor I contracted it.

The only thing that matters
is that we are so afraid of it.

Is your goal unachievable or too high?

My sister asked me once how I knew a goal I set for myself is too high or too low. I explained it to her like this:

Setting any goal or aim can not be fully done without planning on how to achieve it. Since every plan has steps from the beginning to the end, one can know whether or not his goal is too high as he executes the first two or three steps of the plan.

Going by his judgment of how tough it was to finish these first few steps, he can re-evaluate his final goal, his self, and work backwards and forwards until he finds what he wants.

Negative thinking

Husband: I always think positively.
Wife: Do you mean to say that I always think negatively?
Husband: Does that sound like positive thinking?

An objective JEE

An objective JEE, compared to a subjective JEE, focuses on the end instead of both the means and the end, and will lead to a social phenomenon in Indian education, where the student community is raised by the system teaching them that it's OK to use any means to achieve the desired end. The fact that how the student arrived at the right answer is not evaluated or graded is detrimental to the students philosophical, analytical, strategic and logical mindset. As he grows up, he will be trained to think that there is only one solution to any problem in the world.

Previous batches who took subjective JEEs very well know instinctively that there are an infinite number of ways to solve a particular problem, that the problem can be redefined based on the solution, and the solution based on the problem. This mindset is a healthy basis for the development of any society if education and awareness are considered to be the pillars of a national foundation.

I now become aware that even though the quality of subjective JEEs falling with each successive year is not that big an issue compared to this change in test methodology. I had once heard someone say that every student complained about his educational institution, but I think I am right in saying that this recent change in JEE test pattern will be extremely detrimental to both the institutes and the students' collective psychology. In the next 15-20 years with batches graduating, getting PhDs and joining the same institutional system to teach students who they once were, the plane of the quality of IITs is going to be nose-down. The corporate world, be aware! The most you can trust the brand value of IITs is only for the next two or three years, when the last of the subjective JEE-takers leave the cyclical "IIT system".

An inference from two spiritual laws

In all practicality, this law is more a conclusion drawn from two facts, one being the Spiritual Law of Duality or Binary Opposition, and the other being the fact that everything can be condensed into a single thought, than a law by itself. Let me just state that it's just an inference and not a law, for now.

I infer that for every thought in this and any other world, there exists an equally powerful and opposite thought. Sometimes I wonder at this inference because of the fact that Gandhi and Hitler were contemporaries, but this wonder vanishes when I observe that Gandhi did not achieve as equal an amount of popularity (whether positive or negative), as Hitler did.

Perhaps there lies the truth about fame. Fame is an illusion, and only the one who can see through it, can truly conquer it and play with it for his and the greater good.

Neither alone justifies the other

We have all heard many people defend themselves or oppose others saying, "The means must justify the end", or "The end justifies the means." I would like to point out to both of them that neither of the them are right or wrong. Actually it's not about right or wrong, there's more to it than just that.

In my opinion, both means and ends must justify each other. That's when there will not be any difference between success and failure.

a. If the means are right, and the end is wrong due to unavoidable circumstances, one would be able to say confidently that he gave it a try, and must be defensive that he did it the right way. Only then will he have the right to blame whoever caused the unavoidable circumstances.

b. If the means are right and the end is right, the world and the one are both happy.

c. If the means are wrong and the end is right, it's most probably a case of extreme selfishness, or a terror plot. It then leads to misfortune both for the world and the person in action, because though he did something good, he did it the wrong way.

d. If the means are wrong and the end is wrong, both the person and the world is unhappy, and both can blame each other with the apportioning of blame being appropriate to both.

So, I logically conclude that both the means and the ends have to justify each other, by both being right independent of each other and with trust in God, because blame always awaits the one who does at least one of them wrong, and he will have the true courage to face it only when he knows this truth.

if X then Y logic

If X then Y. This implies that
if NOT Y, then not X.

I explain it here.
If X then Y can also be expressed as "Y contains X in a Venn diagram". This can only mean one thing. NOT X contains NOT Y. That means if NOT Y, then NOT X.

Note that I am using a relationship between the word "contains" and "if ... then ..." statements. Here, they are interchangeable. "If premise, then conclusion" means that the premise is contained in the conclusion, or the conclusion contains the premise. If the conclusion is false, then the premise is false.

Also note that I am only talking about a single premise and a single conclusion. More posts might follow one or more premises or conclusions.

Thanks to Vallabha,

without whose email forward, I could not write this post. The bold statements are from Dilbert, and the ones that are not, are from me.

I say no to alcohol, it just doesn't listen.
I assume you have ears and so you can listen.

Marriage is one of the chief causes of divorce.
One of them is a social responsibility.

The light at the end of the tunnel may be an incoming train.
It could also be the actual light at the end of the tunnel.

Born free, taxed to death.
Tax also has an everyday synonym. Duty.

It's not hard to meet expenses, they are everywhere.
There is something else that is everywhere. That is everywhere.

The guy who invented the first wheel was an idiot. The guy who invented the other three, he was the genius.
The 'other' three? Other than what? Exactly.

Beat the 5 O'clock rush, leave work at noon!
You could also leave at a different time you know.

It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end.
Can you stop all the vehicles that are waiting at a red light.

The cigarette does the smoking you are just the sucker.
May be 'Sucking a burning cigarette is injurious to health.' should be printed on packs.

Someday is not a day of the week!
Everyday is some day of the week.

Whenever I find the key to success, someone changes the lock.
The key to success is constant change.

To Err is human, to forgive is not a Company policy.
Microsoft or Google are not famous for the beauty of their buildings.

Alcohol doesn't solve any problems, but if you think again, neither does Milk.
I coined a new proverb - Prevention is better than solution.

In order to get a Loan, you first need to prove that you don't need it.
A loan melts a solid into liquid.

All the desirable things in life are either illegal, expensive, fattening or in love with someone else.
What is the root noun of desirable?

The Truth

Truth is in you. Truth and you are one and the same thing. Call it the soul, if you will. Neither your mind nor your body, but you are the truth. The whole universe is centered and moves around you and within you. That is the truth. True, truth is just a word. But it contains the essence of all existence and of God. You don't have to believe in God to realize this truth. A sincere atheist can be a believer of the truth, but he just calls it by a different name. Because it's just a word. Words don't mean anything unless realization comes with it, just as a weather forecast report means nothing until it becomes true or false.

Breathe to control your life

I found a perfect and most useful analogy, out of practice and experience, that suits humans of all kinds. It is a fact that the human lungs are controlled by both voluntary and involuntary muscles. This is a very good analogy to understand when you are in control of your life, and when you are not. When you breathe consciously, you exercise the voluntary muscles, and you are in control of your life, consciously. When you breathe unconsciously, your body exercises the involuntary muscles, and your life is in control of you. This is a perfect demonstration of the soul's control over the body.

When your conscience breathes through your body, mind is the master, and the body the servant. The creator controls the creation. When you let go of this control by involuntary or unconscious breathing, your body is the master, and your mind the servant. Desire and anger take over. The creation overwhelms the creator.

I think I learnt another spiritual lesson, but I don't know if it is a law or not: Keep breathing consciously all your life, and you will never regret a moment of it. You will be in perfect control of your self, and through your self, your body, through your body, your immediate surroundings, through your surroundings, your world, and through your world, the world and the universe.

Do we have an 'ism'?

I think we do. What '~thanam' is in Telugu at the end of many nouns made from adjectives, what '~thaa' is in Hindi at the end of those nouns, is the same as what '~ism' is in English at the end of the same. Then why do we hesitate to accept this sentiment? I think we should, by our instinct, well perfected due to centuries of life in the widest cultural and social diversity in this country.

Just a step further from the "Right vs. Wrong" debate

Everything is just that little step away. That which everybody secretly wishes to die for, but hates to admit openly, that which everybody shies away from when questioned, and that which we all know exists, is just a step further from the titular debate. There is nothing that is absolutely right or wrong.

That, I call 'most right' or 'least wrong'. That does exist, and we all know it does, but hate to admit in the debate, while we only try to silence our opponent. It might be apt now for me to remember a beautiful dialogue in "The Great Debaters":

"Who is your opponent?"
"He does not exist."
"Why does he not exist?"
"Because he is a mere dissenting voice of the truth I speak!"

That moved me to the verge of tears. But, I didn't cry, because I had finally gained control over my lacrimal glands. "Mere dissenting voice of the truth I speak", is such a beautiful phrase. The relevance of this phrase to our discussion is simply this: The opponent is not your enemy, he is your friend. Without him, you can not reach the truth, just like you can not walk on one limb. So, 'most right'? What does that mean?

It means everything in this physical world is less right than what is most right. Nothing is wrong, but only less right or least right. What is most right, I shall not say, but we all know. I will give you an example. The sun rises in the east. Is this right, or more right? My answer is that this statement is almost most right. Here I offer my explanation. In Indonesia, the sun rises in the east. In Nova Scotia in summer, the sun rises in the north east. In Alaska in summer, the sun rises in the north north east. I think you might want to say at this point, "I think I know where you're going." That only makes it easier for me. So, where does the sun rise in summer at the north pole? The sun neither rises not sets. He is there for six months straight. Doesn't "the sun rises in the east" become inappropriate there? Would you call that wrong? Least right? Irrelevant? False? Mu?

Do you see now that right and wrong are man-made, artificial, and hence divisive, and not absolute? You might be tempted to say that it's just one example that I chose. I can probably say then that I can prove myself with any statement that most people think is right, given enough resources. Won't you latch on to 'resources'? "What resources?", you will ask. "The best resource on my list is your patience.", I will say. This will go on, because in both our minds, there is a difference in the understanding of all that is right and wrong, while there is not any, and hence all our understanding of creation becomes baseless. This shakes man's ground, and threatens to destroy all that he has come to cherish and worship until now.

Most right, as I said, is only a step further from what we think is absolutely right. It is this step that we all are scared out of our wits to take, for it lands us in the end of the world. There is only one thing that I can say at this point now, as I said to my sister during the exact same debate.

The only thing that is most right, or absolutely right is God. Everything else in this and any other world, real or imaginary, is less right.

Timeless Laws

1. Monism.
Also called the Advaita in Hindu philosophy. There is only one, philosophical, spiritual, physical or by any school of thought.

2. Duality.
Also called binary opposition by some.
Corollary: Multiplicity.

3. Only one thought an instant.
The mind can only think one thought at any given point of time. Refer to a Turing machine in Computer Science. The read/write head is the human mind, which also has a state at any instant of time. The mind reads thoughts in the abstract world, and depending on its current state, does either of the following actions:

a. Change to next state of mind as a function of current state of mind and current thought.
b. Move to another thought in space depending on current state of mind and current thought.

Worry is a result of less than perfect functioning of the mind. Due to its momentum or maya or something that I am unaware of, the mind goes into infinite loops most of the time. This 'seemingly' eternal repetition is termed worry. "Awareness" is meeting the exit condition. People end a worry when they realize or are aware of their repetitive and fruitless worry.

4. I don't know.
Called by different people as The Veil, or Maya, or something else. This is the finest line that divides the absolute from the relative, the positive from the negative, the eternal from the transient, the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, the limited from the unlimited, the knowledgeable from the ignorant, God from human, the soul from the body, and so on. "Every soul is a circle whose circumference is nowhere, but whose center is located in the body." I don't know is the circumference of the circle that is the soul, because it is always changing with space, time and state of the mind.

Biography and Autobiography

Understanding a person is one of the most difficult things to do. But it's not impossible. The best way to do it is to meditate on it. While meditating, concentrate your full efforts on being that person all his/her life. Then you will understand all his actions. Of course, it will be much easier if you know the person very well before you start meditating.

Judging a person and understanding him are as different as heads and tails. You can read a hundred different versions of Gandhi's biography, but aren't they all colored by the eyes of the author? Only an auto-biography can explain his life and philosophy, without prejudice and judgment.

What happens after you die?

Everybody knows the usual response to this simple question, and yet the answerer does not satisfy us. Some are satisfied, but as I am one of those few who have found the answer to these questions, I am duty-bound to broadcast it to everyone that helped me find that answer.

When you ask someone what happens when a person dies, the answerer would be inclined to say one of these things:

1. If the person has been good, he will go to heaven. If the person has been bad, he will go to hell.

2. He lives on in our memory, and therefore he never dies.

3. He reaches God, and God decides what to do with him.

4. Another usual answer.

All of us have found ourselves more or less unsatisfied with such answers, because if we pursued the conversation with the answerer, it was either deflected or the answerer changed the topic. We know that we can refute all these answers with simple logic we learned from our valuable lives, so I won't delve into them.

Let me explain why each of these answers are true. I shall use a principle to explain the truth behind these answers, but this principle need not be exactly only what I use here.
Begin principle - Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there. - End principle. I am quoting Rumi, a Persian poet.

I shall use this principle to explain why all the usual answers are true.

1. "If the person has been good, he will go to heaven. If the person has been bad, he will go to hell." The principle used to explain that if the person had been good, it means that his life was an enactment of 'ideas of right doing'. If the person had been bad, it means that his life was an enactment of 'ideas of wrong doing'. His life has now ended, which means these ideas of right and wrong doing have stopped enacting themselves. Whenever a discussion about that person comes up, the answerer would say, 'He must surely be in hell now', or 'His blessed soul must be in heaven'.

One must know that the dead person has influenced the answerer in a positive or negative way, by his right and wrong actions, and the answerer chose to decide where to send him - hell or heaven. Which is why the answerer answers with his usual response.

2. "He lives on in our memory, and therefore he never dies." Using the principle, it can be said that our memory is simply a sum of ideas (about right and wrong doing). The answerer remembers the dead person simply as the memory of his good and bad, right and wrong actions. The dead person's life is remembered by people who survived him, be it a good or bad memory. This has nothing to do with God, heaven or hell.

3. "He reaches God, and God decides what to do with him." Using the principle, this 'field' that lies beyond ideas of right and wrong actions is God, and the answerer is not a person that can judge the dead person's actions. The answerer leaves the decision to someone outside these ideas, someone outside the race of the answerer. That is why the answerer leaves it to God.

4. Any usual response to the title question can be explained using the Principle. But, what we must note, is that the answerer influences our interpretation of the principle, for the answerer also influences the interpretation of life and death itself.

I mentioned that this Principle need not be exactly what I used here. Not all principles can be tied to this explanation, and I have much to think about what principles can or can not be used.

What would I do if I had a million dollars to spend as I wish?

If I have a million dollars, I would use it to change the world. How can the world be changed? Not through war. Not through legislation. Not through coercion or force. Not through manipulation. Not through condition.

As I understand the word 'change', I understand how to achieve it. Enough talk. Here's what I would do. As I am in India, I would do what Gandhi would do. The best way to reach the current Indian society is through campaigning in their tongues. I could advertise change on TV, but it would be lost as soon as the ad ends. I could advertise change on bill-boards, but it would be lost at the end of the contract term. I could advertise change in the newspapers, but it would be lost at the end of the day. How can I get a message across to all the people in India, and also make sure that the material version of the message lasts for the longest period?

Should I paint it in the sky with smoke? Should I write it on the sands of the coasts? I must reach as many people as possible, with the physical message lasting for at least five years. Where do Indians go to find peace? Where do we look most of the time? Hannibal said, 'We covet what we see everyday'. If I can print change on what Indians see everyday, I will have accomplished my task. Indians go to temples everyday. Indians watch TV everyday. Indians read the papers everyday. Indians see the roads everyday. Indians watch cricket everyday. Indians criticize the government everyday. Indians see the roads and shops everyday. My message must pervade all these media, which Indians see everyday. And when they see it everyday, they will begin to covet it everyday.

I am willing to spend the million, if even for a second, it will make the Indian billion think together. What is it that Indians remember the most? Narayana Murthy said, positive social change begins in areas outside of government control. The shops are outside government control. The media is outside government control. The rice and wheat fields are outside government control. How can I use them to bring change?

How do you use a tool?

You have a pair of cutting pliers. You use it to hold another small object, like you hold a baby in your arms. You use it to strip the insulation off a cable, like you undress yourself, or your 2-year old son before your or his shower. You keep it well-oiled to maintain its strength, and keep it from corroding, just like you exercise your body, eat consciously and take medicine to keep your body from disease and death.

The hand that guides the pair of pliers is not the pair of pliers. The wire that lost its insulation did not feel the palm and fingers that pressed the pliers together. The oil that defrictionizes the pliers is both a prevention and a cure for its disease - jamming and loss of function. Lubricating a tool is a good solution to its corrosion, but its better to lubricate it to prevent corrosion and its best to lubricate it for the sake of lubricating it.

You are not your body. The soul that guides your body is merely the hand that guides a pair of cutting pliers. Your mind is merely the subject that uses your body, like the hands of a potter that makes perfect pots from clay and water.

Conclusion? You are not your body, but you are in your body, just like 'you' is in 'your body'.

Time Use Statistics in the US

Take some time to explore and go through the chart on this page:

The American Time Use survey.

Click in the "work" area, and click on "Employed" above the graph. What do you see?
An average American is working for 5 hours and 12 minutes a day, while he is employed. I can't believe this is happening. No wonder they are hit by recessions and depressions every so often. I don't know if this average includes weekends too, in which case, it's not as bad as it seems, but if it doesn't, the US will need at least 10-20 more recessions and depressions to cure its laziness.

Everyone in the US watches, on the average, 2 hours and 46 minutes of TV and movies everyday. How can I restrain myself from criticizing Americans for their slobbish lifestyle? I too am getting addicted to this mental affliction - watching TV and movies, a 21st century curse that industrialization inflicted on us.

The positives in the Survey:
Hard to see, but let me try and dig them out. 8:36 hours of sleep everyday - seems to be a healthy habit. Men work for 4:07 hours a day, while women work for 2:46 hours a day. Women seem to have achieved what they wanted - equality at work, though it's not as much as they would have wanted.

The negatives in the Survey:
One, I have already noted - hardly any compliance with their self-imposed standards of working from 9-to-5 every day, which would take 8 hours of work a day. The hard to grasp reality is that the average is only 5:12 hours of work a day. Everyone spends 1:12 hours a day traveling to and from work. Wouldn't it be better to live close to work, or work close to where you live? Wasting so much oil, if you ask me. And when they run out of oil, they look for WMDs in other lands.

Factors:
I don't know how the averages are computed - how they included weekdays and weekends in their calculations. That would change everything by a factor of 1.4. Of course, one will have to consider the fact that this survey was done in 2008 and during a time of a global recession, which undoubtedly originated in the US itself.

Conclusions:
The related article here says that unemployment leads to higher production at home, and employment leads to higher production in the marketplace. I completely agree with that, and it takes a lot of insight to conclude this point.

Suggestions:
Stop watching TV and start socializing with family and friends. Then you need not worry about economic slowdown as much.

Birth of a nation and its influence

I just realized something very important. India, as far as I know, is the only nation that was born without waging a war. Sure, there was the 1857 war of Independence, but that was not won, was it? We continued to live in oppression. Gandhi brought us a mutually friendly separation, and Indians overall only feel a minimal anger towards the British. I know of no such births on earth. That does make me feel proud to be a citizen of India, and that we have a responsibility to teach the world how to co-exist peacefully with other nations.

Sure, the British imperialism brought unity to the country, and it's the same unity that made them leave. One claim cancels the other out. India was just an unorganized collection of states and kingdoms before then, and it is still slightly a similar mess, because, after all, India is a very young country. Look at the US - it's around 300 years old, and we don't throw temper tantrums over hiccups in the conduct of our foreign policy, do we?

Manmohan Singh seems to be doing an extraordinary job when it comes to dealing with Pakistan, while other leaders would throw mirchi over Pakistan's wounds. In this light, I no longer care what Kasab's sentence will be, because in my eyes, he is already a martyr. He joined LeT for money, and got none. He confessed the truth in the context of a newfound friendship between India and Pakistan, and I think that's a good thing.

Gandhi will continue to exist in our minds, because he is a ghost in all our minds. His ideas have no parallels, because he would assume responsibility for things he had no control over. By doing that, he knew that he was unifying his people.

America improving its divorce rate?

I read an article on NYTimes here, and it made me a little happy: At last, couples in America are learning how to endure marital problems without separating or divorce.

A man in a relationship, when going through a hard time, wants space or distance. He wants the woman to behave like a man (that's what friendship in a relationship means), so that he can be a man without constraints. That's how he will grow. And he did.

More legislation in India on sex-related issues?

The Supreme Court declared that consensual sex with a minor girl amounts to rape under the Indian Penal Code's appropriate sections.

I will not contend that a minor does not have rights about her own consensus. Let's come to discuss the most recent and very popular changes to the IPC.
Here are my reasons for why a minor girl should also be charged with "rape" even if she had consensual sex.

1. There are lesbians who have sex in India, and according to recent laws, they are allowed to practice consensual sex, if they are majors (source).

2. There are gays, and accordingly, they are allowed the same freedom, if they are majors (source).

3. A minor boy, if found guilty of rape, is sentenced to jail for a certain period (source).

4. I know of a conviction, where consensual sex between a male, and a minor girl, led to a jail sentence for the boy, but I don't think the girl got any sentence. I just saw it on Telugu news channel TV9.

There is homosexual and heterosexual intercourse legally allowed between any two humans in India. Now, let's come to the minors' case. Look at case four, and you will find that since the girl was minor, her consensual sex act was statutorily considered "rape". According to the three points, I definitely think that she should also be charged with "rape", and sentenced to jail, for the same period the minor boy deserves.

Don't you think so?

Reading today's Hindu Editorial and OP-ED

makes me the happiest person on the planet for a few minutes, for I should pass that on to someone unknown on this planet of 6.8bil humans.

The editorial essay says that asymmetric violence can hardly be resolved by conventional response. The contrast between the state's armed forces, and the ideologically driven insurgents is as stark as black and white. The only way out for the governments to win is to realize their limitations. As Manmohan Singh in "Clearing the air" clearly explains, the only way to reduce insurgency is dialogue and engagement.

"Revisiting the death penalty" rings the same bell in my head that has rung every time I hear news about death and murder: "If capital punishment is the worst kind of punishment, would there be suicide bombers?", "If death is worse than suffering, would there be suicides?" As Gandhi rightly said, everybody is a criminal, but only the unlucky ones are in jails.

The End-Use Monitoring Agreement, simply explained, is a result of highly valuable but ill-advised realization, of the US that its highly coveted weapons will bring its own destruction. Whatever reason they give to the public and their clients, has to be taken with caution, because before any government entity goes public with something, it will always think, "Will this cause public unrest and hatred directed at us?". We must know that the developed world thinks of India as one of the poorest nations in the world. The recent Mumbai attacks, puts a dent in the trust they feel for the Indian government and its security forces. There are things which no government will publicly, or even privately admit, but the public has to tacitly understand. Pakistan's acknowledgment that it has been aware of malicious parasites breeding in its own gut, after decades of suffering gut-wrenching pain by the same parasites, proves that it takes extraordinary circumstances and character to admit even the simplest of truths.

'"White flight" and segregation in UK schools" reminds me of the still existent prejudiced thinking among the white population. I ask a simple question:

In the European Union, are the French a minority because everybody else in the EU is non-French? In India, are the Malayalis a minority because everybody else is a non-Malayali? In London, are whites minorities because everybody else is non-white? This thinking shows that there is still a desire for racial superiority among the white population, but they are handling it in better ways. The fact that we are thinking about race in terms of whites and non-whites itself, proves that the term "white" still has a greater significance in people's minds, whether it's positive or negative.

This notion of 'non-white' has to go, for racism to be gone. Whites have to think of themselves as just another color in the spectrum, for their superiority or inferiority to be eliminated. Running away from where they are not a majority, will not clear their collective conscience. States are joining together to form bodies to root out mutual differences and find ever-lasting peace. The EU is an epitome of such union. The Spanish, Indians, Asians, and talented people from all over the world will go wherever they think they will find a better life, in search of opportunities. The US and UK can no longer claim that they are the most powerful nations in the world. After the historic end of the British imperialism and the establishment of the Commonwealth, and after the popular defeat of the US in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, we can no longer think that the race for supremacy among the world's nations will be won with an ever-lasting title. Because we realize that every country is different. Every human is different. Every species is different. Every microscopic entity is different. Every grain of sand is different. Everything is different.

What makes me happy reading those two pages in today's newspaper, is that the world is becoming a happier place, with eternal realizations, and one culture learning from the other, and some learning from their valuable experiences. But, if there is any power in the world that is the most supreme of all, that's the power of knowledge. If there is any nation in the world that will last forever, that will be the nation that brings the world ever-lasting truths, and ideologies that ring bells of harmony and peace in the ears of every human that hears it.

I am a coin

I am a coin, whose two sides will never merge. One side is anger, and the other side is sorrow. But without these two sides, the coin would never be.

How will you know if you are making a mistake? Everybody around you will yell at you: "You are making a big mistake!"

How will you know when you are right? Everybody around you will shut up.

How will you know if someone is right? You know they are right and they deserve commendation, and that you must give them that commendation, but you shut up and do nothing. That's what everybody else does when you are right. But when you are right, you want them to shower compliments on you. But would you do the same for them?

Interview Tip

What they are asking you is not what they are asking for.

If they ask you "Tell me about yourself.", answer the question "Why should I hire you?"
If they ask you "Why should I hire you?", answer the question "What makes you better than the competition, or the other candidates?"

At some point, the last bullet in this series will come back to: If they ask you "xxx", answer the question, "Tell me about yourself", and that's when you can probably ramble.

Number of heart beats a constant?

Animal Planet's show 'Predator's prey' says the elephant, and the elephant shrew, both live for a 800 million heart beats. Because they beat at different rates, their life spans are different. But according to this observation, humans should only live for 21 years. I guess there is something we need to take into account. Instead of assuming that the heart rate of humans is constant throughout their lives, which is not, we should also take into account the varying heart rate. To confirm the hypothesis that the total number of heart beats has the largest correlation with the life span of any being, we must know the heart rate versus time curves for the being under consideration. That will give us more confidence and better correlation values.

Is not war violent, and hence against non-violence?

Not at all. Why? Because we are civilians, and we tend to think that way. Ask the son of a cop if he thinks his father is a bad man, because he kills bad guys. You know the answer even before you ask that question. So, what makes war non-violent?

One person is enough to make us think that war is not violent. That is a commanding officer that orders around a military unit. His judgment and attitude decides the fate of his entire military unit. The entire unit does not even question the philosophical nature of war itself, but only judges and questions its commanding officer. Thus, whether or not war is violent rests upon the judgment of one person, the commanding officer. Similarly, whether or not war is violent depends upon your judgment too. If you stick to one side and don't think from the other, you will always try to defend yourself saying war is violent, and people who voluntarily refrain from war are true heroes. Gandhi, a paragon of non-violence, when in South Africa, looked to recruit men to fight for the British empire, because he understood the difference between non-violence and dharma. He saw no hypocrisy there. If you still think war is violent, I will leave you to your one-sided, and hence biased, judgment. Also, there is no reason for you to stop thinking, just because you think war is violent.

After you cross the 'all war is violent' mental hurdle, you can step into the fields of war, where the beauty of war is fully expressed in the bonds of brotherhood between men fighting for survival, and some for a virtue. This "beauty of war" concept will lead us to so many analytical thoughts about war, and it is very essential for us get over this hurdle, to understand the life of warriors and soldiers. This will help us understand that soldiers are no different from civilians, and there are cowards and heroes among soldiers, just as there are cowards and heroes among civilians.

Why is an introvert better than an extrovert?

Because if he ever turns evil, he will kill himself, rather than killing multiple others. This is good reason for rationalists to trust introverts, because they argue that one life is less valuable than a plural number of lives.

Proof of existence of the spiritual world

Assuming the existence of souls, we can raise a question, "What does a soul do after it finishes one life and before it takes birth in another body?" This shows that the soul does something, just like an actor searches for his next role, when he finishes playing in one movie and before he takes up another role. At any given point of time, there are an infinite number of such souls who haven't taken up a body yet, and who are in the process of searching.

You do see a hint of another world existing beyond this physical world, don't you? I think it's proof enough to see that the spiritual world is reined by big and small gods, and full of souls and spirits.

Just like many actors don't learn a lot of lessons from their unreal roles in most movies, souls only remember what they want to, and forget the inessentials, from their previous lives. This is proof for the behavioral instincts of a new-born, which science calls genetics and heredity.

Enter the spiritual world of small gods

Hearing voices? You should conclude that they are either spirits or gods. The intensity of a voice indicates the spiritual distance between the god and you. The power of analogies can be fully understood only when one realizes that analogies are not only used to relate two physical entities, but also two spiritual entities. Using this analogy, it can be proved that just like the earth is organized into religions and nations, further divided into castes and states, sects and districts, the spiritual world also has its own hierarchical organization - its tree structure.

If someone yells at you from a close distance, you are startled at the loudness, but if the same person is yelling from a distance, you sometimes don't even know they are yelling. Applying this analogy to the well-organized spiritual world, the intensity of the god's voice can be used to measure it's distance from you.

Deloitte Fast 500

Rahula: What do you have against the Fast 500 awards? Isn't it good to see what technology companies are growing fast and are catering to the growing technological needs of people around the world?

Rahuli: I don't have anything against rewards and satisfying the needs of the people.

Rahula: Then what are you angry about?

Rahuli: I think it's wrong to reward only companies that grow fast. I think one should reward companies that grow steadily and consistently. It's very easy to see speedy growth, it's hard to see consistency and steadiness, because it takes much longer time to observe and evaluate, and no one has the time to do that, during dotcom booms and recessions.

Rahula: There, you said it yourself! During times of booms and recessions, no one cares about long-term plans and evaluations, everyone wants immediate results and solutions. If one can't do that, why shouldn't Deloitte Fast 500 reward fast-growing companies?

Rahuli: I told you, I have nothing against speed, but I value consistency and steadiness much more than I value speedy growth. So, instead, I think Deloitte should reward companies that maintained their stead during booms and recessions.

Rahula: Well, now that the economy is in a recession, maybe Deloitte will find a way to reward stability, like it found a way to reward speed during the dotcom boom early this millenium.

Rahuli: I don't think it will be possible for Deloitte to do that.

Rahula: Really? Why not?

Rahuli: Because most people don't see the other side of the coin, especially those people who have already displayed their clear perception of one side of the coin. It would take extraordinary character and moral strength to also see the other side, and such people are rarely found in big companies that are well established.

Rahula: I don't understand a word you said.

Rahuli: I will give you an example to demonstrate this using free asssociation. Do you think Gandhi is bad and Hitler is good?

Rahula: That's outrageous! Gandhi is good and Hitler is bad. Everyone in the world who have heard about them knows that.

Rahuli: I would disagree, for the purpose of this discussion of rewarding stability instead of speed, and at the cost of my life, that Gandhi is good and Hitler is bad. I know both of them are long gone, but if one were to engage them both in a hypothetical philosophical debate about good and bad, he would demonstrate to the world that both Gandhi and Hitler were both great thinkers, but only that Gandhi was fearless, and Hitler was a coward.

Rahula: That's what I said - Gandhi is good and Hitler is bad.

Rahuli: No you didn't, and it's illogical to assume that goodness and badness are the same as fear and courage. Gandhi encouraged people to suffer and die for his cause, but Hitler forced people to suffer and die for his cause. Neither Gandhi or Hitler is good or bad, but both of them are paragons of courage and fear respectively.

Rahula: I am beginning to understand this, but how does this tie in to our discussion about speed versus stability?

Rahuli: Very good question, Rahula. People usually give up the discussion at this point. You have demonstrated a fine mental acumen and persistence of thought during our discussion. I commend you.

Rahula: Thank you, but you didn't answer my question about the relevance of one discussion in light of another.

Rahuli: OK. Do you think Hitler might ever have admitted his wrongdoings if he were forced to suffer persecution in one of his own concentration camps?

Rahula: Never in an aeon would he have done that. Didn't he actually kill himself when his empire was falling?

Rahuli: This proves that it takes an exceptional character to "see" the other side of one's own actions. Just like Hitler wouldn't see the wrongs of his actions, whoever devised Deloitte Fast 500 would probably never see the other side of the coin. It's good to reward fast-growing companies during economic booms, but it's better to reward steady and stable companies during recessions and depressions, because it would then highlight to and teach the world what it takes to live through suffering and death.

Rahula: I understand now. You are saying that even if someone does devise an award for steadiness and stability, it wouldn't be the same person who would reward speed and fast growth. Am I right?

Rahuli: Yes, you are. It's rare that two-person discussions and debates end in a mutual understanding of an impersonal concept, and in my opinion, I think you should be rewarded for your persistence of thought. How about I take you out for dinner tonight?

Rahula: Well, to further demonstrate the strength of my character, I would politely deny this reward, because I don't claim the rights to the fruits of my own actions.

Rahuli: That concludes our wonderful discussion. See you sometime later then. Bye.

Rahula: Bye.

Rahula and Rahuli both signed out of chat.

The atheist's God

Rahula: It's day now.

Rahuli: It's night now.

Rahula: No, it's day now.

Rahuli: No, it's night now.

Rahula: Where the hell on earth are you?

Rahuli: I am back in my New York apartment.

Rahula: Oops, I forgot that. When did you go back to the US from China?

Rahuli: Two days ago, after I finished my project with our China team.

Rahula: That's why you were saying it was night.

Rahuli: Yes. This reminds me of a parallel. An atheist and a theist were standing on a circle, facing each other. The atheist was arguing that the theist was to his right, and the theist argued back saying the atheist was to his right. Both of them only saw that they were on a straight line in their immediate surrounding, but both of them missed that they were both standing on the same circle, the center of which is God.

Salvation 101

Say you are an up and coming actor who have just finished the most famous film, that brought you great accolade and wealth. You remember playing very hard and tortuous roles in some films, and moments where you thought you never wanted to play another role in a film again, and probably give up acting and finding a job and settling down. Even though you are now famous and without too many big worries about your acting career, you still remember your arduous struggles for fame. They will always remain in your memory, always guiding your judgment and future actions that lead you to success.

The soul also goes through similar struggles throughout its existence, and there are times when it wants to give up an inevitable circle of life and death (acting career), and only wants salvation (finding a job and settling down). Keeping aside your close-mindedness while reading this article and if you think just hard enough, you will see that just as the actor wanted to release himself from a cycle of struggle and fame, the soul also wants release from a cycle of suffering, death and life, and hence it wants salvation.

What does a soul do when it achieves salvation? You have probably heard this a hundred times but refused to believe it and dismissed it as mad nonsense, but the soul joins God, and no longer exists as itself, but exists with God.

--More for the interested--
That leads us to a discussion about the birth and death of souls, which I shall write about later, so as not to distract the uninterested.

Saving yourself during free fall, without a parachute

Imagine you are taking a sky-diving lesson, and your instructor lets you dive alone this time. Both your parachutes don't work, either because you could not operate them properly due to lack of experience, or because they are actually faulty. Who knows? What do you do now?

Say your height above the ground satisfies the minimum requirement for achieving terminal velocity during free fall in earth's gravity, still leaving more than enough height for our little thought experiment. The moment you realize you are on your own without landing support, you open up your limbs to a suitable posture to achieve this terminal velocity with minimum time/distance loss. After you achieve terminal velocity, slowly bring your limbs to a position where you can maneuver your body to glide at this constant velocity. Position your body to glide in a forward direction so you can see where you are going. Stay in this position until you reach the ground. In my estimation, you will travel in a sort of parabolic path with this constant terminal velocity. As you get closer to the ground, you must assume the original "limbs-outstretched" position which brought you to zero acceleration while in the air. This will further retard you from the terminal velocity right before you land on the ground, bringing you to a speed close to running speed in the exemplary case, or to only where you break one or more limbs in the worst case.

In the exemplary case, you will land like a hawk or an eagle that grabs a rat from the ground, or if you are too afraid to even carry out this little thought experiment in reality, may God be merciful enough to let you take up a bird's body in your next life, to teach your young soul how to glide and land without killing yourself.

God and circular arguments

Circular argument, also called "Begging the Question" is proof of existence of God and the Soul. Believers of logic will very often deny that circular argumentation is also a form of pure logic, because then it can be proved that all logic is subjective, and the existence of pure logic itself is debatable. While they might, inside their minds and hearts, accept that circular arguments sound true, they will never openly accept it, for fear of being called names, like hypocrites. What is the purpose of accepting that circular arguments are also logical?

Self-realization.

This is the essence of Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", which took him, one of the greatest philosophers I have ever read, a decade of self-isolation to come up with. This led me to believe that Western Philosophy, which can be called a tree born from the seed of Greek Philosophy, is very primitive compared to most Eastern philosophical schools of thought.

Why is God in suffering?

There is dignity in suffering. There is self-respect in dignity. There is compassion in self-respect. There is God in compassion. Hence, by the rules of set theory, there is God in suffering too.

Also, if one has to find God through suffering, one has to suffer with dignity. Suffering is commonly equated with hell, and because God is in suffering, God is in hell too, not just in heaven or above.
Then what is the devil? Devil is just God's other side of existence. If God has to be good, he has to be bad also, due to the law of balance. Extreme goodness and universal compassion is construed as Godliness, and extreme badness and lack of care for all forms of life other than oneself is devilry.

What is the purpose of suffering?

A dad says to his young son, "Go tidy up your room", and the son responds, "What does it matter? It will get dirty again." The father can argue saying that if he keeps it tidy every minute, he never has to tidy up, and the son can argue saying that if he never tidies it up, he never has to tidy it up again. Even though both of them know the truth, they argue against each other, because the discussion is not about cleaning the boy's room, it's about winning the argument, and not having to suffer a failure in front of an over-bearing father.

I remember thinking in my childhood, when I knew nothing about biology and metabolism, that if we keep excreting everything we eat, why do we have to eat at all?

A snake regularly sheds its skin after it grows a new one inside the old one.

What do all these three arguments have in common? Change.

We have to suffer to change ourselves and become better people. By tidying up his room unwillingly, the boy realized that happiness lies neither in winning the argument with his father, nor in following orders, but in doing his work in peace. Even though the boy won't admit, he knows that he feels peaceful while he is immersed in the task of cleaning up his room. There lies the purpose of suffering. Inner peace.

Why does God need incarnation?

There are people who don't believe in God, and don't see a God in themselves. He has to prove them wrong. That is why he incarnates.

How does he do this?
Because people who don't believe in God will question his existence, he has to prove his existence, and takes up a life form.

Why does he take up a life form?
Some will always exist who will say, "What does God have to bother? He neither suffers or dies."
To prove them wrong and help them see Him, he will have to show them that he can also suffer and die.

How does he prove that he can die too?
If one has to die, one has to take birth, and that is how he will incarnate. If one has to suffer, he must be sometimes happy too. That this temporary happiness is misconstrued as selfish service, is only a misconception, and it has to be uprooted.

That is why God will incarnate to show himself to people who don't believe in him.

Then what is the difference between incarnation and re-incarnation?
Even though he incarnates once and dies, there will be people, again and again, who still don't believe in him, because they are not the same people to whom he once proved his existence. So, will have to incarnate again and again, which is why he re-incarnates.

This is logical proof of the theory of re-incarnation in Hinduism.

Meaning in a language

Who gives meaning to a language? Who invents words and new languages? Can one find the answers to these questions, ever?

Here's my answer: It's the writer-reader and the speaker-listener relationship that gives meaning to a new word and language. It's not an unknown entity like God that creates new words and languages. It's in the minds of the people.

Thoughts and actions

All thoughts are actions, but not all actions are thoughts. These actions that are not thoughts, are a result of all thoughts that are not just thoughts. They are the thoughts that are translated into actions, through will, and that's where the human body comes in. One should see Unity in thought and action, and question it only when lost, not for the sake of thoughts or actions themselves.

Who is a restaurant?

I was at a restaurant for lunch, and this question came to my mind. Who is the restaurant to the customers? Who runs it? Who represents it? The manager? The cashier? The owner? All these are superficial. The real person who the restaurant is, is the one person who gives you exactly what you go to the restaurant for. You go to the restaurant for food. Does the manager give you food? No, he manages people. He has nothing to do with food. He does the same job a manager of a company would do. He needs the exact set of skills for that job. Does the owner bring you food? No, he is the person that makes profit and claims legal rights to the restaurant. It has nothing to do with food. He does the same thing the owner of a store does. Make money. The cashier too, is no different from a bank teller.

Then who is the restaurant to me? The waiter is the restaurant to me. He is the person that brings me what I need the most at a restaurant. He is the only person to the customer, that's more important than owners and managers. He is the connection to the outside world, and the most important one. He is the representative. And yet, all the customers' prejudice and frustration with the restaurant is directed at him. He is not responsible for the restaurant, but he is powerful. He is powerful in the same way a citizen is powerful in a country. It's his fate that he has to be at the bottom of the ladder, and yet he is powerful in a way no one can imagine.

How often do you complain to the manager, in person? How often do you complain to the head chef or the sous chef, in person? It's the customer's responsibility to follow the customs: to respect the waiter. He deserves more respect than the owner of the restaurant. He is the one that demands no fruits of his labor. He is the one that gives away all such fruit, for minimum wage that is essential to maintain the health of his body.

Respect the waiter, as he is your friend.

Why DO?

A reporter was once interviewing Gandhi about one of his national fasts, and was very interested to know why he chose this way of life to cause change in the world.

R: People are interested to know what thoughts guide you, and how you keep going despite the fact that no one understands you.
Gandhi: Let me explain, using a metaphor, for the mind can only understand other people's thoughts by free association, a Freudian term in Psychology.

I am a stone, that God threw into the pond of the world. It's my fate, and the bottom of the pond is my destiny. I can not blame God for it, for I understand that he reserves his own judgment for his actions, and he must be trusted. Inevitably, I cause ripples on the surface of the pond. I can not control that either, for every person affects another in one way or another, if not through words, through actions and ideas. If the pond I fall into is small, the ripples will come back to me in no time, before I even sink below the surface, after they bounce off the edge of the pond. If I fall into a huge pond, the ripples will never come back to me, and I will have long before reached the bottom of the pond and died. The only choice God has given me is the size of the pond, and I chose the sum of all oceans, for I realize that the bottom is inevitably reached and I can not wait for every ripple of my own to come back. That would be selfishness. That is why I go on, without any desire for any ripple of my own generation. That is why I go on, without any desire to try to stay at the surface of the pond, for God will keep throwing stones, and I have to make way for more.

Love and Attachment

Consider a fishnet whose four corners are fixed, but the fishnet itself is free to move up and down, like a large piece of cloth. It can be interpreted as an unrooted tree in Graph Theory. Pick a vertex, and then pull it up using two fingers. The entire fishnet will rise, but not all the vertices rise at the same speed, or to the same height. The force you use to pull the fishnet up is your Motivation, and you give your own Direction to that single vertex you are holding. Using Newton's Third Law, you can say that the fishnet also pulls you down with the same force. But, what keeps you going is your Motivation.

This fishnet is your Life. The vertices nearest to your vertex are your friends and family, and it's your responsibility to keep going despite all drag, and you will actually begin to notice that it's not just you that's moving forward, it's also your entire network. The force that pulls them along with you is called Unselfish Love, and the force that pulls you back is called Attachment. If you want to prove the world wrong, your Love, coupled with Motivation, has to overcome the sum of your Selfish Love and all Attachments in Life.

How do I become great?

The question is being asked in a wrong manner.
Wrong: HOW do i become GREAT?

The right question one has to ask oneself is this:
how DO i become great?

The simple left-to-right writing shows you that Doing comes before Greatness, and the not doing on your part is not making you great.

Man and child

If a man is better than a child because he can speak, is he not being
hypocritical when he is at a loss for words, looking at his first child?

Poet

Are you a poet,
if you write a poem?

Are you a poet,
if you read a poem?

Are you a poet,
if you feel a poem?

I think you are a poet,
if you poetize a poem.

Live on

If you don't move on,
you will never live on.

Oh, boy, come on,
It's time to move on.

I

Born I was with Curiosity,
Killed I was due to Animosity.

Live I shall for Knowledge,
and I beg you not to Judge.

Reincarnation

A desire to forget,
a desire to remember.
these two desires beget,
a desire to reincarnate.

Space-time and God

1. The SI definition of a second is expressed as a function of a Caesium atom.
2. Space is also expressed as a function of atoms.
3. All atoms constitute all matter.

Inference - Space and Time are both manifestations of matter.

Space is stationary matter, and time is moving matter. This duality implies that spacetime is matter itself.

Why language has no True meaning

Did you ever repeat the same word to yourself multiple times, and then think/feel: "The word lost its entire meaning!"

Go through this slowly: Word. Word. Word. Word. Word. Word. Word. Word. Word. Word. Word. Word. Word. Word. Word. Word

You are now thinking, "What the heck is Word?" You just proved to yourself that word and its meaning are entirely separate from each other, and it's you who is giving meaning to the word. Can you do that with every word, not just Word? Yes.

Since you can do that with every word you can think of and then repeat, it means it's you that is giving meaning to all words you hear and speak. Since all knowledge is based on language and words, knowledge itself has no true meaning, and that meaning is inside YOU.

Freud

I think it's very easy to understand Freud's work if his concept of physical desire is interpreted as material desire. People are outraged to hear and read him talk about his ideas about human life, because what he says is the "primary motivational energy of human life", is commonly treated as a silent taboo in many cultures around the world.

Since this social rejection of his theory is based on social rejection of his most important idea, people find it hard to discuss or understand his work. Critics of his work, like Carl Jung, can understand his work more easily by taking into consideration Freud's atheism, and the fact that the falsifiability of a theory does not disprove it, as Karl Popper argued against.

The only cause of the current World-wide Economic Depression

Everyone wants to blame someone for the Depression. Some blame the company that laid them off, some blame the people that blame the Depression. Some blame others that harmed them in some way, and some blame the people that are blaming them for the Depression.

Few realize that the Cause is either Themselves, or Blame itself. The One that blames himself is the one that steps out of it first, because Acceptance is the first step towards all solutions. Not satisfied with the answer? Then question Blame itself. Since you can never find Blame because you find it everywhere, you have to conclude that it exists either everywhere, or nowhere. This logical fallacy implies that Blame is an Illusion, and the Thomas Anderson that realizes the Matrix of Blame is keeping him trapped in itself, becomes the Neo and steps out of Blame, finding that the true cause of the current Depression is himself.

A Hierarchy of Knowledge

Knowledge is a Virtue, and virtue is its own reward. Therefore, the source and destination of everything is Knowledge, and all radii of the circle of everything diverge from Knowledge.

The universal law of Duality implies that Knowledge splits itself into Knowledge and You. This means that the next branch of the tree of Knowledge is You. The name of this branch shall be called Psychology. Since You can split Yourself into Yourself and the remaining humans in this Universe, the next branch is Social Psychology. Since all humans can split Life into all biological life in this Universe, the next branch is Biology. Since all life is manifestation of Matter, the next branch shall be called Physical Chemistry. This leads to a dichotomy of Physics and Chemistry, and that's where I close the circle of everything onto itself - Knowledge.

Afraid of starting a relationship?

To two strangers passing by each other on the street, a smile is the Basis. To a couple who got married by arrangement, their parents and society are the Basis. To a couple who fell in love with each other, a strong foundation of friendship is the Basis. To two classmates finishing a project assignment, their coursework is the Basis. To two Professors in a department, their Head of the Department is the Basis. To two Professors in the same University, the Dean is the Basis.

I think now you can begin to see that this list is never-ending, and that a Basis can always be found for any two entities. That brings us to the only question everyone is trying to find an answer for:

To two people who have never met each other before, and who don't know anything about each other, what is the Basis?

My answer to that question is this. The Basis is either You, or God.

The Basis is what you fall back to, when you are afraid. Afraid of talking to a stranger? Smile, and he will smile back. That proves that you two just formed a basis, and bonded. Afraid of your marriage falling apart? Fall back to whatever formed it. Talk to your parents. Talk about your parents to each other. Afraid of approaching a classmate you have a crush on? Fall back to the basis - talk about your classwork, the Basis. Most guys that fallback to the Basis fear being stuck in the Basis itself. To those, my answer is the only Basis, as I said before - You, or God.

Questioning my entire Basis? Very good. You are very close to the solution. If you don't believe in God, it means the only Basis that's left, and you can fall back on, is You. If you are not satisfied with the answer, the only thing I have left to say to you is this:

You have a serious problem, because you don't believe in yourself.

The Argumentative Scientist

There was once a Scientist who was very knowledgeable in his field of Biology. He achieved the Nobel Prize and celebrated the rest of his life with immense wealth and happiness. But, he was also notorious among his peers for being very arrogant, argumentative and a steadfast Atheist. He was the firmest believer of Logic and Reason I have ever known, and that played a huge role in his successful career.

And then, he came to my University. I was responsible for showing him around campus, taking him out for dinner, and dropping him off at the house of another Biologist at my University.

After dinner, we were walking together from the University to the Biologist's house and it was dark. During casual conversation, we strayed into metaphysics and religion, science and art, and similar philosophical debate about the mind-body duality.

He asked me, "Do you believe in God?", to which I said, "Yes." He then said, "If God is merciful and compassionate, how come my wife left this world a year ago, and I have to suffer such emotional loss and distress? Why am I being so tortured for no fault of my own?"

I said to him, "He is helping you learn.", to which he responded, "Fuck off, you are just being argumentative! I have seen endless debates full of circular and illogical reasoning in my whole life, and it's full of logical fallacies, to the point of stupidity! I can spend EVERY SECOND OF EVERY DAY, till the end of my life, deconstructing every single argument, and proving each of them wrong!"

I remained patient and calm. I thought, "So he needs proof."

I told him, "I am sorry for being so insensitive. I am sorry for your loss. I know how hard it is, because one of my own aunts died in a fire accident, and she was one of my eight favorite aunts."

We continued talking and we were almost at the end of our walk. I asked him if there has ever been a mugging incident on his University campus, and if anyone was hurt. He said he not only knew of such cases in his own town, there have been numerous such mugging and armed robbery incidents in the US because of the current economic depression. He told me a story about a mugging incident where an old woman robbed a college student, threatening him with a Swiss Army Knife.

I then said to him, "Yeah, the sale of Swiss Army Knives should be regulated in hardware stores, and by local authorities."

I then went on to say to him, "It's dark now, and we are very close to campus. There have been reports of mugging late at night, and it gets less safer, the darker the sky turns. Let me tell you one thing before I leave you. It's completely plausible that a guy could walk up to the two of us, pretending to seek directions, but instead take a knife out of his jacket, and rob the two of us this instant. But, I don't see any guy walking up to us, and I can hardly think of such incidents when I go home every night, after a hard day's work, when all I want to do is fall into my bed and go to sleep."

I can see the house we were going towards, a couple of blocks away.

I continued, "Let me tell you what I am thinking right now. EVERY SECOND OF EVERY DAY I don't get mugged, is God's way of showing his mercy and compassion to me, even though I have experienced multiple losses in my relatives and personal life, for no fault of my own. I know everything in life does not go by logic or reason, because Logic itself is flawed in many senses."

He opened his eyes so wide I thought his eyeballs were going to pop out of his sockets, when he said, "You are the greatest philosopher I have ever seen in my life!"

I told him, "No, I am not. I am no different from the infinite number of human beings and creatures on this planet, and it's illogical to assume that I am better than any other philosopher or being I know about."

He had a look in his eyes that bordered on reverence and immense respect for me, and then I called the other Biologist on his mobile, asking him to buzz open the front door.

I told the Scientist, "Good luck with your life. I am sure you will find someone that deserves a world-famous biologist like you." He thanked me and we bade goodbye to each other.

I have the answer to ALL questions

Object: I claim to have answers to whatever question you can ask me.
Subject: What's the volume of Mount Everest?
Object: I don't know.
Subject: Doesn't that contradict your original statement?
Object: No it does not. "I don't know" is my answer.
Subject: You are stupid.
Object: No, I am not, I am simple.
Subject: Can you prove it to me?
Object: Yes. When I said I don't know, you were thinking, "That's not the answer to my question.", but you were talking about my self-contradiction, because the answer you are truly seeking is the true answer. I am true in saying I don't know, because I actually don't. The argument you were trying to make, is called "Ad hominem", because you were trying to prove me wrong instead of finding the volume of Mount Everest.

To find the volume of Mount Everest by asking me questions, you will have to work WITH me, instead of AGAINST me. That only proves that you are working against yourself, due to which behaviour, you will never find the answers to any of your own questions.

Self-realization and Self-actualization

Those enlightened beings who have achieved self-realization, but haven't actualized themselves, are the ones that are tirelessly working towards self-actualization and self-transcendence. This unfinished business they are trying to finish has to be seen as a bliss and suffering in itself, one of the dual principles of self-realization.

Unified Field Theory

A Unified Field Theory can never be found, unless it addresses the basic problem of human suffering. If this theory has to address the problem of suffering, it must address fear and desire, which is the cause of all human suffering. Physicists who work on this Theory rarely stray into the metaphysics or the problem of suffering. Since those who realize the theory of everything have found answers to all their questions from their own lives, the majority of Physicists who can never find this theory, are trapped, and have to be left safe in their own traps. Like Prahlad was denied universal transcendence for his first wish, these Physicists can never find a Unified Field Theory, and therefore, I give up working on it.

Now, reason is the best tool any scientist can possess, and his sincerity keeps him from ever finding this Unified Field Theory. If this scientist is truly sincere, he must admit that reason alone cannot Unify all the Fields of Physics. I have found that reason is a tool and the object itself, and reason can be very easily used to get in and out of reason itself.

Proof that God exists

Since language is ever-changing and all philosophical debate is an interplay of words and language, I concluded that what everyone is looking for lies neither in philosophy, nor language.
And then, I questioned God himself and questioned myself. I found that the answer, independent of my belief, is invariably, the Purpose of Life, as I shall prove below.

I shall discuss everything and draw all my conclusions based on only one premise, or as a mathematician would say, axiom - which is this:

There is a single purpose to all life.

This statement can only be either true or false. (The validity of THIS statement will be examined later.)

If it's true, either the purpose has to exist for itself, or it has to exist for all life. If the purpose exists only for itself, but not for all life, it has to be a part of all life, because we just assumed that all life has a single purpose.

If it's false, it means that there is no purpose to all life, and life itself becomes that purpose, because then life has to exist for itself. This proves that life exists with itself as its own purpose, proving that there exists a single purpose to all life, which is itself, coming back to our premise.

Opponents of this argument will say my logic is false, but since everyone has, at some point, questioned the definition of logic itself, proving that Absolute Logic does not exist, which is also a conclusion of my first paragraph - Language has no true meaning.

Now, I ask you to either question the whole thing for yourself, or to blindly follow the only logical conclusion of this premise, which is duality. We have proved that there is a purpose to all life, whether or not you followed my logic. Since it's true, every clause in the dichotomic pair of paragraphs becomes true and false at the same time. The purpose is both true and false, which are the two halves of the Purpose, proving that the Purpose exists in two forms, but we are only calling them by two different names, that merely sound like opposites. Because these two halves or forms can be called by any two names, it doesn't matter what we call them, but the essence of this argument is proving duality. Duality can be expressed in an infinite number of forms, depending on the context or the subject under discussion.

The Purpose is called by different names by different people and this is often a cause of disagreement. All philosophical/existential debates often center around these disagreements, and lead to strife and further disagreement. This disagreement is one of the infinite causes of human suffering, which I shall examine later, because I have work to do now.