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.