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?