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.