badari's life ...

It's a warp :)

2019-05-01T10:43:00.001-07:00

This is my last post,

where I talk about my life, my worries, and other self-centered concerns. From the next post onwards (hopefully on the same blog with a different name) I shall talk about something more profound and something more immediately relatable.

So I want to conclude positively. It would be hard to conjure something positive when there isn't anything, but thankfully there is something positive today that I can use.

Today United Nations-sanctioned Maulana Masood Azhar as a Global Terrorist.

Pause for a moment and think what it means.

Remember the time when in your work or in some other sphere of life, you are handed-down some order or instruction that you know is incorrect or unjust but you do, anyway? When you're given a deadline, pushed to a corner or asked to choose between two things as being mutually exclusive?

What do you do? Well, you have two options normally: Accept it and mourn in silence about your opinion or voice it vociferously and piss-off everyone else. In the first case, you lose self-determination and sometimes confidence too and in second, you are side-lined and disregarded.

Both are not favorable options, at least to you.

This problem forms the crux of all human issues: climate change, population explosion, extremism, greed, and excessive power. All are dependent on there being wise and silent obligors and crooked but assertive bullies. The bullies are powerful but the obligors are right.

Today, the Prime Minister of my country showed a third way.

He didn't get bullied and he didn't piss anyone off. He accomplished what he set out to do without anyone getting seriously pissed off.

Sure, some are not happy with the decision and some may grudgingly accept it for whatever reason they cherish in them. But the common man, the patriotic Indian who works hard and loves his country and its heritage, is objectively happy.

Beyond happy.

I sometimes get bogged down by popular opinion against what I think. There is always an element of self-doubt but more often than not, I have known that my thoughts stood for something good. I was a silent mourner, an arguably wise obligor till today.

I feel differently today.

PM Narendra Modi brings the best and worst out of different people. But I am really inspired by what he and his entire team accomplished today. We were a hapless, helpless lot or at least appeared to be in the face of various attacks on us. But today we stand tall. We not only cornered elements of evil who despise India's growth and it's prosperity but we are also now the leaders in the fight against the satan of terror.

This inflates my chest and fills it with pride and reminds me that I am from land and civilization that has solved the most intricate problems of the world without bloodshed and brainwashing.

On this positive note, I would like to start a new theme for my blog. Every post after this post will be a nice story or circumstance from Mahabharata. I will strive to make each post relevant to the contemporary world.

I will consider this my little contribution.

Jai Hind!

Book review: Early Indians by Tony Joseph

2019-02-03T11:47:00.001-08:00

Hello Readers,

I just finished reading the book, "Early Indians" by Tony Joseph and it discusses an important topic, one that questions - and tries to answer - the very origin of our country and its people.

First of all, let me state that it is a good book. I enjoyed reading it and it deals with a very sensitive and important topic. Questioning anybody's origin and attempting to answer it is not easy. Let alone questioning an entire country's origin! So full marks to the author for choosing a question so tangled with our identity. Secondly, I think the author has dealt with the topic at hand quite cautiously overall. I do find some hints of personal preference lurking in adopting an interpretation, but overall the discourse is quite fact-based.

However, there is a small problem.

Truth is a very potent weapon. Not many people speak the truth always because it is decidedly unacceptable in most vital cases. When you want to speak the truth, you have to realize that you have a special power. You influence people. So when you think that what you're planning to posit is the absolute truth, you better be able to bet your life on it.

In summary, the background is this: The book relies rather heavily on the research documented under the paper "The Genomic formation of South and Central Asia". You can go through the entire paper but here's one sentence summary from the paper directly quoted:

One Sentence Summary: Genome wide ancient DNA from 357 individuals from Central and 147 South Asia sheds new light on the spread of Indo-European languages and parallels between the 148 genetic history of two sub-continents, Europe and South Asia.

Now, this is good. I don't have a problem with this. This summary, merely suggests that there is a "parallel" between two civilizations. It also establishes - through DNA evidence - the admixture of the so-called "Steppe" population (Indo-Europeans in general and people from Central Asia) and people of "Indus Periphery" (South-Asia, especially India). That's okay too.

But here's the problem:

A parsimonious hypothesis is that as 474 Steppe_MLBA groups moved south and mixed with Indus_Periphery-related groups at the end of 475 the IVC to form the ANI, other Indus_Periphery-related groups moved further south and east to 476 mix with AASI groups in peninsular India to form the ASI.

This sentence provides a direction to the migration that could have happened ~4000 years ago. It proposes that Steppe people moved towards India and brought with them all of the related baggage, so to say. Drawing a "parallel" is not the same as suggesting that the parallelism originated at "A" and went to "B". If such a suggestion is made then, by definition, the two cultures are not parallel. Now, note the fact that this is only a hypothesis. As is the case with pre-history, history, and archaeological findings, a lot of it is based on interpretations from the evidence available so there is a big "if" in all of the findings.

I am not an archaeological expert or an expert in anything for that matter. But as a common reader, some things seem to me as being not "factual" in the book. I'll not comment more on the Genomic study I referred above. It requires much more study and background to do that. Plus, I think the findings in the study itself are not as contentious when compared with interpretations drawn from the book.

It is my opinion that fixing a direction to any migration is a very difficult thing to do unless it is stated in an explicit source that is credible. Further, the mixing of populations should mean just that: mixing. Why should we try and associate a direction to such events? Populations can arise indigenously and associate amongst each other without necessarily doing so in a particular direction of influence. For instance, why should it not be possible for the Indus periphery people to have moved to Central Asia and mixed with local populations there? Perhaps some of them settled there, not necessarily as permanent residents, but to ensure there was another end of the stick in trade routes between these two peoples. It's only logical to think so. I mean, it is not unthinkable that the Steppe people came to Indus periphery seeking trade or greener pastures or simply out of curiosity and the Indus people went along with them to find out what they had. Nations and borders were not so strong during that time (if at all such notions existed) and thus it is possible that the people who came from Indus periphery lived and thrived there bringing back some of the ancestries from Steppe.

This direction in itself too is not so controversial as other interpretations drawn from it. Basing on this direction, the author posits that a group of Indo-European people who called themselves "Aryans" came to India and perhaps (note the uncertainty) brought with themselves Sanskrit, rituals and the caste system which was not present.

Now that, in my opinion, is far-fetched.

Unlike migrations, cultures are not so deterministic. Just because a group of people invades or migrate to land does not mean that they can and will impose a lot of their culture on us so much so that nearly 75% of the indigenous populations get side-tracked and lose their ethos. India is a prime example of that. I don't know of a country that is invaded as many times and from as diverse invaders/migrators as India (the author makes a similar statement in the book in more than one place) but it has clung on to its ethos. Asking people to believe that such "clinging" did not happen just once in the history of this country and the rest of the times it did, is quite a bit of stretch. Sure, some tit-bits of any and every influx remains. It is a long shot from there to postulating that the country derives its very origin from one such migration.

And why the nomenclature of "Aryans"? What's the obsession with the term? In Vedas, the word "Arya" means so many things. Why associate it with a group of people only? And that is yet another problem. Vedas - especially Rigveda - is quoted in some places to point out the fact that "Aryans" are the ones that brought the concept of many rituals and horse as an important animal as part of the civilizations, yet the Vedas are not heard when they declare openly that they don't come from a distant land but have been "seen" (not composed) in this country? Why would Adi Shankara, Sri Ramanuja and Acharya Madhwa go on to compose a treatise each on all the Vedas, Upanishads, Ramayana and Mahabharata and literally spend their entire human lives promoting them if they were not originated in this land? And they are all of the so-called Dravidian lineages, mind you.

It is popularly known that Vedas were preserved by passing the knowledge across generations, orally. Perhaps that is why it is so hard to find where they started. It is also hard to interpret them and there are a lot of commentaries on the same. That does not, however, entitle one to presume that they must have come from a distant land! Many creators of great works don't want their names to go on to the creations since they benefit all of mankind. It's not a utopian view. Altruism is not an imaginative concept but exists in the context of Vedic traditions and perhaps could have existed more naturally in the pre-historic period with no concept of record keeping except to mention orally. However, that would still be my guess.

Sanskrit is another common point of attack. My mother tongue is Kannada. When I was learning in school, we had a lesson titled "Tatsama-Tadbhava". (Tatsama means "equivalent" and Tadbhava means "originated from"). Tatsama would capture all equivalent Sanskrit words of kannada words. Tadbhava would capture the base Sanskrit words that originated from Sanskrit words. Now, if Dravidians and its languages existed before Sanskrit, why would they be "tadbhava"? Sanskrit language itself documents its genesis from "Maheshwara Sutras" so why not consider that?

The final thing is the caste system. It is portrayed in the book as being created by the priestly classes in response to their ignorance during the Mauryan age and then on it took root. I am not an admirer of the caste system, but why is it not possible for the indigenous people to have developed some notion of social hierarchy that was tangible? Why should that be seen as a vestige of "Aryan invasion"? Every society develops a social order and every such order has its problems. I don't see why we should associate that with the influx.

To sum up, I should be fair to the author. Fragments of doubts about the very topic or arguments of the book are sprinkled throughout the book and by far its quite neutral. But in some places, the author does take liberty with evidence in my opinion and in some others, it's too far-fetched. The author bases a lot of arguments on research papers in archaeology, linguistics, and genetics - which is a really good style. But you don't want to write a book that is a composition of various papers published in recent years in these fields. There has to be a larger point. A story. And make no mistake there is: A group of people (Indo-Europeans or Aryans) came to India some 4000 years ago and with them, they brought most of the evils we see today. At least that's what I could conclude.

The book sums up with a declaration: We are all Indians. We are all migrants. That's a very generic thing to say. The last statement at least is true in any context without necessarily having issues with interpretations. We are migrants and that's true. But we are migrants from distant lands who have chosen a way of life. That way of life existed and for all we know was and is indigenous. To quote the author's own example, the base of the pizza existed. Sure sauce, cheese, and toppings were added but that doesn't change the dish from pizza to something else. It's still a pizza. Nothing in pizza is as characteristic as its base and the base are not the first people, it's their culture.

We have a way of life that's characteristically Indian (I consider it Hindu, but the word itself is not so important) that's how we are all Indians no matter where we once came from and where we will go hereon.

I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in the history of our country.

Keep commenting.

The Javascript Rage: Power of asking 'Why not?'

2018-12-23T07:36:00.003-08:00

Recently - about a month ago - I quit VMware and have now joined ServiceNow. Most of my new work is on JS and learning the new frameworks and how JS has changed took me back to the Lucent days when I wrote some of that.

In 2010, I joined Alcatel-Lucent (Now acquired by Nokia) as a fresher. To be precise, I had quit Tech-Mahindra after 6 months so technically I was not exactly a fresher but everyone in IT knows that first 6 months in any company means almost nothing at an entry level. You can't produce anything meaningful in that time anyway. As a fresher, I was allocated to Delivery Management and it was like the story of a "wrong man in worker's paradise". I was a rookie who had just got out of college - yearning to work on great, complex stuff in computer programming - and I was dealing with excel sheets, reports, follow-ups and what not! Plus, since I was the youngest guy in Delivery management (along with my friend Praveen) nobody took us seriously for escalations or reporting. So it felt pointless to be there.

I topped all tests in training and I simply loved Java. I wanted to be a top-notch programmer in every serious aspect of the term. Of course, at that time I only had a vague idea of what that encompassed, but I was ready to do anything for it. Anyway, when I joined Lucent, I was assigned to a team that was building a software solution from scratch! I could not believe my luck and again folks in IT know how hard it is to get to work on something from scratch. There was not a single line of code written! Everything was on paper and a proof-of-concept in python. We were a team of four and we set out to build great software.

I was assigned the User Interface and User Experience component. Let that sink in for a while.

So here was I: I had not written a single line of code that was shipped to any customer. I had no idea what levels of testing or enterprise readiness was required; no idea what kind of processes one would follow and how to debug complex issues; and I was given the most critical module of all: UI/UX. I was to be under the heat from product management, backend teams, and customer and I was quite alone.

I was not afraid. I was just excited that I got to code something instead of gathering status and preparing excel reports. I started to write UI code and a major part of it had to deal with Google Maps as we were building a solution for traffic management. I was going through a lot of Google Maps API those days, every day and a lot of that was in Javascript.

Javascript - as I remember it then - was not the same as it is now. I am perhaps the last one to say that, but let me put it into some context. When I got out a minimal, simple UI for the product (in about a month or so) I had not used a single library or framework. I remember I had written so many "if" statements, that I had made a note of it somewhere. This was partly because I was not fully aware of JS language features at that time, but also because JS was like that in 2010-11. A lot of code "boiler-plate code" had to be written by hand and there were a lot of things that could have gone wrong.

With my "expertise" in UI and JS's own features, I ended up dealing with a lot of bugs. Shit had hit the fan during testing.

Google maps were behaving weirdly. The zoom functionality and its edge cases, in particular, were a nightmare.

Right click and left click actions were generating JS errors on the console that looked like they were in Latin.

Page would crash after couple of hours.

And finally, the UI sucked big-time. If there was an award for the worst UI developed for our product, I would have got it hands-down. No competition.

But I don't feel bad about it. I learned a lot from those failures and worked doubly hard to get things right. I had a great mentor in the form of Sunrita Bagchi, who sat me down and framed a strategy to deal with the shit lying around.

We changed the UI and adopted Dojo. UI and UX were much better.

We worked hard to jot down all Google Maps options and handled all cases. Well, at least as many as we thought we could.

We refactored code. Probably like 7-8 times. We got the performance improvement of about ~55%.

2 months later in a meeting, I was given a "Good job!" by our Product Manager.

When we refactored the code, we reduced 1500+ lines of JS code (that's right! Only JS. No HTML or CSS) to 500 lines without changing any functionality in any sense. It was possible because I spent 1 week entirely and read about JS language features and what it had to offer. It was then I realized how JS was a fundamentally powerful language that was broadly mistaken.

Much of the JS that is around today has striking resemblance to what was there in 2010-11. Of course, TypeScript and frameworks such as Angular, Node, React, Vue and the bunch have changed the way JS programming is done in recent times. But the language itself has not changed that drastically in its principle tenets. Sure, it has its own flaws and which language doesn't? But for all its problems, Javascript is all the rage now because it's also very powerful.

In 2010-11 it was unthinkable to do backend programming in Javascript. The fact that we can do that today using Node, is one hell of a marvel and goes to show how simple ideas at a fundamental level are more powerful than great ideas at superficial levels. Real changes and paradigm shifts happen at the base of the intellectual pyramid where long-held conventions and assumptions sleep peacefully. I see the JS now and I wonder: What if I had asked myself the question: Why not write all code in Javascript: frontend and backend?

Well, that - and many other questions like that - are the subject of many psychological studies and doctors and scientists often wonder how do these "stroke of genius" come about. But I think, if we keep thinking and don't settle for a "good-enough" answer for all our questions, such strokes might one day hit you in the face and you would know that instant it did.

Until then, keep questioning and don't settle!

The Trade-Off Engine: Don't mix knowing and understanding.

2018-12-16T07:02:00.000-08:00

Let me tell you a story. It's from my life.

I had been an average student through and through. I did reasonably well in academics but was not a star performer by any comparison. In school, Social Studies was my favourite subject. I got 95+ in it out of 100 most of the times. But I sucked at rest. Mathematics, especially so. I remember the time quite vividly as my mother - being a Mathematics Major and star performer during college - used to wake me up at 4.30 am in the morning to teach me Mathematics. I did my schooling in Bijapur (now Vijayapura) and I still remember that time when Amma and I used to sit beside a lamp (Others were asleep, so no bulb or tubelight) and Amma used to teach me about Algebra and Arithmetic. Those two were my real weaknesses as I somehow managed Geometry. My mother was really concerned and she used to keep a small spoon on the lamp for heating. Whenever I'd commit a silly mistake - bang! the hot spoon used to hit me on thighs/legs and I would cry like a baby.

I went from 78 to 96 in Mathematics that year. And every year after that I never went below 90. But I digress.

In college, I was more interested in Arts and Philosophy. Well, I didn't know it then, but in retrospection that was all I talked about with my friends and professors in college, so I am pretty sure of it now. Of course, I took Science. I did ok. But that wasn't enough.

I got an average ranking in my CET (Common Entrance Tests) exams. CET decided our fate: whether we'd be engineers or doctors? what college would we get admitted to? what discipline in engineering? With my ranking, I figured I would do average. I really wanted to stay close to my parents so I wanted to go to either Dharwad (SDM college of Engineering) or Hubli (BVB college of Engineering - my alma matter now!). BVB had - and continues to have - a great name and reputation, so I went for it. There was one problem: there weren't any "merit" seats at the college (they cost about 35K per year). There were only "payment" seats. (52K per year) More than the money, it was the kind of distinction that my peers at that time and some others in society drew between merit and payment seats that bothered me. It was like if you got a payment seat, you were not so talented. Now-a-days, most students are very practical and they think of fees paid for engineering as "investment" that would yield "returns" in terms of a good job, campus placement, the brand value of the institution and the like. Not with us. Not with me. I considered it shameful.

I opted for BVB payment seat at that time thinking to myself that I would definitely convert it to a merit seat in the casual round or opt for a merit seat wherever it was available. The casual round came but by that time, I had developed some kind of intuitive feeling with BVB and I did not change my seat, though the same seat was available at GIT, Belgaum.

13 years have passed ever since. I still wonder about that decision.

-----------------------------------

But why I am telling you all this? What's the point?

In life we're often faced with situations where we have to decide between what we gain from doing something and what we lose, otherwise. That's not an easy choice anytime. Most of the times life is made up of these very decisions: marriage, owning a home, starting a family, staying away from parent for a job, travelling/settling in other places far away from your homeland - to mention a few. These are important and hard decisions that each one of us have to make at some point or another in our lives. Decisions that twist our mental fabric to its core. We think a lot of these decisions but I have always wondered what could we do differently about them that hasn't been already tried in humanity's existence?

Take marriage/relationships: Some people love and then commit to their partner. Some commit and then let love take it's own sweet time to blossom. Some just bear. Some spend time and then go separate ways for a myriad of reasons. Some don't label it anything or commit formally as marriage but just "exist" in it, following all usual aspects and tuning it to suit them.

My point is: every one of this combinations has been tried and nothing works fully or everything works to a certain degree. This is as true of marriage/relationships in my opinion as with any other major life decisions. It's all about the individuals involved and their perspectives. More succinctly, it's all about trade-off.

The discipline of Computer Science is as deterministic as Mathematics. It does not entertain strategies of solving a problem based on some voodoo magic or unknown elements. As with all branches of inquiry, it is obsessed with formalising every aspect of our understanding about it. But even as I have learnt that and continue to explore deeper concepts of this amazing discipline, I can't help but feel exasperated that in the eventuality of it all, lies the concept of trade-off. The thought first stuck me when back in my data structures class, our professor told us,

"...there is no ideal sorting algorithm that works for all cases. We may have to use a combination of algorithms and techniques to make sure that we solve the flavour of problem that is facing us, right NOW! In fact, there is no ideal algorithm for anything. Everything is based on trade-off of four factors: Time, Space, Cost and Quality. We can get only three out of these at any time."

Believe it or not, I wonder about that statement till today. In life, as in Computer Science, most important decisions are trade-offs. You want to win something, you'll have to lose something. Nothing has only pros without cons. Purity is theoretical.

-----------------------------------

When I chose BVB over GIT, I was making a trade-off. I could stay with my parents. I would have my friends and the institution was better positioned in my opinion. I might have been wrong but there is no way to know. I have come to believe that our minds have an intrinsic characteristic of evaluating the trade-offs in any situation and present us with the best option. This is supported by a lot of recent developments in the filed of Cognitive science and books have been written about this very conclusion. What I wonder is, if only we learnt to stop shutting down that function of our mind with data driven analysis, and listened to it more often than not. What would our lives be like?

I had an opportunity to observe lives of some great people: My professors, Mentors in the industry, Colleagues and Friends. The best moments with them were not only worthwhile but profitable too. These moments did not have well-thought out plans and rigorous decision making processes involved. There was hardly any data to base the decisions and learnings on, if any. I have always learnt something or gained something by letting my intrinsic trade-off engine do its work even when the data suggested otherwise. I admit I haven't always been successful. I am not obsessed with success. I credit my parents for it wholly. They taught me to care about something more than just being "successful" by some arbitrary definition. So I have learned to get my hands dirty and try different things and I am not ashamed to be ridiculed for it. But the experiences ensuing have made me far more centred that I would have been. All of my important life decisions are based on the feedback of my trade-off engine.

This shouldn't mean that I suggest making random decisions based off whims and fantasies. I gather information as much as I can but I try not to process it as I gather it. Just keep accumulating information and then when the time comes: just decide on the instinct that your mind suggests. I think that our minds will churn all the data and will develop an instinct for what is to be done. What's good and right in specific situation. It has worked out well so far for me.

What are your views on this? I would love to hear from your life experiences too and especially if they are contradictory to mine. Keep learning!

What if there is no work?

2018-10-28T11:48:00.003-07:00

Hello there!

This post comes after 6 months of the last post and that is a testimony to how lousy a blogger I am. Well, at least for the purposes of those who care to read my notes. I don't want to harp on about why I am not writing as frequently as I would want to, suffice to say, that my son has kept me busy.

Unsurprisingly, I am here tonight with no specific topic in mind to write about. That doesn't mean I don't have content, though. I have had profound changes happening in my life but I have decided not to talk about them, just yet. Instead, I thought I will talk about something trivial yet something that our generation is completely addicted to - work.

It's true. As one of my colleagues remarked the other day, 16-18 hours of our day is spent in front of digital gadgets: phones, laptops, workstations, tablets etc. most of it doing work of some sort. Work has pervaded our lives like never before and let's not kid anymore: our generation's self-worth is mostly - if not entirely - defined by the work we do. The genesis of this phenomenon is quite natural if you think about it. So many people started to become prosperous worldwide and suddenly the world could afford more knowledge workers. Increased task-force inevitably puts a high price on the distinction in terms of work done. "Oh, you manufacture soaps? So how is it different from XYZ?" - a routine question, perhaps. But this question now - more than ever - has engulfed our conscience at an individual level. "How am I different than everybody else?". I think that's a dangerous question. What if you aren't? Well obviously everyone is different than someone else but in what discernable way? Can we even tell? You know where I am going with this, right? The good old identity crisis.

But that's not new. What is, is the fact that work has started to single-handedly define us in so many different ways, that we have started to do nothing but find ways of making ourselves a distinct professional!

Not a distinct person, mind you. And where does that take us?

Who knows? Maybe that's good; maybe not. But I think on the whole it's bad: any work is a not a natural phenomenon. You know what that implies? Unnatural stuff dies. Sooner or later. So what will we - or the generation of human beings that derive their identity from work - do, when all kinds of work die? Have you spent a few days or weeks without work? Don't you feel a kind of urge to get on to something? Imagine a lifetime of such space and time continuum!

In any case, don't bother much if you don't want to. After all, it's just a random thought crossing my mind at this point. But if you do wonder, write a comment!

Cheers!

Theory of Morality Or "Why the hell did I do that?"

2018-05-14T12:58:00.001-07:00

Hello!

I know it is completely unforgivable for anyone hoping to claim as a "blogger" to go a year without blogging. My last post was in last July and that's way too much time to spend without blogging. But my reasons are no less valid: I am a proud and happy father now of one year old whose cuteness and innocence is worth spending every waking moment with him and nothing else. Work take higher share of my time too nowadays for who-knows-what reason. Or perhaps everybody goes through this phase. I am not sure either way.

I have not missed out on my usual philosophizing. In fact, in the last year or so since I wrote my last blog post, I have gained insights that have changed my understanding of, well, whatever I understood.

Especially on morality.

I finished reading "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the gap between us and them" by Joshua Greene and am almost done with "The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt. First, both are exemplary works in the field of moral psychology and evolutionary biology. Especially, for laymen like us who just seek to understand the basic principles without getting into nuances or detailed philosophical arguments, these are very good books. I am yet to read "Justice: What's the right thing to do?", but I am confident that it will turn out to be just as good, if not better.

I will spare this post in review of these books. They are worth it.

For brevity I will refer to Joshua Greene's work as JG and Jonathan Haidt's work as JH. While JG proposes and renovates the principles of Utilitarianism, JH does not advocate any one school of thought and instead focuses more on the dual nature of mind: Reason v/s Emotion. JH puts forth a treatise of morality focusing on dominance of emotion and how reason is a "tool" invented by evolution in humans to serve emotions. JG - on the other hand - discusses briefly on dual nature of human mind and proceeds to explain that morality - though arising from emotions for the most part - should not be driven by it. JG focuses more on evolution of the rational mind of humans as a mechanism to thwart mistakes done by emotions while JH argues that rational mind is only a "press secretary" whose job is to come up with best explanation of what emotional mind does.

Personally, I found JH's work more realistic. JG's approach sounds more like where we - as humans - ought to be in terms of a theory of morality. But JH's argument is essential to understand why we have moral theories that we have now and why it is hard to get to where JG is proposing to go. Even if we define "utility" in "utilitarianism" as "happiness", it's still a long shot from there to having an objective moral theory.

Additionally, morality is not a simple problem to solve mostly because there is no authority or scientific establishment certifying a set of moral values. Different things work for different societies and it would be chaos to apply a common set of moral standards across the world. After all, our custom moral values have evolved in current way to be subjective and efficient in a relative context. We are not designed to develop moral values that hold the scrutiny of the entire world. In fact, what the entire world thinks of something as "correct" or "wrong" moral values is itself highly debatable. Thus, I felt that no matter what underlying objective principles we outline for morality, we cannot bring to it the discipline and rigor of scientific process that exist in other areas.

In that background, JH's book seemed a bit more realistic to me. But please don't take this as an opinion saying JG's book is "just theory". No. JG actually does a better job of describing the problem of morality holistically. Especially, the concept of "Tragedy of common sense morality" and using the now proverbial "Trolleyology" to eluciate the understanding is excellent. Such systematic handling of the problem of morality is begging in JH's book. But perhaps, there was no place for it.

I would definitely recommend all of your to read at least one of these books. If you're planning on reading them both, read JH's book first. JG also discusses JH's book in some detail at the end of his book and reading JH's book first will give a good idea of what JG is referring to.

Hope you enjoy reading! Come back with comments and share the post if you like.

~Cheers!

How to be happy? Easy - Build peaceful relationships.

2017-07-18T10:23:00.003-07:00

Hello Readers!

I understand it's been quite long since my last blog but what can you expect from a new father! I'd rather spend all the time I have with my kid but unfortunately that's not how it happens, so here I am after some time to pen down another one of my random thoughts.

As usual, let me share one of the things that I think is profoundly new in acclimatization of age-old insights. As again, it is about life's philosophy :) Here's what I am talking about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KkKuTCFvzI

Now, some of my well-wishers are always traumatized about why I philosophize almost everything when I could do something more fun and useful. My answer to them - though unconvincing and ironically philosophical in itself - is that whatever task we do in our lives from dressing up to fighting poverty is driven by either tacit or explicit philosophical understanding. So it's better to be in control and understand and accept a philosophy and follow it, until unless proven wrong. I'll leave it at that.

If you don't care to watch the video in full, here' what it says: A 75 year study of 720+ men concluded that we are happiest in life if we have healthy and good relationships. Period.

Let that sink in for a moment.

It's especially important today. Unsurprisingly our attention span for everything now is decreasing. It's all about quick fixes and fast-foods. Whatever the history of that may be but it is definitely not good. I mean really not good. It's not only bad culturally or philosophically; it's downright physically bad! These "quickies" are devastatingly reducing the power of paradigms and that's not good. Lasting things are only built on strong foundations and this is not conventional wisdom. It's a scientific fact. Nothing gets through in logic and science without years of efforts, thousands of experiments and decades of ground work. Flukes used to happen back in the day when mankind hardly knew anything about everything. Not now.

Anyway, the study above only says that those who lived happiest had healthy and fulfilling relationships and that of course is problem with those of us who don't have many. But how to fix it?

I don't think any study can recommend that. I mean a real fix for some relation may be to end it like an unhappy or forced marriage, friendship based on transactions and others. For some others, it would be to reinforce the lost charm like calling an old friend or meeting old teachers and so on. Relationships are one category of problems where every answer to the problem is probably right and wrong at some level or another.

I remember my Grand mother. She never cared about family feuds or egoistic maniacs that were around her. She pressed on. Caring for everyone the same way and she was an all encompassing entity for everyone of us in family. She did let go of some relationships but not because of ego, but just to be at peace. Perhaps to rediscover it, at a later time.

Some years ago, a peace summit in Vancouver was held in the august presence of the Dalai Lama and it's motto was "World peace through personal peace". It's a loaded statement and yet it's marvelous in it's simplicity. You can't hope for world peace if you're angry about your relationships. You gotta be at peace with yourself.

I hope that sooner or later our generation will realize this and build some long-lasting virtues of their own reinvented to cope up with the aspirations of new humanity.

Till we see again! :)

New Life - New Role

2017-05-07T08:28:00.000-07:00

According to Vedas and Puranas, a Jeeva or Soul is born through below process:

First the Jeeva - who is "anaadinitya" (eternal) - descends from worlds above to Earth and is seeded in clouds. Through rain, that jeeva descends to soil on earth and is consumed by plants. Thus, jeeva sits in plants until it is consumed by the father directly or indirectly through food. Only in males, will this jeeva transform from food to semen and float around. It is then transferred to mother's womb where it is nourished for 9 months and is born in this physical world.

To a certain extent this sounds so true. Actual semen in men is made up of water, proteins, fructose and sperm cells. Mostly, it contains fluids that are synthesized from food. Sperm cells are also impacted by what a man eats to a great extent. Now that much is clear. Whether the sperm cells or jeevanu transcend from heavenly worlds to food or not, is a matter of personal belief. I am not neglecting the fusion with egg and how vital egg produced by mother is to creation of life. In fact, scientifically it is impossible for man to produce any life on his own but a woman can! (Parthenogenesis) Although it rarely ever occurs in nature. I mean seriously rarely! Like just one partial recorded case in all human history.

Why is this coming all out of the blue?

Let me explain. I always found the process of birth fascinating! In all its grandeur it is a perfectly well-oiled mechanism that creates "something" with life. Nobody or nothing else can do this. I mean nobody can create life. That has to happen by itself. It is a blackbox for us! All we can do is to make sure a sperm and egg unite and watch the show reveal itself. Of course, I am talking about a human child-birth specifically as I know there are organisms that reproduce asexually. As we have come to understand the basic concept of reproduction is very simple. But in complex multi-cellular mammals like humans the process has zillions of combinations possible, only thinking about which exhausts my mind. And yet we see the impeccable accuracy with which life repeats itself producing unique beings every single time!! Think about it! It is mind-boggling.

When I became a proud father a month ago and took my boy in my lap for the first time, I just kept staring at him. Here he was: New Life! Of course my joy was limitless but my awe was transcending it by a fair margin. It is truly a novel experience to realize you have created a piece of yourself on this Earth. It is something that no other life experience can substitute.

I bowed down to God - for I believe no matter what we try, we will never be able to create something so genuine by ourselves.

Keep commenting!!

Would you like to live in a future created by humans? - Part Two

2017-03-13T10:04:00.000-07:00

Approximately three fortnights ago, we parted with a question -

Would you be proud to be part of such a future? I would love to know. At least, I wouldn't. Why? - That's for the next blog post.

As promised, here is my opinion:

I would not like to live in a future that's lost human touch. Honestly, can anyone imagine a life without human touch? What is life anyway?

Recently, my brother graduated from Medicine and is now a Doctor. I am darn proud of that. More so are our parents. On the occasion of graduation ceremony there was a provision to share thoughts and feelings for parents and siblings of graduating doctors. Unfortunately, due to the constraints of time I could not share what I wanted to. But it is no less relevant to this post. I didn't really prepare it. But quintessentially, here is what I wanted to say:

Life. It is everything isn't it? The sum total of all human progress can only be attributed directly the improving quality of life over the past century. Nobody remembers the name of a doctor who might have treated great minds like that of Newton, Einstein or Turing when they might have caught a disease that - if unattended - would have stopped them from pursuing their quests. What worth would they be without their health? I often wonder, what Niels Henrik Abel and William Kingdon Clifford would have accomplished had they not succumbed to TB? What marvels of mathematics could Srinivasan Ramanujam discovered had he not been hit by Hepatic Amoebasis? Heinrich Hertz - died of Granulomatosis - would have positively accelerated our understanding of physics. It's not only about scientists but prevalent everywhere. Ada Lovelace - first programmer - died at a young age of 36 of cancer. Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot - of the famous Carnot engine - also died at 36 of cholera. I could go on.

And look at the brighter side - Stephen Hawking! With early onset of ALS he was given a life expectancy of approximately 23 years! He had not even begun his great explorations into the origin of the Universe then! But there came a 'comma', where doctors predicted a 'period'. With an undaunting spirit and excellent quality of healthcare Stephen Hawking went onto to become the greatest minds since Albert Einstein.

What is fundamental to all this? Life. Living. If you live, you can do something. Not everyone needs to have an exceptional life like all the people I talked of above. Every life counts. It contributes in someway. And doctors are entrusted with just that - the responsibility to sustain life.

Now back to our question - What human touch does is simple: it proves that no life is perfect. That, the very concept of perfection is a mirage always meant to be chased. The imperfection that is a product of humans, has accomplished great things! The very same imperfection lets us enjoy the light that kills the darkness. I often think: What would I do in a perfect world? No quest. No journey.

No thanks! I wouldn't want to be part of it.

Enjoy life! Keep commenting.

Would you like to live in a future created by humans? - Part One

2017-01-22T10:45:00.004-08:00

Hello Folks,

My mother had came over to my home recently and it was one of the occasions we talk about our life as it was in good old days. When we step out of our lives occasionally and look at it, it zips past us! It seems the days and the night are moving so fast more than ever! Our work week is so well-defined and our weekends are also programmed to a great extent. We have lost spontaneity and in fact we think an undeclared visit by a relative or friend is a show of indiscipline and insensitivity. Well, at least most of us do or most of the time I have experienced it. I don't know if it's good or bad; that will come later. But look at what's governing us. All that technological revolution was to save our time, so that we can invest in something more creative and worthwhile. Have we?

It is true to a great extent. The pace of innovation and inventions in the nineteenth century was faster than ever before. Today, we are creating and consuming these inventions at the same time. We have gained everything. The only thing we have lost is human touch.

May be we don't care about it anymore. May be that is the way forward. We will be self-dependent to the extent that we wouldn't need human contact at all. What will such a future be like? No one talks with each other. We would have artificial robots customized to our behavior and tuned to respond in appropriate manner by reading our moods and expectations. No helps each other. There will be an emergency and SoS button on all devices and automated signalling and smart bots will ensure law and order. I am not afraid of this scenario at all. Perhaps it is for good. The reason for that, is we as a society have become undependable. "Human touch was a strong force at some point in time.", the history writers will write in future. "Then, it became the root of all problems. Technology replaced it and humans soon became obsolete as a species". We won't be needed. The robots will have everything we have, minus the problems created by the genuine imperfection that's our signature.

May be it is for good, who knows. One day we will see. Perhaps technology and automation will solve most of our dire problems. But will they introduce new ones?

Who longs for human touch now? What is it anyways? Nowadays if there is a something that you want to talk about - especially on the internet - you need to attach a wikipedia reference to it. Everything is expected to be clearly defined. In some contexts this expectation makes perfect sense. In others, it is absent. But can we define what is a human touch? I can't. Experience is holistic and cannot be framed in some equation. Even if we create bots that, attempt to do that, the very notion that we know the genesis of experience or idea renders it in-genuine or inhuman. Perhaps this is how the world will evolve and species go extinct. We can say that the difference is that, the nature kills some and to some others (like us) - it only provides the capability to self-destruct.

So imagine a world that is perfect! No problems in any country at all! Or even better there is no one country at all. All the world is one place, one home. We have fine-tuned everything. Even ourselves. Our emotional responses are classified and categorized. No surprises. No regrets. Picture perfect.

Would you be proud to be part of such a future? I would love to know. At least, I wouldn't. Why? - That's for the next blog post.

Keep commenting!

Parents - We owe them

2016-12-17T11:12:00.002-08:00

Hello Folks,

Today I want to talk about our parents. I recently met a lot of parents as part of one of the programs in the school that I volunteer at. This evoked a lot of thoughts in me about parents and parenting.

We think of our parents from various perspectives during various phases in our lives. Up until we reach the age of maturity - whenever that is - they are our idols. Our understanding is mostly shaped by them and their behavior. Our idea of right or wrong is shaped by their words regarding the same. And this generally is the happiest time of our life.

Maturity is a controversial subject. It is not simple knowledge gain over others. It is holistic. Every generation cannot compare the generation before itself and the one to come in terms of how mature they are. Circumstances differ wildly, especially in the times we live in. When you think about it deeply you realize that people are a product of the environment they grew in and their social conditioning at that time. There is nothing right or wrong about someone's behavior. Everyone is what they are as a result of their social conditioning and the environment they grew in. Parents are not an exception.

But we don't see our parents like this up until very late in our life. There will be a moment of realization in everyone's life where it hits them in their head to see their parents as mere people - normal people - like us who evolved through a set of circumstances and did the best for us. I mean the best. Sometimes we don't understand them correctly enough because we don't understand their social conditioning. Frankly, it is a very painful and laborious process. So no one takes the trouble of understanding where our parents' each behavioral aspect came from. But they deserve it. They deserve it because they did what normal humans should not have done according to evolutionary paradigm. They put our lives ahead of theirs and that's not trivial especially when they were in thick of action. They were soldiers, teachers and doctors for us.

All the people you meet in your life always have an agenda to your well-being. Your boss wants you to be well otherwise it affects his team goals of productivity. Your friends want you to be well because of some reason such as you're funny or you have lots of money etc. Your colleagues, relatives no matter how close they are all want you to be well because there is a certain aspect of you that they like and they want you because of that. Not your parents. You parents want you to be well, because they want you to be well. At least the parents that I have seen are like so. I can't dispute an opinion that there may be "bad" parents. But they are an exception to an otherwise highly prevalent rule.

I have seen many people get angry at their parents for some flimsy reason and hurt them. There is nothing that cannot be solved by talking through and those who are too weak to talk, use anger. In my opinion, anger against your parents - both father and mother - is a felony. No matter how "wrong" they are, they always have your best interest at heart and no matter what's the problem, it can be sorted out by just talking about it in a smooth, non-agitated way. I have employed this in my life and I dare say it works.

Lastly, I wanted to say this: Someday, all of us will become parents or rather should become parents. You will then realize what is it that your parents went through to make you what you are. Perhaps, they made mistakes. But when you become a parent try and see if you can raise your child without any mistakes? If you can, call me. I will take down this article and my blog with it.

Thank you Appa and Amma!!
Keep commenting!

- Badari.

Blood Boils!

2016-10-04T11:51:00.001-07:00

Blood boils!

Blood boils when people - if you can call them that - rest in the cushions of safety and security and rant about philosophical shit, speculative arguments or what if scenarios out of their wild, wicked and completely selfish selves!

I am a sensitive person. But not emotional. Yet, even I had tears come to my eyes when I saw the news today. I asked myself how can someone doubt our army? Had these people just uttered "tava shubha name jaage" and not really realized what it meant? Have these people no patriotism? Love for the country!? That which unites us despite all our diversity! That to which we are eternally bound and call our "Mother"!

Blood boils!

Blood boils when people say that artists or others who are in a defunct sense not "common" are entitled to a view that their countrymen don't share. A view that no patriotic Indian would share. I don't care shit about a movie if they don't care about my country. Anybody want to call that narrow, be my guest.

Blood really boils!

People like the Delhi Chief Minister, Om Puri, Sanjay Nirupam, The Congress, P. Chidambaram, Digvijay Singh and others who I don't know yet make me think what stuff are they made of? What's clear to me, is that these very people will laugh at me if I ask them to call my country, my "Mother"! Privately, if not publicly.

I will not apologize to the great parents and relatives of the martyrs for I am not one of those people who brought shame by doubting my army. I am eternally indebted to the army; to my soldier brothers who responsibly guard our borders while we plan our days and nights. I only wish I was as brave as they are! So, I want to tell them that we are here for you! Whomever you leave behind - and I hope you don't - we will take care of them. We want you to have a better life than we do for what you are doing cannot be compared to what we do. Ignore these people who embarrass you. We are there.

Blood boils!

When I see us - fellow Indian - take sides on everything. Matters of National interest and National security are not an exception. Why? I am proud of being an Indian and I don't want to take any side because I don't think there is another side than being proud of our army and our motherland!

"Janani Janma Bhoomischa Swargadapi Gareeyasi"

Jai Hind!

Nationalism

2016-08-15T12:03:00.002-07:00

Hello Folks!

There is big debate about nationalism in our country nowadays. I had refrained from writing anything on it because I thought that the whole debate is an invented one. However, there is a need to come clear and ensure sanctity of the idea.

Nationalism is pretty simple: You love your nation. There are no shades to it as people have been discussing recently. I read The Hindu newspaper and usually I find two articles on nationalism nowadays on an average every week. They are full page opinion posts. Most articles come from professors of JNU and are always similar in tone and tenor. Those articles always talk about hyper-nationalism. That I find very irritating. Because the way hyper-nationalism is defined is from the actions of those who do something in the name of nationalism that is "extreme" in the author's sense of understanding. That's a lot of assumptions! First of all, what a person does in the name of nationalism talks more about the person than about nationalism. It would be preposterous to conclude a person's actions as being stemming from the very concept itself. Secondly, the sample size is too small. In a country of over billion people if some thousands talk of extreme nationalism (if there is such a thing!), it is not proof enough that such an extreme nationalism exists.

It's a definition problem. It is also very difficult to solve. You see if you're selling potatoes to me and I am buying them, we can talk about the cost and bargain once we both agree that they are potatoes. If, however, I challenge your definition of potatoes then, we will enter into an endless debate of what exactly should be called a potato. That sort of discussion has the potential for being inconclusive and that's why television news debates rake them up.

Nationalism's definition is more easily comprehensible if you experience it. Today is our 70th independence day. Today, when we sing our national anthem or Vande Maataram or Saare jahan se accha and see the tricolor fly high, we know what nationalism is. When we hear about our great soldiers and the way they save us and our country's sovereignty by constantly fighting against enemies, we know what nationalism is. Doubting its definition is the luxury of those who have a lot of time and motivation to over-think and none to internalize and experience.

Finally, nationalism encompasses humanism. It is absurd to even think of being or not being a nationalist without being human first. If someone acts extreme or against humanity it is because they are not human; it has got nothing to do with nationalism.

Jai Hind!

Is blogging about life on a Sunday necessary?

2016-07-03T02:50:00.001-07:00

I will take you to the answer. But the genesis of the answer is more important than the answer itself. So please, read on.

After I came to realize the true potential of human worth, I felt aghast about people and organizations that manipulated humans to gain some short-term benefit. Livelihood, I can understand. Sometimes life makes you do things you don't really believe in doing and not a lot of people are exception to that. But what is happening now is not some people working to sustain their life and inadvertently manipulating others. Deceit has become an industry. Specifically in two major fields: Education and Entertainment.

Education

The other day when I was passing by a road in Bangalore, I saw a board on a complex - "Complete Childhood Solutions". What does that even mean? What solutions are being offered during childhood? This is the most filthy industry, I think. When my cousin went to a prospective school to get his son's admission form - which costs 200/ regardless of admission confirmation - he was told that there would be an interview. Seriously!? An interview? For two year old? My cousin obviously asked as to what is the objective of this interview and he was told, "to assess the accomplishments of the child". I was at a loss on my response. I did not whether to laugh or to feel disgusted. What could possibly a two year old accomplish? Heck, the two year olds don't even know the spelling of accomplishment and most adults cannot spell it correctly either without support from spellcheck. Schools like the ones that my cousin went to create a placeholder where "Childhood Solutions" come into picture.

Entertainment

You can clearly notice this element being so highly abused. The problem with entertainment is that it has no limits. It is most direct form of luxury and luxury has no limit. Most - if not all - advertisement philosophies are based on one single paradigm - Be more. Do more. Deserve more. Own more. You see, after all you are an awesome creation and you deserve more than you think. Notice how innately there is a paradigm of high ambition here. This ambition transcends when you reach it. You keep spending on this and the avenues for this are virtually limitless. Travel, Food, Outings, Resorts, Picnics, Pubs, Restaurants, Movies, Drinks, Comfort and so on. There is no end. In the end, you always deserve more. A decade ago there was always a question of affordability. Now, it is seen as an insult. Limits are only in human mind. True. But there is a fine line between self-transcendence and greed. Being more is not the same as owning more. Somewhere down the line we got them confused.

To be truthful, we are the first culprit in all of this. Standard of living. We have abused it so much that we have created a society that believes in insane stuff offhand. Self-ratified procedures and manners taken off from the internet insensitive to the context of our lives and the society that we live in. This problem was augmented by us not identifying and understanding our time-tested cultural principles. The chineese have a proverb roughly translated to - "He who gets up before the sun rises and works till he sets will not fail to make his family rich in one year". No matter what they did they stuck to their native principles that were time-tested. Their implementation of work might have got upgraded with the latest of technology but their guiding light has remained the same.

What happened to us? We had everything. We respected women. We had the greatest universities in the World. We produced Kalidasa, Banabhatta, Bendre, Rabindranath Tagore and so many other greats that the list isn't comprehensive if it goes on with thousands. Since when did Childhood Solutions became a necessity? Since when did we forget that the real happiness is in sharing and not in wealth accumulation? Since when did we run short of great treatise and different art forms and are reduced to consume anything that a bunch of rich illiterates throw at us in the form of blockbusters? Where did our depth go?

When exactly did we loose sight of our guiding principles?

I am not sure. But we have. We are marching ahead without knowing where this mechanization and consumerism would take us. That is why I always make it a point. To stop and think about how life is going. It' a cumbersome exercise when you compare it to watching movies. But it yields results that have a resounding impact on your life. I ask all people whenever and wherever I meet them - to pause and think about any materialistic celebration they are having. To see really how this idea of owning more is culminating in selfishness.

That's also the reason why I write a blog on Sunday afternoon when I could have done anything! It's another great way of introspecting your life. It's called "Simhavalokanam"

To all those who take the trouble of reading this far - I would like to thank you and would encourage you to please go through the video below in its full. I am sure you won't be disappointed. It would help you realize - if you haven't so far - that my concerns are not unrealistic.

Sir Ken Robinson's talk on how schools kill creativity:

https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en

Sir Ken Robinson's talk on learning revolution:

https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution?language=en

Relevance of Religion

2016-04-28T09:38:00.001-07:00

Religion - a very sensitive concept that runs deep with all of us. Exactly what is it about religion that we attach our identity to it? How does religion give power to people to the extent that they can feed millions and also kill millions in the name of it? Why isn't there an agreement on one religion? What is religion after all? Do we really need it?

These are very controversial questions. However, let's not take sides just now and think about this for a while. Let us also only talk about one basic question - Do we need a religion after all?

When I think of religion I often think of and draw parallels with another branch of inquiry that everyone - both religious and non-religious folks - deem great. The elite branch of Mathematics! So, do we need mathematics? Heck, yeah! Otherwise how would you describe everything that we have come to understand about physical laws? Mathematics is the language of physics, most say. This doesn't mean that without an equation for gravity, an apple won't fall from tree! As the late Carl Sagan said, the universe is indifferent to anything that happens in it and it doesn't make much sense to pray to laws of Gravity. But just think what would gravity mean without any mathematical tools to describe it? I just wonder. Do we really need mathematics to that extent? Except to enlighten us in understanding the natural laws and establish a clear universal language of communication for the same, mathematics is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. Note that mathematics is not all human-made. Some of it naturally occurs in universe. But some of it doesn't. I think religion is very similar.

Religion is not just a set of practices, customs and mere symbolisms that we see around us today. It has to have a sound philosophical base. It should also have clearly stated principles and methodology and it should explain more than it seems to question. In my opinion, a religion without a philosophical base, is of very less meaning.

However, we do have a fundamental problem with this comparison and it is this: Theories of mathematics can be validated by physical experiments that are empirical in nature. Arguments of religious philosophy cannot.

This difference is well-acknowledged. Let's try to understand it from a different perspective. Think of it this way - The validity of your answers depend on the subject of your question. If you are questioning about how many fingers does an average human have, the validity of your answer can be measured as true or false since it is something we can empirically verify. However, the questions asked by religious philosophy are not so simple. Religious philosophy is a quest for the unknown and thus its validity is hard to assert either way. Add to that, in terms of constructing philosophical arguments we have exactly a sample size of 1 - Our own world! We have no intelligent life to compare with and that hampers our hypothesis of being unique.

Regardless, the world is a wonderful place as we all know. There is so much to learn and understand and that is what religion did at one point in time. However, it was later converted to a business. An industry. That's sad. Because religion is enquiry of supreme being (अथातो ब्रह्म जिज्ञासा!) and such a pious journey can't be industrialized. The search for meaning cannot be sold as a product as it is priceless. So this is the best of the times, where we need religion. In fact, we need pure religion now. The one based on sound philosophy.

Contradictions are more than welcome!

The Decision Dilemma - A policy suggestion for effective decision making in Parliament.

2016-01-11T10:10:00.000-08:00

Hello Folks,

There is but one speech of Parliament that I always watch from time to time if only to remind myself what a great institution it was once. It was the speech of Late. Shri Pramod Mahajan on No confidence motion against the United Front government. I recommend a watch on youtube.

The speech I mentioned above is neither the best nor the perfect speech of Lok Sabha but it has the important nature of being holisitc in its aspects. In one sweeping summation of thoughts, Shri Pramod Mahajan tears through the defence of the then government, lays down facts, keeps his party line clear and charms the house all the while. It is truly amazing! The speech was both effective and popular and one that can be used to learn various things about structuring the argument.

Another person who spoke eloquently in the house was Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee. But his speeches were different - in the sense - they are very statesman like. But always effective. His speeches on Pokhran test justification, Use/Mis-use of article 356 of the Indian constitution and at the time of resigning from his 13 day government are examples of his effectiveness that left us for wanting more.

It has been such a long time since such master pieces came through.

Contemporary BJP and some Congress leaders are very good orators but they don't match either Vajpayee's eloquence or Mahajan's all-rounder strikes. I include Narendra Modi, Arun Jaitely, Sushma Swaraj and Shashi Tharoor as well.

One may wonder, why is it so important to speak well when you can function well and deliver? Well, it does matter. For the simple reason that not all deliverables impact everyone in the same way. But speech is a mode of delivery that connects with everyone. Note that by speech I mean the art of speaking and not only oratory. For someone who is leading a team, art of speaking is a mandatory quality without which the leader will get disconnected and team goes haywire accomplishing nothing.

Parliament has been reduced to nonsensical clutter, mostly if not wholly. It disappoints me to see our leaders fighting pettily over non-issues, raging personal battles and being so unprofessional while leading a country that has a mountain of expectations from them. Just to be clear, by leadership I imply all parliamentarians. My response to a near dysfunctional parliament with near unproductive sessions is not late rather early considering the impending budget session and the passage of GST.

No criticism is helpful which does not provide alternatives. I believe the solution to a functional parliament is through two ways:

1. A test that qualifies only few people to debate. This test will essentially be to evaluate ones depth in understanding on matters of concern and scientific aptitude towards problem solving.

2. A debate amongst these chosen people adjudicated by a group of representative audience chosen from constituencies of all Lok Sabha seats reflecting diversity of concern, domain expertise and merit of decision making.

3. The outcome of the ditto mentioned debate process weighs 50% and the usual parliamentary voting weighs 50%. Decision will be arrived by a cumulative calculation.

Only popularity does not certify one's ability to speak on important issues in parliament and is rather detrimental to the whole-problem solving process. However, only intellectual assessment of issues may leave out intangible concerns of the population. Equal weight-age will ensure that parliament made a decision that is sound in mind and is popularly beneficial. Of course, I don't claim that this is a fool-proof system. Anything but that. But it is, what I consider, a balanced approach for us to move forward on issues without hurting the spirit of democracy.

Happy reading!

The Grand Technological Unification

2015-10-10T03:07:00.003-07:00

Hello Folks,

Microsoft recently unveiled the Windows 10 devices at public event. If you haven't watched it yet, I recommend a watch, preferably in full.

Unveiling of Windows 10 devices by Microsoft - October 6th, 2015

As I was watching this and after I did, I was positively amazed. It's not like Microsoft is introducing any revolutionary technology that the world has never seen before, but this show means more than just a display of popular product portfolio. When I took a step back to think about what I had just seen, I was reminded of something that I had contributed to Quora quite a long time ago.

My answer to the prospects of Unified communication on Quora

Near the end of the event, it started to feel as if the differentiating factors between the devices shown are very few, if there were any. And this relates to the answer that I gave above. When I answered about Unified Communication, though, I was not talking devices rather about the media of communication that exist and their convergence. But that does imply a convergence of the device that consume the media, doesn't it? All too obvious now I come to think of it.

When IP (Internet Protocol) emerged as a common medium of communication for voice, video and data, the consequence was bound to unify the devices that used these media of communication. Phones, TV, Tablets, Laptops, PC's - basically anything with a transistor set wired to work like that of a typical "computer".

Did you notice what I just wrote there? "Computer" - was a device by itself and in some strict sense and it still is. But with unified communication and unification of access points (devices), computer is a category. Your phone is a computer. So is your laptop, TV and anything else. In the foreseeable future your refrigerator, camera, washing-machine - heck even your engagement ring might be your computer! I am ready to bet my favourite chess board that in our life times we will see the extinction of single-function devices.

Actually, I am kind of late in writing about this topic. It is common knowledge that companies like Google, Apple etc., are building devices that can talk to each other. Pretty soon it will be a reality and it would be really exciting to see what happens then?

Of course, nothing comes without a cost. These ultra-intrusive devices that speak truth all the time may face some concerns that can be remedied and some will stay. Humans have to choose ultimately and that's a given. But my sense is that the net effect will be positive and we should all be excited for it as it will make our world a better than what it is in some ways. We should welcome this Grand Technological unification for our own good - devices, medium and data!

P.S: More on IoT: TED talks on IoT. Recommend a watch of each of these!

Keep commenting!

वैद्यो नारयणो हरि: - Doctor is God.

2015-08-21T10:16:00.001-07:00

Off late I have been observing the field of medicine. Such is the depth and darkness of it that, If I were to describe it with the least of any poetic sense that I may have, I would easily fill pages. But I'll restrain.

Surprisingly - or perhaps unsurprisingly for those gifted with quick understanding - I found many similarities in what we - Engineers - do and what the doctors do. Of course the exception being the point of investigation, study or analysis is a living object with a mind of it's own in latter's case. An obvious quality of machines is that they don't have the capacity to lie. Thus for a sufficiently well-trained engineer there is no need to dwell into the truth or falsity of the statements offered by the machines. But it's obviously not the same for doctors or for that matter lawyers and police as well. But there is something deeper about doctors: In case of lawyers and police, the subject of investigation speaking lie comes back to hit the subject himself/herself. The lawyers or the police have very little to loose per se.

Patients are always not like that. Now, I am miles away from any expertise on this topic, but patients don't always know that they are lying. Sometimes - more often than not - they simply misinterpret and stick to their interpretation of symptoms. The problem with the field of medicine with it's vast knowledge and unprecedented information overload, is that curing a patient becomes a "debugging" exercise, instead of giving a solution that is guaranteed to work.

I have the highest respect for Doctors. I think it's the best profession one can be gifted with and also one that is not without it's sacrifices. But I also think that it is the very nature of their profession that makes it impossible to arrive at a rock-solid conclusion verified by evidence and offered as a solution that will __definitely__ cure a disease or disorder, and not as a "best-approach-available from-the-data-we-have". When I debug a system with an issue, I make a thorough investigation of it's logs and any data that it provides; I know the code that is running behind and causing and I can nail down a tiny portion of it causing the problem. I can try a few things with the system without causing anyone any pain in the slightest. But unfortunately, doctors can't do that for an issue/disease that presents itself with different symptoms. Patients like me even whine for an injection! (pun intended :))

Being a doctor changes so many things. You cannot relax when any of your relatives complain to you about any pains-in-chest or breathing-problems. You know they are just symptoms of something more sinister or something that is waiting it's turn. In the wake of daily pains, shrieks, loss, tears and tension you witness; everything else seems superficial. You start to question the fundamentals of your existence. The experiences twist and turn you from inside and knowing too much means you have no way to ask someone about all this as well!

Having said all that, I know it's hard to be sure about anything. But that's philosophy and it's worse than medicine in terms of complexity and comprehensibility. However, after you observe all this, you can definitely say that the progress made by mankind in the identification and treatment of a deluge of problems concerning humans, is truly, most remarkable. All sincere doctors who treat the disease and relive us of pain and problems deserve no less than a Nobel award.

Thanks to my brother - Aniruddha - for bringing me close to these experiences that I think all us should go through. Be a doctor for a few seconds. Step in a doctor's boot and you'll know, life is much more than blogging about medicine. :)

Keep reading! Be happy! Be Healthy!

Soldiers win the war; not swords

2015-05-17T01:44:00.001-07:00

Consider two online petitions on change.org -

[1] Petition to remove casting of Ben Affleck as Batman:

https://www.change.org/p/warner-brothers-remove-ben-affleck-as-batman-bruce-wayne-in-the-superman-batman-movie

[2] Petition to introduce a Good Samaritan law in the Indian parliament to help people suffering accidents on roads:

https://www.change.org/p/talk2jpnadda-introduce-a-good-samaritan-law-in-the-parliament

What do you see? Okay, let me be more specific and ask you this - On a scale of 1 - 10 (1 being "least concerned") How would you rate petition 1 and petition 2?

If you have rated petition 1 higher than petition 2, please stop reading further.

Internet has an amazing characteristic of compounding a cause and its effect. It's knowledgeable. Very knowledgeable. But internet can hardly decide what's good and what's not.

Mankind has always grappled with the question of good and bad. We still do not know everything there is to know about objective morality. (assuming it exists!) It's intricately philosophical. I would not want to ruin your day with another sermon on "10 ways to tell the good from the bad", but as a society, as a community, as a nation, and of course as an individual we all have a sense of things that are on the whole good and bad. These are discreet beliefs driven mostly by our internal belief system. What internet does is by wholly connecting all the communities on this planet it creates a collage of beliefs. Good, bad and ugly. That means something.

Our internal belief system mostly gets developed during formative years and it has everything to do with our upbringing. However, how we are brought up, what we are taught, where we live and what values we inculcate in formative years are not the only things that form our belief system. Also, the belief system is not rigid. It evolves. Though, the evolution process is slow and very gradual.

Anyways, one thing we don't fail to note now-a-days is the kind of exposure kids get to the internet. For kids below the age of 10, internet/smartphones are all a given. They start using it and learning from it so early in their life that now, internet also plays a part in forming their belief system. Whether it's good or bad, is a question I'll leave you to ponder with.

What happens then? The internet - as I said earlier - has an astounding effect of compounding and trivializing. In a very limited sense, it defines what's important and what's not. Now, that's where we ought to be concerned. Because we cannot allow something that does not have a mind of it's own to tell our kids what's important in life and what is not!

Facebook is a very nice example. Facebook is a creation of genius. No doubt about that. But when we invent technology, we are often driven by pure love and craze of feeling the satisfaction of creation. We don't give a damn about what our creation is capable of doing. I can say that with some authority, as that's what I do for a living. Facebook is no exception. Watch the feed of a typical someone's facebook - Selfies, Statuses quoting feelings, Travel, life events, Causes attached with us and our friends (All kinds - political inclinations, entertainment choices, cuisines and every other thing.) What makes you get addicted to Facebook? When we log in, we through our feed and what we don't realize is all that time we are getting driven by someone else's agenda in life. Posts/Videos/Photos shared by your friends drive your time. While it is not bad, essentially what it does is that it exerts a soft gradual influence, which over time mends your belief system. It shapes or changes your personality.

Now that's not bad per se. I mean that's what we've been doing since our inception, right? Talking to neighbors and other around us and getting a hang of what's going on around in the process shaping our personality. Correct. But there's a difference. Now we talk more about global issues in breadth and brevity. 140 characters to be precise! But we know very less about the problems plaguing our locality. Who resides near us, what they do etc. While having a view on global issues is good, it is not critical for survival. Whereas knowing that a pediatrician lives nearby helps you and avoids your instinct to post on Facebook - "Suggestions needed for a good Pediatrician". As I write this, there is already an app for getting suggestions for doctors near your area. Sigh.

I was 10 years old when the scandal broke out about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal) I had heard bits of news about it through television, but honestly had not gone through it as there was no Facebook or Twitter where I could get instant expert information.
But the way it appeared everywhere, it seemed that it was heinous things to do. That was one side of the story.

Recently I heard Monica Lewinsky herself talk about her life - particularly on Lewinsky Scandal - on TED. Here's that another part of the story. I recommend a watch.

When you're 10 years old, you cannot get a holistic picture of things around you. You're not matured enough to measure the whole truth in its depth and extract in it's purely credible form. That you attain, when you gain perspective about life in the form of experiences. Till I saw this video - and read more about it - I thought it was an intended crime. But now you come to realize that this mistake was completely blown out of proportion. Sure, there was wrongdoing. But to insult someone and harass for sadistic pleasure is even more scandalous. If you note, these forms of scandals are all around us now-a-days and we have come to a settlement with them. Between 1980-1999 if there were 23 such scandals reported, between 2000-2014 there are 20! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#1990.E2.80.931999)

Why no hype now? I opine, that the internet has trivialized them. It has also trivialized crimes on women. The infamous Nirbhaya rape incident (India's Daughter) choked our collective conscience and we moved as a nation to protest against crimes on women. But the incidents of equal barbarism in Burdwan and Kolkata, did not get such an attention. One begs understanding.

Internet, without a hint of doubt, is a boon to mankind. It has connected us in an unprecedented way and has marched the entire mankind on the path of self-discovery and progress. But it has its own faults. As inventors of this tool, we are supposed to be guardians of it and not just succumb to its unsolicited preaching.

I remember a very nice analogy - that I heard in college - when I think of internet: Soldiers win the war; not swords.

The Subhashita way of life - Conclusion

2015-04-12T11:36:00.000-07:00

Through my last 4 posts I believe I have made an honest attempt to expound the intricacies of life as captured and dealt with in certain places by Subhashitas. These posts, of course, by no measure come close to what can be called as a holistic representation of Subhshita thought process. But I have made an attempt, nevertheless, to show the tip of an ice-berg whose depth and realism only manifests itself in the true experiences of daily interactions with life.

Logically it is quite easy to explain why "Good sayings" or Subhashitas in any culture for that matter prevailed. In absence of internet and other media to communicate and share one's life experiences across multiple strata of society, Subhashitas could have been invented. Anyways, that's all hypothesis. What's truly great - on a more personal note - is their validity. Normally, collective wisdom fades over time. That's only evident. Wisdom is internalization of knowledge and knowledge grows out of fashion and into deep abyss of obsolescence. The rate at which someone knowledgable becomes uselessly over-qualified is, of course, quite complicated to determine but it's only more evident now more than ever since that rate is increasing alarmingly. If you knew about economics a decade ago, At least people would have sought your opinion on it. Now, no need. With the advent of Internet and specifically Google, everyone is an expert in no time. Wisdom can be created and destroyed.

But intuitively I feel there is something indestructible or rejuvenating about Subhshitas. They fit most if not all the contexts that they were designed to fit into. Timeless is more appropriate word. Behold! Calling something timeless is abhorrent now-a-days. Everything comes in and goes out of trend. But not Subhashitas.

Why? Had they been only illustrations of perceptions, they would have failed miserably. Had they been anecdotes of different life forms humans took up or led, time would have wiped them out in no time! They are living. They are but a form of our own existence and I am not being dramatic about it.
If you look around yourself very closely, the so called changes in the human history in the areas of community living and culture have not been fundamental in nature. There will never be any fundamental change in the nature of group thinking or simply, the way we live. Our understanding of material and the non-material world accelerates towards a seemingly comprehensive conclusion but the base on which it stands has not mutated. It has only moved fast.

It is a bit like programming. We have ultra modern super programming languages and technology aiding us to imagine and accomplish things that seemed like software fiction a decade ago. But at the base of it all, is the same loop, the same if, the same switch etc. The fundamental constructs of collective wisdom that Subhashitas attempt to define, never quite really changed drastically.Perhaps, they never will.

Thus, the Subhashita way of life is relevant even today. At least they deserve an understanding.

I would love to invite contradictions! Enjoy reading.

The Subhashita way of life - Part 4

2015-04-03T12:05:00.003-07:00

Here are some Subhaashitaas on Love and - what most of the contemporary Bollywood's misses out on - it's nuances.

अद्रुष्टे दर्शनोत्कन्ठा द्रुष्टे विच्छेदभीरुता ।

नाद्रुष्टेन न द्रुष्टेन भवता लभ्यते सुखम् ॥

When I am not seeing you, a fervent desire arises to see you; when I see you, the fear of separation chases my mind. Whether I see you or not, happiness eludes me.

यदेव रोचते मह्यम् तदेव कुरुते प्रिया ।

इति वेत्ति न जानाति तत्प्रियम् यत्करोति सा ॥

"She does that same thing, what I like", so thinks the mad man in love unknown to the fact that whatever she does, he likes it.

The dynamics of a relationships in a marriage are beautifully captured in the below shloka -

मा याहित्यपमङलम् व्रुज किल स्नेहेन शुन्यम् वच:

तिष्टेति प्रभुता यथारुचिकुरुश्वेशाप्युदासीनता ।

नो जीवामि विना त्वयेति वचनम् सम्भव्यते वा न वा

तन्माम् शिक्षय नाथ यत्समुचितम् वक्तुम् त्वयि प्रस्थिते ॥

"Do not go" would be inauspicious; "Go" would be heartless; "Wait, stay here!" would be an order; "Do as you wish." would be indifferent; "I cannot live without you!" may seem unrealistic to you! O! My Husband! Please suggest me on what would be the best thing to say when you are on the verge of leaving? [Leaving home for a different place.]

एकत्रासनसम्स्थिति: परिह्रुता प्रत्युद्गमाद्दुरतः

ताम्बुलाहरणछलेन रभसा श्लेशक्रमो विघ्नितः ।

सम्लापोपि न मिश्रित: परिजनम् व्यपारयन्त्यन्तिके

भर्तुः प्रत्युपचारतस्चतुरया कोपः क्रुतार्थी क्रुत: ॥

When her husband was coming and was still a little farther away, she rose to welcome him and thus evaded sitting with him. By giving him "taambula" herself, she evaded his embrace. By ordering different people to perform different chores, she kept herself busy and evaded any talk with him. Thus, by pretending to serve her husband, she expressed her anger by dissociating.

Disappointment in Love? It's here -

अक्रुत प्रेमैव वरम् न पुनस्सञातविघ्नित प्रेमा ।

उद्ध्रुत नयनो हि यथा ताम्यत्येवम् न जात्यन्दः ॥

It is better to not experience love at all than to experience a temporary one. Wouldn't a man blinded by an accident in life suffer more than the one who was born blind?

An ideal relationship -

अद्वैतम् सुखदुःखयोरनुगतम् सर्वास्ववस्थासु यत्

विश्रामो ह्रुदय्स्य यत्र जरसा यस्मिन्नहार्यो रसः ।

कालेनावरणात्ययात्परिणिते यत्प्रेम सारे स्थितम्

भद्रम् तस्य सुमानुशस्य कथमप्येकम् हि तत्प्रार्थिते ॥

That marriage/relationship - which is stable in both happiness and sorrow; Which is experiences relaxation in all states of life; Which only grows shedding pretences and becomes purely trustful - is really a blissful union! Who wouldn't want such a companionship?

Below shloka goes to tell that colour of a person's skin is not important, character is -

प्राव्रुशेण्यस्य मालिन्यम् दोष: कोभीष्टवर्शिण: ।

शारदाभ्रस्य शुभ्रत्वम् वद कुत्रोपयुज्यते ॥

What difference does it make if the clouds of rainy season are black as long they give the life enriching water? What use is the white colour of clouds in the summer season?

Similarly, mere abundance is of no use -

मा कुरु गुरुता गर्वम् लघुरन्यो नास्ति सागरत्वत: ।

जलसङ्रहमन्यस्मात् त्वयि सति कुर्वन्ति पोतस्था: ॥

O! Sea! Don't boast yourself too much for being huge! You are the smallest of all. Though you are the source of abundant water, sailors who sail on you don't drink it at all!

(pending conclusion .........)

The Subhashita way of life - Part 3

2014-11-21T10:54:00.000-08:00

(Continued ...)

Following are some subhshitaas on some animals and birds. Note that they bring out a distinct quality in each one of them that are in turn guiding light in some aspects and plain characters worth acquiring by habit, otherwise.

On Elephant:

नीवारप्रसराग्रमुस्टिकवलैर्यो वर्धितशैशवे

पीतम् येन सरोजपत्रपुटके होमावशेशम् पय: ।

तम् द्रस्ट्वामदमन्थरालिवलयव्यालुप्तगन्डम् गजम्

सोत्कन्ठम् सभयम् च पश्यति मुहुर्दूरेस्थितस्तापस: ॥

An old sage has brought up a small elephant under his care by affectionately feeding it with fresh grass and cow's milk from his holy rites in a lotus leaf. Now the elephant has grown and is majestic in its demeanor. It is not possible for him now to go near the same elephant and feed it as he used to when it was a baby though he desires it from the bottom of his heart. Thus, where one side of his heart urges him - out of affection - to go and care for the elephant; the other side warns him by the sheer size and majestic outlook of it. Confused, he stays and watches it with dumb admiration.

On Dear:

स्थलीनाम् दग्धानामुपरिम्रुगत्रिश्नामनुसरम्

स्त्रुशार्तस्सारङो विरमति न खिन्नेपि मनसि ।

अजानानस्तत्वम् न स म्रुगयतेऽन्यत्र सरसी

मभुमौ प्रत्याशा न च फलति विघ्नम् च कुरुते ॥

A dear is frivolously running in the desert seeking water. But what it sees and seeks is a mere mirage and not water. However, the dear does not know this and thus - unaware of the real thing - it continues its efforts fruitlessly. Those desires will never result in good results, which are planted in inappropriate objects or places.

On "Chataka pakshi" (Jacobian Cuckoo Bird) :

रे रे चातक सावधान मनसा मित्र क्षणम् श्रूयताम्

अम्भोदा बहवो वसन्ति गगने सर्वेपि नेताद्रुषा: ।

केचिद्व्रुस्ठिभिरार्द्रयन्ति धरणीम् गर्जन्ति केचिद्व्रुथा

यम् यम् पश्यसि तस्य तस्य पुरतो मा ब्रूहि दीनम् वच: ॥

O! Chaataka! Hold on for a second and listen to my word! There are hundreds of clouds in the sky but all of them are not the same. Some shower rain on Earth and cool it. Some others only spark lightning. Therefore, do not beg for rain drops in front of every cloud.

(to be continued ...)

The Subhashita way of life - Part 2

2014-11-19T09:49:00.000-08:00

(Continued...)

Unlike the first post, here let me collect some great Subhashitas from some of my sources and not from memory.

On Noblemen:

परपरिवादे मूक: परनारीदर्शनेsपि जात्यन्ध: ।

पङु: परधन हरणे स जयति लोके महापुरुष: ॥

Those who are dumb when criticizing others; Those who are blind when seeing other woman (not wife); Those who are handicapped when it comes to other's money; they are the greatest ones on Earth.

वज्रादपि कठोराणि म्रुदूनि कुसुमादपि ।

लोकोतराणाम् चेतांसि कोहि विज्ञातुमर्हति ॥

The noblemen are harder than diamond at heart but softer than a flower. Who can understand the mind of such great noblemen?

On Fools:

उपदेशो हि मूर्खाणाम् प्रकोपाय न शान्तये ।

पय: पानम् भुजङाय केवलम् विष वर्धनम् ॥

If fools are lectured wisdom, it will only anger them more and not enhance their thought process. Just like feeding a snake with milk will only enhance its venom.

यस्य नास्ति स्वयम् प्रज्ञा शास्त्रम् तस्य करोति किम् ।

लोछनाभ्याम् विहीनस्य दर्पणम् किम् करिष्यति ॥

To the one who does not have wisdom of his own, How can "Shastra" help? For the one who is blind how can a mirror help?

On Good Character:

उपकार: परो धर्म: परोऽर्थ: कर्मनैपुण्यम् ।

पात्रे दानम् पर: काम: परो मोक्षो वित्रुष्णता ॥

Helping others is the best form of duty ("Dharma"); Diligently working on any given cause is the Best form of aim ("Artha"); Giving away to the needy and deserving is the best form of desire ("Kaama") and contentment is the best form of salvation ("Moksha").

अक्रुत्वा परसन्तापम् अगत्वा खलनम्रताम् ।

अनुस्रुज्य सताम् वर्त्म यत्स्वल्पमपि तद्बहु ॥

Whatever is accomplished by not hurting anyone's feelings, by not succumbing to unethical practices, by not diverging from the path of righteousness, is abundant even if it is minute.

On Poverty:

व्रुद्धोन्ध: पतिरेष अमन्चकगत: स्थूणावशेषम् ग्रुहम्

कालोभ्यर्णजलागम: कुशलिनी वत्सस्य वार्तापि न ।

यत्नात्सन्चित तैलबिन्दुघटिका भग्नेति पर्याकुला

द्रुष्त्वा गर्भभरालसाम् निजवधूम् श्वश्रूस्चिरम् रोदिति ॥

Husband is aged, blind and bed-ridden. Roof the home has vanquished and rainy season is fast-approaching. The only son has wandered away in search of livelihood and there is no news of his well-being. Daughter-in-law is pregnant and the pot containing oil (for cooking) that was collected by begging from different homes, has broken down. In such a situation, Mother-in-law of the pregnant women silently cries looking at the plight of her.

उत्तिष्टक्षणमेकमुद्वहसखे दारिद्र्यभारम् मम

श्रन्तस्तावदहम् चिराण्मरणजम् सेवे त्वदीयम् सुखम् ।

इत्युक्तिम् धनवर्जितस्य विदुश: श्रुत्वा स्मशाने शव:

दारिद्र्यान्मरणम् वरम् वरमीति ज्ञात्वेव तूष्णीम् स्थित: ॥

"O My Friend! Wake up for a second and carry the burden of my poverty on your shoulders. I am tired by carrying this for a long time. The solemn happiness that you're experiencing from death, let me experience.", said the poor but wise guy. After listening to this cry of the poor guy, the dead slept back in the grave thinking for itself - "It's better to be dead than to be poor."

(to be continued ...)

The Subhashita way of life - Part 1

2014-08-22T08:22:00.000-07:00

द्राक्षा म्लानमुखि जाता शर्करा चाश्मताम् गता ।

सुभाशित रसम् द्रुष्ट्वा सुधा भीता दिवङता ॥

--> 1

When grapes saw subhashita, they withered away. Sugar got powered and stoned. And the elixir died away.

The above shloka itself sums up what Subhashitas (Trans: Good sayings, Good words) are.

This shloka itself is a beautiful description of a poet's view-point. The concept used in this particular shloka was, perhaps, not new. But is apt. We all know that grapes turn dry; that sugar is stony and powdery and that elixir (amruta) is something found only in heaven. The poet here has used the definition of these and compared them to subhashita to emphasize the importance of learning or knowing quintessential concoctions of social and life experiences, that have been penned down.

My most favorite one is about self:

नाभिषेको न सम्स्कार: सिम्हस्य क्रियते वने ।
विक्र्मार्जितसत्वस्य स्वयमेवम्रुगेन्द्रता ॥

--> 2

In the Jungle, nobody crowns Lion a king. Nobody confers him any title. By the virtue of his own character and doing, the Lion becomes the King of Jungle.

I feel this is exactly what we lack now as a Nation. We lack self-respect and self-esteem. Confidence. We simply turn down our own products - products of thoughts, products of science, products of society and community - and are much attracted towards something that is "imported". We have to gather this thought and ingrain in ourselves: We don't need any certificate from others. By our own doing, we are the King of the Jungle.

The second on my list is about Love: One of the most intricate concepts Bollywood is working on full-time and yet Look at this shloka which captures it the best way,

दर्शने स्पर्शणे वापि श्रवणे भाषणेऽपि वा ।

यत्र द्रवत्यन्तरङ्गं स स्नेह इति कथ्यते ॥

--> 3

When your insides get excited after seeing, touching, listening or talking to someone, that is called as love.

That's so simple.

So many years later we got kuch kuch hota hai! And many more years later, today, we have films drooling over each word of the above shloka and manufacturing confusions.

But it's not only about the elusive feel that Sanskrit talks about. Many shlokas emphasize the importance of conscious thinking. Here's the one I like the most,

सह्सा विदधीत न क्रियाम् अविवेका: परमास्पदाम् पदम् ।

व्रुणते हि विम्रुश्यकारिणम् गुणालुब्धा: स्वयमेव सम्पद: ॥

--> 4

Nothing should be done in haste. One should properly evaluate all aspects of a task and then undertake it. Fools commit to something without thinking while great people undertake task after careful deliberation.

This is so generic and yet can be applied to many/any sphere of life and profession. I was so very influenced by this simple yet amazingly ignored thought that, I consciously follow it till now. Notice how beautifully, while one shloka [4] suggests conscious thinking for actions, the other suggests you to believe in your heart about what you feel [3].

Here is one that captures the beauty of paradoxes we see around us:

क्वछित् वीणावाद: क्वछिदपिच हाहेति रुदितम्

क्वचिन्नारी रम्या क्वछिदपि जरवर्जित वपु: ।

क्वचिद्विद्वत्गोष्टी क्वचिदपि सुरा मत्त कलह:

न जाने सम्सार: किमम्रुतमय: किम् विषमय: ॥

--> 5

Somewhere there is the melody of music while somewhere there is cry of atrocity; Somewhere there is a beautiful maiden while somewhere there is an old woman with deplorable appearance; Somewhere there is a conference of intellectuals and somewhere two drunk imbeciles are fighting; O World! I don't know whether you are an abode of happiness or doom.

There are a number of Subhshitas on different animals and traits that we can inculcate from them. My favorite one is on Lion. Here's one that I remember:

एकोहमसहायोहम् क्रुशोहमपरिच्छद: ।

स्वप्नेप्येवम् विधा चिन्ता म्रुगेन्द्रस्य न जायते ॥

--> 6

I am alone; I am helpless; I am weak; I am without any shelter - Such thoughts does not occur to Lion even in his dreams.

To be continued ...

Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitaha - धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः (Dharma/Duty saves the one, who saves Dharma/Duty)

2014-07-23T12:27:00.001-07:00

There is an extent to which we can legalize any society. It is impossible for any Government or a System of governance to identify all the right and wrong deeds that might happen in its country and postulate a law that clearly elucidates the impacts of wrong-doings or benefits of good things on its society. There is one such sequence in the movie, The Shutter Island, at the end where a police inspector/warden tells Leonardo Dicaprio somewhere to the essence that, humans don't refrain from killing because it is morally wrong; but because it is illegal. If our society ever reaches this state, that's when you can conclude it is entirely governed by law and not morals anymore.

What are morals? It is a very intricate discussion. It is quite subjective. But let's take an example. Say you're appearing for a competitive examination. You're not interested in the outcome of it but you just want to compete for only personal gain. There are so many other people who are striving to pass the same examination and who are genuinely interested in the outcome and stand to gain or lose a lot by the same. These are people who loose it by 1 or 2 marks/units most of the times. Perhaps because of you. What you have done is not illegal. But it can be termed as immoral. If you were not interested in the outcome of an examination, you should not have competed in the first place at all.

A society should always strive to move away from rules and inculcate more morals and ethics. Rules require intervention of the State. Justice is painfully slow. Processes involved are indifferent to pain and suffering of the victims and accused are allowed to run free as long as they aren't proven guilty. Since justice is delivered or deliberated by humans and involves certain people or community of people agreeing to a common "law of land", it is controversial. Rules or laws are formulated with an intention to prevent wrong-doings. Thus, it imbibes the assumption that wrong-doing will occur. It is a corrective approach. Reactive in nature. Morals or ethics on the other side are individual driven. When a certain set of morals are accepted by a society they become what I would like to call as social checkpoints. An unwritten law to which the society adheres to. If, say, the moral value of always speak truth is practiced, it imbibes a preventive approach. Proactive in nature.

In his book "The art of thinking clearly", Rolf Dobelli talks about the concept of social proof. As humans, we seek social proof in whatever we do. This - Dobelli cliams - is driven by our ancestral instincts for survival. Though I partly agree with it, I refuse to completely discard the importance of social proof. If you observe any society carefully, it is a reflection of each individual's ethical values and the society's perception of right and wrong. So if - let's say - you end up in some part of this World in a society and watch a murder in daylight in front of a huge audience with that audience staying dumb and indifferent - that speaks volumes about the society. Social proof is not totally absurd because after all, society is made up of us - human beings.

Crimes like rapes are particularly reflective of what the society is thinking. Rapes on minors, imbeciles or gang-rapes are reflective of a alarming thought process - Incomplete understanding of relationships.

This is fueled by illusion of control and premature affordability. Deriving chunks of values from West about a free society has led to a ruptured thought process in our society. This is not specific to elite. The rich, the poor or the aam aadmi - they all live together. What one does influences the other. What one thinks, stimulates the other. Let's be honest - we haven't been living in a free society for a long time. With an urge or excitement to create a free society, there comes a burden of acceptable social maturity to deal with it. The society has to be mature first and then only it can dream of building a new set of collective values or reforming the old values for the welfare of all. Most people, if not all, have to understand what the society wants to stand up for and contribute voluntarily.

Morals are costly. They are high on regulations and thus they guarantee a better stability in society. But of course, there are other challenges with it. We are repugnant to regulations. One life. Short life. Whether it's true or not, we want to live freely or at least under the illusion of freedom so that we feel like we've lived. The We is made of lot of I's. I want to do this. I won't follow this. I want to own that. So on.

Finally, Nash's equilibrium which is the cornerstone of theory of Games is most eloquently articulated in the movie A Beautiful Mind. In a sequence there John Nash (Russel Crowe) sums up his theory in a eureka moment - The best result comes when everyone in the group thinks about himself and the group.

Will we able to think about society and us together? Perhaps, some morals and regulations are not only necessary but vital for sustained survival of and this planet. Dharma is the word. It speaks a lot about society's perception of good and bad and the impact of the same on it. That is extended to our country and ultimately the World.

If you're confusing yourself, let me tell you this: Dharma speaks to you. It does not instruct a society on what to do and what not to. It speaks to you about what you want to do and what is the path of minimum harm for the same.

Thus,

धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः

Food for thought.

Let's respect the women in our society. That's where everything goes right. And if not done, wrong.

Keep commenting. Let's have safe and "good" society.