The power of serendipity...

How many times has it happened to you that you're in a particular frame of mind and then, out of the blue, something that is in tune pops out of somewhere!


It struck me when I received the book 'The Difficulty of Being Good: On the Subtle Art of Dharma' by Gurcharan Das, from the postal library which I subscribe to.  Now, as it happens, this was just one of the books in my online 'queue' at the library, and not even among the top two (I receive two books a month).  As it also happens, lately I've taken to reading commentaries/fiction based on old texts - the last two I read, both fiction, were 'The Palace of Illusions' (Draupadi's narration of Mahabharata, by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni) and 'The Vengeance of Ravana' (one in a series of 'retelling' of Ramayana, by Ashok Banker).


Takes me back to a cliched dialogue from a recent Hindi movie ('Om Shanti Om'?), something like "Jab tum kisi say pyar kartay ho toh saree kayenaat tumko us say milanay ki koshish karnay lagtee hai" - loosely translated as 'When you love someone, the entire universe conspires to bring you together'!  This was probably brought out more aptly in the English movie of the same name as the title of this post, 'Serendipity' starring John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale.  What we used to simply call 'coincidence' now has another, more chic sounding, name!


Some books like 'The Secret' and 'The Power' by Rhonda Byrne have also tried to make the same point - that if you think about something very strongly, you'll probably get it (eventually?).  But is it ever that easy, that you wish for something strongly and it comes to you?  Doesn't seem so.  What may seem more plausible is that when our mind is focused on a certain thing, we 'see' or catch on to other things in tune with the object of our current attention.  And this process of 'seeing' may happen mostly in our subconscious mind, so that while we may make the right connection, we may not be able to explain (or even understand ourselves) how exactly we did that!  This was the theme of the book 'Blink' by Malcolm Gladwell.


This, though, still doesn't explain how I got that book from my library!  Was it because my mind was focused 'on the subtle art of dharma', in whatever fashion?  A toss up...

Split personality?

Can someone have one type of personality (or behaviour style) at work and another, totally different one in personal life?

The question arose in my mind while doing as mundane a thing as watching an episode of a Hindi soap on TV called 'Baray Achchhay Lagtay Hain...' (loosely translated as 'we like it so much...' - actually from the opening stanza of a song from a Hindi movie of yore, 'Atithi' starring Sachin).  The soap supposedly deals with the life of a couple who get married 'late' (as per Indian standards) i.e. 40 for the man and 33 for the woman (though it seems to be taking excruciatingly long, in true TV soap style, getting to the point where they actually get married).

The main male character Ram (the name cleverly aluding to Lord Rama, thus building up a positive imagery from the beginning), supposedly a business tycoon, is introduced in a boardroom scene involving an acquisition, where his ruthless business sense is well displayed, though also tinged with pragmatism when, after having rejected the deal once, he goes back to the negotiating table and seals it only for the reason that he needs the plane that the company's owner has, to get back to base for his sister's wedding!  In another scene, he's shown working his executives even on a Sunday (though he relents when they start receiving calls from their families, one after the other!).

Regardless of such scenes interspersed, hinting at Ram's 'soft side', his 'alpha male' personality is further reinforced when he gets vengeful on the family of the main female character Priya for delaying him from reaching his late father's memorial service (when their cars scrape past each other).  The trait is again displayed when he deals aggressively with Priya's family when his sister slashes herself due to the unresponsiveness of Priya's brother with whom she's supposedly in love.

However, the guy is shown as 'super soft and sensitive' in scenes involving his family.  It seems he allows his step-mom to walk all over him, even while he realizes perhaps that she's sort of exploiting him (for instance, by deliberately blocking marriage proposals for him) while not according him the same status as her own son (who must be present for his sister's wedding, even as Ram makes all the arrangements!).  She even puts him down firmly when he hints that his late father's (and her late husband's) memorial ceremony is perhaps more important than attending an auction.  But Ram continues to go all mush and weak-in-the-knees on anything involving his family (including the little sis who seems total bonkers).

So, to return to the original question, can a person have such 'split personality'?  Some would say: ideally, yes.  There is a saying "Don't bring your office home".  But in today's world, is this really achievable, or more of a utopia?  Can a hard-driving executive really just 'switch off' when s/he leaves office and assume another, perhaps 'softer'/more benevolent avatar before s/he reaches home?  That could also mean, especially in these BlackBerry times when one is supposed to be 'online' 24x7, that the person would've to 'switch-on/switch-off' rapidly in a matter of minutes between his/her 'office personality' and 'home personality'!  Is that doable?  The answer seems more like a tentative "Maybe", even for putative supermen/women!

Which brings us round to the other side of the equation: does one's 'home personality' (see above) affect one's 'office personality'?  Again, ideally it is not meant to.  One is supposed to assume a more 'professional' attitude/behavior (whatever that means, in the specific context) once s/he enters office, leaving behind personal issues.  However, this also seems more ideal than realistic.  Just as (to be PC!) 'behind every successful (wo)man there is an ideal spouse'(i), can we perhaps say that 'behind every grumpy boss there is a quarrelsome spouse', or even that 'behind every confidence-deficient executive there is a domineering spouse'?! (:-).

Begs the question.

Action or contemplation - which is better?

It's not unknown for many of us, engaged in the daily hustle-bustle of life's responsibilities, to get hassled beyond a point, every once in a while.  At such moments is it alright, for a conscientious believer in the value of relentless work and discharge of responsibilities (we're not counting the conscientious shirkers here!), to drop whatever they're doing and rush to the comforting arms of whatever be their inner sanctuary (whether reading or meditation or whatever)?  That's a question which has probably plagued a lot of people since long.

The guidance provided by the usual sources seems equivocal at such times (but is not: read on...).  For instance, Bhagvad Gita, the great Indian holy book, seems to place equal importance, among others, on Karma Yoga (the value of work, of the nishkama karma or 'work without demanding returns' variety) and Bhakti Yoga (devotion).

Say, you're engaged in some mundane work (maybe signing a few cheques, or cooking dinner), but something which is bound to be of some benefit to someone (maybe settlement of dues to a former employee? or providing nourishment to the family), when suddenly you feel like you're at the end of your tether.  You long to stop the 'productive' work and have a few minutes (hours?) of quiet contemplation, probably with some reading of/listening to your favourite peace-inducing material.  But here's the dilemma: at what point does it become justifiable (quite apart from the disciplinary and 'paying your dues' aspect, if the mood hits you while at office!) to 'take a break', and for how long?

In this respect, probably a better source of guidance could be the life experiences of our past masters.  Swami Vivekananda, of the World Congress of Religions fame (and the foremost disciple of Ramakrishna Paramhansa, the 19th century sage of Bengal), is believed to have said something to the effect that 'if you can't do anything, steal, for work is above everything' (now, now, don't try this at home...!).  Many seekers have found the value of work through their personal experiences with both a 'no-work' and 'happily engaged in work' situations.

On balance, it seems that the value of work in our life is paramount.  After all, you could say that we were probably put on this earth to be of some use!  The least we could do is to 'pay our dues' to mother Earth and rightfully 'earn our living' (beyond the usual material sense).  Even in this, the best kind of work could be the one carried out without any longing for the fruits thereof (I know, I know, easy to preach...) - now we are back to the core teaching of Bhagvad Gita!.  This kind of work/service seems to have the potential to free us of the cycle of desire, fulfillment (including ego fulfillment) and more desire (as someone rightly said, our needs are limited but our wants are unlimited).  But of course this is an inner journey which each one of us has to travel in our own way...

The title of a movie made on the life of Ramakrishna Paramhansa was 'Joto Mot Toto Path', loosely translated as 'That many paths, as many views/faiths'.  So as long as our chosen path leads us to the ultimate objective of selflessness...

The culture of 'Jugaarh'

A recent article in New York Times described how entrepreneurs in the city of Gurgaon, near the Indian capital city of Delhi, had risen to the challenges faced due to the utter lack of basic infrastructural facilities.

While presenting a balanced and realistic picture, one interesting aspect in the article was that it seemed to eulogize and romanticize, in tune with the growing tendency across India and the World, something called jugaarh, the ability of people in India to rise above their circumstances using any means available. This is lately becoming a subject of case studies across campuses, here and abroad! 

What this romanticization may be doing (among other effects) is: (

a) Absolve/let off the Government of its primary duty to provide and maintain essential services like roads, water, power, minimum nutrition and law & order; and (more damagingly perhaps) (b) encourage an unhealthy lack of respect for law, the manifestations of which we can see in everyday life in the form of traffic mess (nobody seems to minds the traffic policemen, many of them prone to bribes), infractions of laws & regulations (see the massive 2G telecom spectrum scam still unraveling), people taking the law in their own hands (look at the 'khaap panchayats' - village-level kangaroo courts), and myriad other things. 


Publicly, we all like to criticize these things.  But at pesonal level, we indulge in the same unhealthy practices whenever faced with the slightest bit of discomfort - paying bribes when required, throwing our garbage outside in the open, taking a 'wrong side short cut' (against oncoming traffic!) when faced with traffic jams. 


As a first step, for India to reach the 'tipping point' of graduating into a 'wholesome' democracy, it first has to put in order its delivery of the minimum basic infrastructure and services to all citizens.  Without this, the differences between the haves and have-nots (both in terms of facilities & wealth, and the means to break the law with impunity!) may only get accentuated, reflecting in the rising tide of more of the types of 'class clashes' and individual crimes we're witnessing today.

Geeta, 'bhakti' & psalms

A dear friend shared some psalms she listened to at a Sunday sermon (Scientology church?).  As she rightly remarked, it's amazing how all religions lead to the same theology and God.  Read on...

There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter.  All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all.  Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error.  Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is unreal and temporary.  Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness.  Therefore man is not material, he is spiritual.
- Shades of the essence of Bhagvad Gita, and of the ancient Indian concept that this world is but a dream (Maya) of God.

Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.  Fear thou not, for I am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy God; yea, I will help thee.


And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the World.
- Striking resonance with the chapter in Geeta where Arjun asks about the fate of those who, having started on the spiritual journey, 'fall' from their belief and are not able to carry on; and Krishna replies that even they are not 'doomed', since anyone who has an iota of spiritual yearning will 'get there', sooner or later.  This view of the cyclical interplay of good and evil resonates throughout Indian epics, like Ramayana and Mahabharata.


I have glorified thee on earth: I have finished the work thou gavest me to do.
- The ultimate purpose of our life.  There may be quite a few different approaches to this purpose of the soul than traditionally thought.  While on the road towards this objective, improving one's 'soul characteristics' (for want of a better term) may be one of the 'purposes', possibly by exposure (serendipiteously or intentionally) to hardships - physical, mental and emotional.

It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not.  They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.


Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will remember the name of the Lord our God.  They are brought down and fallen; but we are risen, and stand upright.
- Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.  Also resonates with the 'bhakti' (devotion) tradition, which holds that everything moves as per His desires, and man is only an instrument of His will.

The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.  And be not conformed to his world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is good, and acceptable, and pefect, will of God.
- Obviously the 'temple' referred to here is the human mind-body, as frequently talked of in spiritual literature all across including Jesus's life episodes.


He shall cover thee with His feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust; His truth shall be thy shield and buckler.  For He shall give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
- The idea of guardian angels is quite common among various readings.

Just goes to show the essential spiritual unity among different faiths.

End of words...

Was going to drop my child for the school bus this morning, when something struck me.  Small children have so much to share!  And they are so open to the idea of sharing.  It could be the smallest of things (from us 'adults' point of view).  How he 'touched' another child with the foot at the Taekwondo class, or another one 'touched' him, to get more points.  Or how he whacked the ball with the cricket/baseball bat at the neighbourhood game yesterday.  Or the latest jokes he heard.  But children are full of beans while sharing such things.

Then why is it that as children get older, they tend to clam up about many aspects of their life.  At the least, they don't seem as enthusiastic while sharing.  Part of it could be due to the emotional (and physical changes) children go through, especially when they enter the teens.  The need to 'keep secrets', perhaps.  But for the other, large part, is it due to a level of 'disconnect' with parents or older relatives.  Seems so, given that many parents/older relatives may tend to try to impose their own worldviews on the children, without first appreciating (or, at least, trying to appreciate) the children's own views.  Though it seems the age gap may be more of a myth than reality. Many children are seen to be closer to their grandparents than parents, for instance.

Is the main factor then the perennial listening ability and skills.  After all, as we ourselves grow older, there is no denying the fact that we tend to become more 'opinionated'.  Coupled with this is the typical mid-life crisis among parents of teenagers, which propel them to try and get traction for their own views over others, at any cost!  So is it this 'controlling' attitude which may be putting off children from openly sharing, while they perhaps feel safer sharing their thoughts with grandparents or other relatives/acquaintances, without the baggage of having to 'conform'?  If so, this puts renewed emphasis on the need to inculcate that most important of skills, ability to just listen, which is so necessary in so many professional pursuits as well.  And not just in the traditional spheres like practicing psychology, but in as diverse arenas as business analysis and internal audit (how the times have changed!).

Which brings us to the theme that while (learning to!) interact with our children in a wholesome way, we may be becoming better persons (and professionals) ourselves.  If only many of us would give adequate importance to our interactions with our children, instead of dismissing it as just an intrusion into our 24x7 professional lives.  Even without filtering such interactions through the scientific prism all the time (which would be a pity and rob the interactions of the essential ingredient of spontaneity), the concepts of transactional analysis can point us towards the associated skills of negotiation, open listening, etc.  Look at it this way: children are perhaps (though maybe not always!) more transparent than people in business settings; so if you can't mould your interactions with children towards win-win solutions, you've hardly any chance of doing the same when confronted with hard-boiled business executives!

But shorn of all business-like jargon, the point is that we should keep enjoying our 'small talk' with children the  best we can.  Who knows when they 'grow up' (suddenly, as it sometimes seems) and stop talking to us except in monosyllables...

Influential Competence - the 'new' skill to have...

Using Influence to Get Things Done

Japan earthquake and the tsunami across Pacific coasts

Watching coverage of the tsunami following the 8.9 Richter quake in Japan, one small thing that struck me is how secure (perhaps delusionally so) are at least some people in developed countries like Japan.  If a quake hits here in India, we'll drop whatever we're doing and just run!  But the BBC/CNN footage shows people in offices in Japan swaying but holding on to things, not really trying to run (perhaps that's by training, Japan being the most quake-prone country in the World).  A woman in a footage is actually talking on a (fixed) phone and trying to type on her computer keyboard, while crouching near her office desk!  Commendable courage under extreme stress, or misplaced trust in man's power to withstand nature - your pick?

A tale of two cities (or many)...

Was reading a review today of a book, 'Invisible City: The Hidden Monuments of Delhi' by Rakshanda Jalil, which brings out how urbanisation is slowly pushing the hitory of the city into the background.  Got me thinking.  Say someone (say, someone from out of India) lands up at Delhi Airport, and commutes to either one of the business hubs (Connaught Place, Nehru Place, South Extension, et al) or, if here for a longer stay, goes to check into one of the tony hotels.  All s/he gets to see during the commute is a 'modern' Delhi (especially in the post-Commonwealth Games era), with all traces of the 'old' face of Delhi neatly tucked away behind facades.  Except, maybe, for some 'World Heritage' monuments like Humayun Tomb which are duly showcased.  But how many casual or business travellers (not counting tourists who may come here specifically to see the real face of the city) pass through the areas where such monuments are situated?  Perhaps not many.

But monuments are just one aspect of history and heritage; the other may be the living communities.  If one is moving across much of South Delhi, all one gets to see is tony residential areas or concrete edifices.  Nothing wrong in that, but is it essential to obliterate all traces of the 'old' feel of Delhi in order to join the 'league of world cities'.  Ironically, if one were to go to any of the big European cities of note, one could see that the history there is meshed into the modernity, and not swepts under the carpet apologetically.  Be it London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Rome or Venice, the history seems to co-exist peacefully with the modernity, the cobbled streets branching off from the metalled roads, the lively 'squares' providing an alternative to the glitzy malls, and the 'gates' standing tall amidst the traffic of whizzing cars (even in a more 'recently habitated' city like Frankfurt, you may find the old town hall area being the hub of Christmas fair).  Closer home in Asia, while historical sites like Angkor Thom (in Cambodia) and Ayuthya (in Thailand) are of course preserved separately, even modern Bangkok also flows side-by-side with peaceful Buddhist temples and monasteries.

Coming back to India, some cities like Hyderabad seem to have been able to preserve a large part of their heritage by meshing it in with the growing metropolis (though the modern 'Cyberabad' is more of a concrete jungle).  Even, surprisingly, in Mumbai, the business capital of India, one can see the 'two eras' co-exist to a large extent.  Moving from the airport, say, to Nariman Point, the business hub (admittedly a long commute), the scene alternates between modernity and the traditional.  One moment you could be zipping across the gleaming Sea Link bridge, the other moment passing through a cozy 'mohalla' (residential locality) of low slung houses with peaceful Parsi gentlemen (and women!) taking a stroll.  Even in the Apollo Bunder area (leading on to the famour Gateway of India), so close to Nariman Point, the 'galis' (side streets) could be full of Old Delhi style shops. 

Of course, I'm sure many Mumbai residents would say that taking such a romanticised view may be easier for a casual visitor, and only those living there day-to-day would be aware of the actual difficulties, and probably they'd prefer more modernisation like in Delhi!!  But at some level, it may all come down to appreciating what we have (including a passing era) and being thankful for it, and sometimes an 'outsider' may be better placed to point out such things to an 'insider' whose senses may've got enured to such things due to daily exposure.

And talking of Old Delhi, I still fondly remember how, when we were staying in the Delhi Cantonmment area, when someone came asking after our father, instead of saying that he had gone to Karol Bagh or Chandni Chowk, we would go "Dilli gaye hain" (he's gone to Delhi), indicating that the 'real' Delhi was centred around some older localities and the area outside was 'not really Delhi'!  What a contrast with the present day, when the extension of Delhi Metro (the underground mass transit) to Gurgaon seems to provide an avenue, after a long time, to people to actually go and visit 'Old Delhi' after ages!  Because that 'feel' of Delhi is not visible any more in the places we live in day-to-day.  And to think that Delhi may be an older, more historical city than many of the above cities in Europe or Asia!

This is not a lament against modernisation of cities.  Of course we need to keep on modernising the cities, to provide living spaces and better civic facilities for the exisitng residents as also the people flocking in all the time in search of better economic opportunities.  But alongwith that, it'd probably be good to take care that the 'new' city does not obliterate all traces of the old one.  Maintaining a few defined sites as national or international monuments may be one way, and being done commendably by the relevant bodies.  But meshing in the new with the old may be a slightly better way for us to live our modern life while being aware of our heritage.

Think about it.

Life - a prism?

Sometimes it seems that the core of our being is quite like a glassy prism (for those not inclined to math/geometry or physics: a three-sided solid block, sometimes made of clear glass-like substances): it receives light on one surface and (depending on some factors, read on) projects a somewhat changed light through another surface, a process known in physics as refraction.  The important thing is, the light going into the prism and that coming out is almost never the same - it may be at a different angle, or a different colour, sometimes a rainbow of colours.  To maintain this prism of life so it serves the purpose, we seem to have two duties:

One, to keep polishing the surfaces.  If the surface facing the source of the light is not clear, it wouldn't be able to let the light through to its innards, and thus perhaps be unable to give out any light.  The cleaner the receiving surface is, the more light it can perhaps receive (and give out!).  On the other hand, if the surfaces transmitting the light out are not clean, they wouldn't be able to give out the light either, regardless of how much light they receive and of what quality.  Some may be tempted to embellish the transmitting surfaces, to represent to the possible recipients of the light a different face than the actual.  However, remember that too much embellishment can actually affect the transparency of the surface and block the light going through.  Ideally, when the surfaces are smoothly polished, they almost act like mirrors, giving out the light inside but at the same time reflecting back the true image of the one who looks at it.

The second duty, it seems, is to control what goes inside the prism.  Yes, the surfaces of the prism are permeable, able to absorb outside material and vibrations (a process known in physics as osmosis), especially through the surface which is in touch with the base.  Some things going inside can improve the ability of the prism to act as a true transmitter of the refracted light.  However, other things can adversely affect this ability or, in extreme cases, react violently with the material of the prism, causing it to decay and eventually disintegrate.

And once the prism disintegrates, whether due to efflux of time or due to reactions as above, what is left is just a useless mess of particles.