A happy place of Indigence


A mouth full of labels, a mind full of  curiosity,

riding through a fictitious place of indigence.

I wonder how they live, with those ever barking dogs,

those semi-burnt bamboos and unwanted visitors.

A life full of sweat, hunger and arsenic;

they’ll never know when it’s time, maybe its better!

They look at me in a gaze, a look that befuddles me.

Its my time to cogitate, whether to stop or to proceed,

there is a setting sun at the end, a rising one within.

Children aren’t distracted, they never are,

for they’re destined to be happy, in rain or in wipeout.

The road ends to a road, a simpler one in fact,

where there are no rocks to climb on, nor trip off.

The two-kind illusion

2014-02-25-two-sides-of-the-coinThis short essay is an attempt to highlight one of the simplest ideas which a common man fails to appreciate yet sees throughout his life.

As the title suggests, ‘The two-kind illusion’ seems very similar to a Morton’s fork. (A Morton’s fork is a specious piece of reasoning in which contradictory arguments lead to the same unpleasant conclusion). But, as you will realise after reading this essay completely, it is the other side of the same coin. It is different in some sense about which I will try to explain later.

Consider two persons A and B. Person A’s character will be described through a short story. ‘A’ goes to a store to buy clothes. His intention is to buy a t-shirt which costs lower than Rs.600. This pre-decided price limit is a strict one and he wouldn’t pay a penny more whatsoever. As he enters the store, he looks around for a person who would help him out with the purchase. ‘A’ asks the person to introduce him to the variety of clothes available in the store. He then limits his choice to maybe two or three t-shirts. Now comes the crucial moment. ‘A’ asks the prices of those t-shirts. The store-keeper decides to start the bargain with Rs.800 per piece. ‘A’ keeps his cool and kindly tells the shopkeeper that he wouldn’t pay more than Rs.550 for a t-shirt. The bargaining officially starts and after a minute or so, the shopkeeper gives his final price of Rs.650 per t-shirt. ‘A’ says bluntly that he wouldn’t pay more than Rs.600. And since the shopkeeper doesn’t agree for anything less, ‘A’ decides to leave the shop knowing that the shopkeeper would stop him and offer a lower price. It happens.

Now, let’s see what happens in case of person ‘B’. There are two major differences in B’s approach to that of his counterpart. ‘B’ doesn’t have a fixed price in mind which would limit his purchase. Instead he has a range in his mind. He would decide the cloth’s worth on the spot and is ready to a pay an extra Rs.50 if it’s really good. The same procedure repeats as was in A’s case. After a considerable bargaining period, ‘B’ says bluntly to the shopkeeper that the t-shirt isn’t worth more than Rs.600 and he wouldn’t pay more. The shopkeeper refuses as usual expecting a similar response as was with ‘A’. But here’s the major difference between A and B. If ‘B’ once decides that the t-shirt isn’t worth more than Rs.600 and the shopkeeper still refuses to accept it, he leaves the shop without turning back. As he sees ‘B’ leaving, the shopkeeper tries  the same card but fails this time. ‘B’ considers his judgement to be accurate and returning to the shop would mean he values Rs.50 more than self-belief.( the right word would be ‘swabhimana’ – sanskrit )

One thing we have to realise from the later incident is that the shopkeeper cannot use the same card and win every time. The other and the most important thing is that  ‘A’ and ‘B’ play a somewhat mutual role in gaining what they want. Suppose every person was like A, then it would mean that the shopkeeper could always sell his product without any hindrances. And it would also mean that every person would get the product at a price he desired for. This is, as it sounds, very untrue. Suppose every person was like B, then it would mean that the shopkeeper could never use that card. He would have to agree a lower price and would be devoid of the profit he used to make. This too, as it seems, is never going to happen. Thus, it can be clearly seen that the existence of A and existence of B together is helping each of them.

The society on the other hand, tends to be biased in the opinion it has on these two types of people. ‘A’ is considered to be a smart-ass because he was able to get the product at a price he wanted. ‘B’ on the other hand, is considered to be unwise because he did not purchase the product in that first shop although he was offered a price he wanted. What we, in general, fail to appreciate is that ‘A’ can only be a smart-ass  if there is a ‘B’ out there!

PS: Both these incidents are real-life incidents which I have witnessed.

Truth behind the tag-line!


The tag-line of this blog is surprisingly deeper than I thought. It was not meant to be ‘thought provoking’ as such. Sometimes, it so happens that the creation of a creator will be more striking than the creator can understand. Nonetheless, in this post I will delve deeper into my understanding of that statement and let you know how I perceived it.

‘Destined to be true, not necessarily’. My intention at first was to give a catchy phrase which would make my blog ‘sound’ good along with the ‘looks’. Later, when I started reading a book which comprised of conversations between J.Krishnamurthi( An Indian Philosopher) and Max Born( Physicist), the topic they were discussing sounded fascinating to me. They were talking about ‘Truth and Reality’. They were trying to answer questions like ‘What is truth?’ ,’How far is it from reality?’ ,’Is truth an action?’ & ‘How do you define intelligence in this context?’. I stopped reading it after finishing six pages. It was not because of the book’s lameness but because I had read far more than I could digest. I started thinking about ‘truth’.

The first question I had was ‘Is truth absolute?’. On a superficial note, it is very common to think the other way round. Since we perceive things differently it is always possible that the same established fact manifests itself in a different form to each individual. So, that established fact shows all of its facets to different individuals. If this is true, then how do we differentiate truth from any ordinary fact? This line of argument clearly ends up here saying that truth must be absolute and all individuals must perceive the same ‘truth’. Now, let us try to find out a loophole in this argument if there is any! Why do people perceive different things if truth is absolute? Is it because they don’t know how to come to a conclusion that this is the truth? Maybe! A much better way to put it would be to say that knowledge in different people is not the same. Each person has a set of experiences and ‘known’ facts which influence him to perceive things in one single way. So, given that many people possess varying information, their perception must change according to that! Then, what about ‘truth’? How come it never gets into this perception loop and looks the same to all people?

‘Truth’ actually can be something which needs no/less prior knowledge and can stand on it’s own. If this is true, it fits our theory that truth is absolute. If it needs no prior knowledge, all people are meant to perceive it the same way. But, people cannot easily see the ‘truth’ in action. Isn’t it contradictory?-truth needs no prior knowledge but still all people cannot perceive it. What is wrong in our approach? I don’t sense what is wrong, yet I am stuck in this approach. (Anyone who has an answer, comment below!)

Coming back to the tag-line, the ‘not necessarily’ part is actually saying that you may not perceive my reality as your truth. And indirectly saying that my reality might not actually be truth itself. An artist does a piece of art keeping his perspective in mind, but the observer sees it differently and sometimes better! I made up that sentence long time ago, so I am a creator and I saw it to be different recently, so I am the observer too!

A good decision!

It is really scary to look back at the days when you had to take important decisions. That moment you realize the value of the other choices you had is the scariest part. Nevertheless, you try to convince yourself that the decision you made was the right one.

Recently when I had a nice conversation with one of my good friends about decision making, she stressed repeatedly that making a good decision requires a lot of thinking and time. I tried to argue otherwise but couldn’t come up with a strong argument. Maybe it was because I was half asleep and couldn’t think much at that time or maybe because I did not want to create a big scene. If making a decision requires a lot of thinking, then why does that ‘good decision’ change each time according to the mood and other external factors? How do we actually define a ‘good decision’ ? In my view, it is ‘the’ one which keeps you satisfied until that realization of much better options takes place. So, there is no one good decision! This is because our desires are meant to be changed with external factors like the mood. The oscillating mind cannot fix itself on one particular thing because it is exposed to many other things at different times. There is nothing wrong in that!

By saying this, I am not in any way implying that there shouldn’t be any thinking accompanying the decision making process. Rather I would say that the decision you make for the first time would leave you happier and less worried than changing your choice. You may feel that you are changing your choice for the good, for happiness indeed! But, you should also keep in mind that choices(impulse to choose something) change infinitely many times and stopping anywhere in the middle is less than being most happy.

Food for thought: Try out the binary system while making decisions and see how happy you are! Of course no one can stop you from what you want to do. Finally it is left to you!

Going nowhere!

I have sat beside my desk wondering about a lot of things lately. The fact that I cannot change the way I write is becoming more and more bleak as days pass by. It is with a very good motive to write this post!

Events are happening. As I observe through this ever changing frame of reference and the ever changing event, I come to a conclusion that if we try to adjust our frame of reference each time corresponding to what we see, we are indeed controlled by what we see. It’s hard to imagine right?  We think the ‘event’ one sees and the person one is when he sees are totally discreet. Unfortunately, it is very hard to come to a conclusion of that sort.

One can easily fall into a trap which makes him think that he gets an answer to something and that matches to what he expected it to be, so thus, it is the right answer to that. It doesn’t work that way though!. If you get a thought about something and you see that happening later, it is unmistakably true that you are lying about your thought. You can expect a surprise but not imagine one. You cannot cheat nature in that sense.

The difference between a ‘good drama’ and a ‘drama’ is that the latter expects no thinking from the audience while the former uses the audience to understand something.  The reason I brought it up here is because,this fact has a correlation with our lives. A person observes a lot of things throughout his life. Sometimes, he wants to share his observations with other people to make sure that he is going in the right path. There are two possibilities now. One, he can change his path to the other person’s path so as to make sure( in his point of view) that he is going in the right direction. Two, he can make sure that he is not taking the other person’s path which is what nature expects from us. Likewise in drama, a good drama expects it’s audience to view the same play differently to measure the play’s count of dimensions. And a ‘drama’ guesses before hand that ‘this’ is what the audience expect and delivers the parcel as required. Which do you think is better?

If we strip apart our thinking styles, we understand something very deep, something out of the ordinary in everything we see. One good example is the concept of ‘death’ or ‘mrtyu’ in western minds and the eastern ones. It is fascinating to see how two sets of people see the same concept so differently. There is always a gloomy class which believes that there are certain things which are not meant to be discussed or talked about. This is the class of people which also inherently get affected from the negative vibe which is formed around them and which is created by themselves when something like ‘death’ is being spoken about. A person who wishes to think should and can only think when he is free from all the effects one can face when he is thinking about the same. To be clear, if a person thinks about something and inherently if there is a feedback system running as he thinks, it would hamper the choices he takes while thinking as one may be biased to something without knowing. So, how does one get to such a stage where he is sure that he will not be affected by any feedbacks? We can see this and realise this only if we see how he goes about thinking. But, if we interfere with his thinking process, we are indirectly being a feedback ourselves. What do we do then?  Digital-art-colorful-abstract-wallpaper-hd-widescreen-wallpapers2