Dave,
Many of us live in a false world of wrong assumptions and dance to the tunes of fear.
When we rate a living being based on his/her/its intention, why not question the fundamentals?
When an instrument created goes wrong, a sensible human will immediately try to rectify the same. Read the INTENTION.
If a mortal has sense to reverse his wrong doing, why not God (who has control over everything)? Why there has been a long wait? It raises various 'senseless' assumptions.
One such is: 'Remember the fights in the film Gladiator (the best of the species get the privilege to watch gory).'
I repeat, the above is only a SENSELESS assumption.
My question was simple and straight:
"Whether there was a REAL need for the creator? Is he not divine enough to predict the gory future and stop it in the beginning itself?"
Why did not God force love? Why was Lucifer/wicked-thinking allowed or even created? Read the INTENTION.
“LOVE IS GOD” is more relevant than “God is Love”.
- donkeySOUP
Msg posted by Dave in catholicquestions:
God is a Family. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the Trinity: three Persons in one divine nature. The Father and Son share love for each other and give each other so much love that the love they give eternally is the distinct divine Person of the Holy Spirit. God created the heavens out of love and He created His creatures to love and to be loved. True love is not forced, it is a choice and so God gave His creatures free-will so that they could choose to love Him or not to love Him. Lucifer filled with pride wanted to be greater than God and chose not to love God but rather took him and his followers to spite God. God created the world and animals then decided to make a creature in His own image "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" that mankind could then share in the love of the Trinity -so with similarities of the Trinity - husband and wife share a love so deep that when they become one the love they share becomes a distinct person; however Lucifer tempted Adam and Eve so that they would fall into sin and they did...
however God choose not to start all over or to wipe out the human race but rather used the fall of Adam and Eve to eventually give Lucifer the biggest blow of giving Mary the grace of being immaculately conceived to undue the knots of Eve so that she would be a worthy dwelling place for God the Father's Son who would become flesh and defeat Satan by offering His own Body and Blood to mankind so that they could participate in the family of God which is now being
lived out through the Church.
God is love.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Scope for Achievement
Got to read an article going rounds over the internet (pasted below). Though the intention (author not known) is good, felt some of the points does not reflect the true essence of contemporary approach. Hence i thought of sharing my views.
Anyone who spends reasonable time in the known territory will master the topography and can one day become the master of that territory (provided he is above average). That is also an achievement. But the scope of achievement is not limited to this small territory. For some, achievement is limited to a small area (refer my blog on happiness). But for few others, it goes beyond boundaries till they reach the self-actualisation stage of different kind. These are ‘high’ risk takers who dare to go beyond the normal and reach the destination (of course the 'materialistic' carrot compliments their effort). It is also an achievement of different kind.
Both the above processes compliment evolution. The first produces a master who is skillful in a core area and the second produces a master who uses his different skills/knowledge to trigger intersectional applications for progressive use. It is the people of second kind who are welcome in the emerging sectors as they work across verticals and a multi-disciplinary man at top will add more value.
Yes, it is a fact that too much of cross-over is happening. But as long as a person spends atleast 2-3 years and value-add, it is well within the limits. I suppose ROI is the mantra and will remain so - short or long.
Also with respect to past performances, one MNC (rather a desi-version) was once considered as the CEO Producer for the Corporate India. Under centralized structure, organisations cannot accommodate too many brilliant performers at top. ‘In and Out’ movements will balance the power structure/struggle at top. And many of the top-notch CEOs of present era are those who have soiled their hands at different verticals. And there are many latent talent lying under-used because of their long stint with one organisation and over-crowding at top later. When they realize and start looking at market, they are considered misfit as the candidates with same experience will be drawing double the salary in the market. In the process, industry may have lost an excellent candidate.
Achievement can be derived – from single or multiple platforms. Factors like environment, perception, etc plays convenience role.
Thus carrot based ‘materialistic’ or ‘dynamic’ approach is a kind of blessing in disguise. It paves way for advancement in intersectional approach. It is a competitive world out there and this dynamic world rewards the competitive one more. It is up to the individual to choose the one which fits aptly. It is very difficult to reverse this new found ‘dynamism’ as mentioned in my blog on ‘culture degradation’. One has to get adjusted to it.
“Ships are safer in harbour, but they are not made for that purpose”
- donkeySOUP
The grass isn't always greener on the other side!! (author unknown)
Move from one job to another, but only for the right reasons. It's yet another day at office. As I logged on to the marketing and advertising sites for the latest updates, as usual, I found the headlines dominated by 'who's' moving from one company to another after a short stint', and I wondered, why are so many people leaving one job for another? Is it passé now to work with just one company for a sufficiently long period?
Whenever I ask this question to people who leave a company, the answers I get are: "Oh, I am getting a 200% hike in salary"; "Well I am jumping three levels in my designation"; "Well they are going to send me abroad in six months".
Then, I look around at all the people who are considered successful today and who have reached the top - be it a media agency, an advertising agency or a company. I find that most of these people are the ones who stuck to the company, ground their heels and worked their way to the top. And, as I look around for people who change their jobs constantly, I find they have stagnated at some level, in obscurity.
In this absolute ruthless, dynamic and competitive environment, there are still no - short cuts to success or to making money. The only thing that continues to pay, as earlier is loyalty and hard work. Yes, it pays!
Sometimes, immediately, sometimes after a lot of time. But, it does pay. Does this mean that one should stick to an organization and wait for the golden moment? Of course not. After, a long stint, there always comes a time for moving in most organisations, but it is important to move for the right reasons, rather than the superficial ones, like money, designation or oversees trip.
Remember, no company recruits for charity. More often than not, when you are offered an unseemly hike in salary or designation that is disproportionate to what the company offers it current employees, there is always an unseemly bait attached. The result? You will, in the long term have reached the same level or may be lower levels than what you would have in your current company.
A lot of people leave their organisations because they are 'unhappy'. What is this so called unhappiness? I have been working for donkey years and there has never been a day when I am not unhappy about something in my work environment - boss, rude colleagues, fussy clients etc.
Unhappiness in a work place, to a large extent, is transient. If you look hard enough, there is always something to be unhappy about. But, more importantly, do I come to work to be "happy" in the truest sense?
If I think hard, the answer is "No".
Happiness is something you find with family, friends, may be a close circle of colleagues who have become friends. What you come to work for is to earn, build a reputation, satisfy your ambitions, be appreciated for your work ethics, face challenges and get the job done.
So, the next time you are tempered to move on, as yourself why are you moving and what are you moving into?
Some questions are:
* Am I ready and capable of handling the new responsibility? If yes, what could be the possible reasons my current company has not offered me the same responsibility?
* Who are the people who currently handle this responsibility in the current and new company? Am I good as the best among them?
* As the new job offer has a different profile, why have I not given the current company the option to offer me this profile?
* Why is the new company offering the new job? Do they want me for my skills, or is that ulterior motive?
An honest answer to these will eventually decide where you go in your career - to the top of the pile in the long term (at the cost of short - term blips) or to become another average employee who gets lost with the time in wilderness?
Anyone who spends reasonable time in the known territory will master the topography and can one day become the master of that territory (provided he is above average). That is also an achievement. But the scope of achievement is not limited to this small territory. For some, achievement is limited to a small area (refer my blog on happiness). But for few others, it goes beyond boundaries till they reach the self-actualisation stage of different kind. These are ‘high’ risk takers who dare to go beyond the normal and reach the destination (of course the 'materialistic' carrot compliments their effort). It is also an achievement of different kind.
Both the above processes compliment evolution. The first produces a master who is skillful in a core area and the second produces a master who uses his different skills/knowledge to trigger intersectional applications for progressive use. It is the people of second kind who are welcome in the emerging sectors as they work across verticals and a multi-disciplinary man at top will add more value.
Yes, it is a fact that too much of cross-over is happening. But as long as a person spends atleast 2-3 years and value-add, it is well within the limits. I suppose ROI is the mantra and will remain so - short or long.
Also with respect to past performances, one MNC (rather a desi-version) was once considered as the CEO Producer for the Corporate India. Under centralized structure, organisations cannot accommodate too many brilliant performers at top. ‘In and Out’ movements will balance the power structure/struggle at top. And many of the top-notch CEOs of present era are those who have soiled their hands at different verticals. And there are many latent talent lying under-used because of their long stint with one organisation and over-crowding at top later. When they realize and start looking at market, they are considered misfit as the candidates with same experience will be drawing double the salary in the market. In the process, industry may have lost an excellent candidate.
Achievement can be derived – from single or multiple platforms. Factors like environment, perception, etc plays convenience role.
Thus carrot based ‘materialistic’ or ‘dynamic’ approach is a kind of blessing in disguise. It paves way for advancement in intersectional approach. It is a competitive world out there and this dynamic world rewards the competitive one more. It is up to the individual to choose the one which fits aptly. It is very difficult to reverse this new found ‘dynamism’ as mentioned in my blog on ‘culture degradation’. One has to get adjusted to it.
“Ships are safer in harbour, but they are not made for that purpose”
- donkeySOUP
The grass isn't always greener on the other side!! (author unknown)
Move from one job to another, but only for the right reasons. It's yet another day at office. As I logged on to the marketing and advertising sites for the latest updates, as usual, I found the headlines dominated by 'who's' moving from one company to another after a short stint', and I wondered, why are so many people leaving one job for another? Is it passé now to work with just one company for a sufficiently long period?
Whenever I ask this question to people who leave a company, the answers I get are: "Oh, I am getting a 200% hike in salary"; "Well I am jumping three levels in my designation"; "Well they are going to send me abroad in six months".
Then, I look around at all the people who are considered successful today and who have reached the top - be it a media agency, an advertising agency or a company. I find that most of these people are the ones who stuck to the company, ground their heels and worked their way to the top. And, as I look around for people who change their jobs constantly, I find they have stagnated at some level, in obscurity.
In this absolute ruthless, dynamic and competitive environment, there are still no - short cuts to success or to making money. The only thing that continues to pay, as earlier is loyalty and hard work. Yes, it pays!
Sometimes, immediately, sometimes after a lot of time. But, it does pay. Does this mean that one should stick to an organization and wait for the golden moment? Of course not. After, a long stint, there always comes a time for moving in most organisations, but it is important to move for the right reasons, rather than the superficial ones, like money, designation or oversees trip.
Remember, no company recruits for charity. More often than not, when you are offered an unseemly hike in salary or designation that is disproportionate to what the company offers it current employees, there is always an unseemly bait attached. The result? You will, in the long term have reached the same level or may be lower levels than what you would have in your current company.
A lot of people leave their organisations because they are 'unhappy'. What is this so called unhappiness? I have been working for donkey years and there has never been a day when I am not unhappy about something in my work environment - boss, rude colleagues, fussy clients etc.
Unhappiness in a work place, to a large extent, is transient. If you look hard enough, there is always something to be unhappy about. But, more importantly, do I come to work to be "happy" in the truest sense?
If I think hard, the answer is "No".
Happiness is something you find with family, friends, may be a close circle of colleagues who have become friends. What you come to work for is to earn, build a reputation, satisfy your ambitions, be appreciated for your work ethics, face challenges and get the job done.
So, the next time you are tempered to move on, as yourself why are you moving and what are you moving into?
Some questions are:
* Am I ready and capable of handling the new responsibility? If yes, what could be the possible reasons my current company has not offered me the same responsibility?
* Who are the people who currently handle this responsibility in the current and new company? Am I good as the best among them?
* As the new job offer has a different profile, why have I not given the current company the option to offer me this profile?
* Why is the new company offering the new job? Do they want me for my skills, or is that ulterior motive?
An honest answer to these will eventually decide where you go in your career - to the top of the pile in the long term (at the cost of short - term blips) or to become another average employee who gets lost with the time in wilderness?
Friday, November 25, 2005
Vegetarianism and Convenience Management
I think the core of the message in my previous post on vegetarianism is wrongly understood. I have rather highlighted the positives of each food in a particular setting.
The message was: Not to negatively brand those who eat non-vegetarian food.
It is an inter-connected world out there. During harvest humans cut the plants, kill them and feed(rather dispose) the cattle. As such cattle act as garbage dump and decomposition agent. For our selfish means we blame cattle. Convenience Management.
Animals rather do favour to the ecosystem through grazing. They graze on unwanted plants and in turn reduce the growth/spread of plant eating insects and its related troubles. We set-up big chemical plants and use chemicals to nourish and sustain the vegetation, so that we can feed on them. Convenience Management.
Scope of Pain: We need to be in other’s shoes to feel it. Convenience Management.
Herbivore, Carnivore, etc: We need to balance the ecosystem the natural way by co-existence.
Philosophy: Subjective. One of my earlier post is pasted below:
Definition of Marriage in a dictionary is a legal union between a man and a woman. Today a marriage can be between same sexes (No slight intended). Tomorrow it could be between different species??? If such a scene becomes a reality, how do we define DEFINITION. Convenience Management.
Can the people living in snow covered areas imagine about farming. I think natives of ice world (including Eskimos) cannot rely on vegetarian food. Imagine a water/ice covered world. Will you starve to death? Naturally we start looking for available food. Convenience Management.
Apropos, this world revolves around Convenience Management. What is bad to someone in a particular situation is good to some other in a different situation. Hence let us not negatively brand others for our convenience.
Every food has its advantage in a particular setting.
The message was: Not to negatively brand those who eat non-vegetarian food.
It is an inter-connected world out there. During harvest humans cut the plants, kill them and feed(rather dispose) the cattle. As such cattle act as garbage dump and decomposition agent. For our selfish means we blame cattle. Convenience Management.
Animals rather do favour to the ecosystem through grazing. They graze on unwanted plants and in turn reduce the growth/spread of plant eating insects and its related troubles. We set-up big chemical plants and use chemicals to nourish and sustain the vegetation, so that we can feed on them. Convenience Management.
Scope of Pain: We need to be in other’s shoes to feel it. Convenience Management.
Herbivore, Carnivore, etc: We need to balance the ecosystem the natural way by co-existence.
Philosophy: Subjective. One of my earlier post is pasted below:
Definition of Marriage in a dictionary is a legal union between a man and a woman. Today a marriage can be between same sexes (No slight intended). Tomorrow it could be between different species??? If such a scene becomes a reality, how do we define DEFINITION. Convenience Management.
Can the people living in snow covered areas imagine about farming. I think natives of ice world (including Eskimos) cannot rely on vegetarian food. Imagine a water/ice covered world. Will you starve to death? Naturally we start looking for available food. Convenience Management.
Apropos, this world revolves around Convenience Management. What is bad to someone in a particular situation is good to some other in a different situation. Hence let us not negatively brand others for our convenience.
Every food has its advantage in a particular setting.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Future of Marriage
Recent News:
# Father rapes daughter
# Millions of babies born to single mothers (outside marriage)
# 37-year-old woman charged with child molestation after marrying her son's 15-year-old friend
Evolution revisited…Stone-age recreated…Nature copied !!
Does news like the above give indication of changing preferences. One-off cases can be ignored. However these days quite often we come across such news.
Considering this trend, feel the institution of marriage would lose its meaning and will be history one day !!
# Father rapes daughter
# Millions of babies born to single mothers (outside marriage)
# 37-year-old woman charged with child molestation after marrying her son's 15-year-old friend
Evolution revisited…Stone-age recreated…Nature copied !!
Does news like the above give indication of changing preferences. One-off cases can be ignored. However these days quite often we come across such news.
Considering this trend, feel the institution of marriage would lose its meaning and will be history one day !!
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Culture Degradation !
Hi,
Can we give credit to the British (catalyst) for the following:
# A nation of skilled professionals (including IT) who are hired across the world for their 'English' language skills
# Among the largest surface transport network (rail/road) in the world
# Waning of Sati, Child Marriage...
# A unified nation called INDIA. (we may have moved towards Republic(s) of Pandiya, Chola, Chera, Mysore, Deccan, Maratha, Gwalior, Udaipur, Nalanda, Patiala - few more additions to the UN list of world countries)
Culture/Heritage Degradation: As long as humans have evolving brain, you cannot stop 'change' from happening. If not today, change is bound to happen tomorrow. If by restrictive activities we can enforce a 'perceived' good practice, then we would have stopped crime long back. I suppose world over Religion and Police are among the largest enforcing/recruiting agents. What is considered good today was bad yesterday. My blog on Definition gives some input on the same. If we feel 'change' can be stopped, slowed-down or reversed, then we need to first find ways to change the brain dynamics to 'static' state from the 'dynamic/evolving' state. Without which you cannot stop human from evolving from stone-age to modern-age and beyond. At each age, human will say "what was believed/practiced earlier could have been done better".
Did British teach Indians the caste system? Why we are not able to come out of it? Because religion/caste fit into our conveniences...
By highlighting the positives, am not trying to discount the negative acts of British. If their negatives are highlighted often, then we should not shy to highlight the positives. Adversity shows opportunities too. A unified and vibrant INDIA is born. Let us understand that, focus on positives and move forward.
I may be shouted down for the above comments, but we need to accept the fact.
Practice universal brotherhood and live happily...
- ATHEIST
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:18:29 +0530
From: "Krishna"
Subject: Should We not Learn From History
Lord McCauley in his speech of Feb 2,1835, British Parliament:
"I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber,that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem,their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation".
This shows time and again that Our Heritags is Invaluable and priceless.
Un quote: It is always better to be ourself than thinking and acting like someone (people who thinks whatever "West does is the Best")
Can we give credit to the British (catalyst) for the following:
# A nation of skilled professionals (including IT) who are hired across the world for their 'English' language skills
# Among the largest surface transport network (rail/road) in the world
# Waning of Sati, Child Marriage...
# A unified nation called INDIA. (we may have moved towards Republic(s) of Pandiya, Chola, Chera, Mysore, Deccan, Maratha, Gwalior, Udaipur, Nalanda, Patiala - few more additions to the UN list of world countries)
Culture/Heritage Degradation: As long as humans have evolving brain, you cannot stop 'change' from happening. If not today, change is bound to happen tomorrow. If by restrictive activities we can enforce a 'perceived' good practice, then we would have stopped crime long back. I suppose world over Religion and Police are among the largest enforcing/recruiting agents. What is considered good today was bad yesterday. My blog on Definition gives some input on the same. If we feel 'change' can be stopped, slowed-down or reversed, then we need to first find ways to change the brain dynamics to 'static' state from the 'dynamic/evolving' state. Without which you cannot stop human from evolving from stone-age to modern-age and beyond. At each age, human will say "what was believed/practiced earlier could have been done better".
Did British teach Indians the caste system? Why we are not able to come out of it? Because religion/caste fit into our conveniences...
By highlighting the positives, am not trying to discount the negative acts of British. If their negatives are highlighted often, then we should not shy to highlight the positives. Adversity shows opportunities too. A unified and vibrant INDIA is born. Let us understand that, focus on positives and move forward.
I may be shouted down for the above comments, but we need to accept the fact.
Practice universal brotherhood and live happily...
- ATHEIST
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:18:29 +0530
From: "Krishna"
Subject: Should We not Learn From History
Lord McCauley in his speech of Feb 2,1835, British Parliament:
"I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber,that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem,their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation".
This shows time and again that Our Heritags is Invaluable and priceless.
Un quote: It is always better to be ourself than thinking and acting like someone (people who thinks whatever "West does is the Best")
Are ET’s our Ancestors !
As we try to plant living cells in other planets and experiment their scope in the new environment, highly evolved ET’s from other galaxies might have planted living cells in earth millions of years back !!! Who knows those ET’s may have even mastered ‘controlled’ death.
As we monitor our space exploration, even ET’s may return to see the progress. If this would become reality, welcome them rather than confront them over the skies.
Convergence may solve more mysteries !
As we monitor our space exploration, even ET’s may return to see the progress. If this would become reality, welcome them rather than confront them over the skies.
Convergence may solve more mysteries !
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Convenience Management
Judgment:- Put in your papers? You can change your mind before notice period
Hv come across situations where the withdrawal offer is accepted under mutual consent. In few cases where the recruitment process is initiated for replacement or in advanced stage, withdrawal moves sometimes do not favour the employee.
The peculiarity of this case tickled my thought processes. Can the same principle be applied for the below given situation:
"An individual decides to go against the interest of general public - detonates a bomb to damage part of a bridge. Feels sorry later and undertakes to rebuild the damaged bridge. Though temporary disruption in traffic is felt; for being retributive - can he roam free enjoying the same old privileges as that of a non-destructive citizen?"
“Other side: If withdrawal offer (at any stage) of few see the light (with all benefits restored), why not of others too - who were also productive till the date of serving notice.”
Just remembered the ‘case-to-case-basis’ approach. May be it is good(!) and easy to practice Convenience Management ;-)
- donkeySOUP
Message: 18
Date: 24 Oct 2005 09:44:02 -0000
From: "Rakesh"
Subject: Supreme Court Judgment on Employment Law :- Put in your papers? You can change your mind before notice period
Put in your papers? You can change your mind before notice period (Source: Rediff)
The Supreme Court on Saturday held that an employee can withdraw his resignation during the notice period and is entitled to consequential benefits from the company if he is not allowed to work.....
Hv come across situations where the withdrawal offer is accepted under mutual consent. In few cases where the recruitment process is initiated for replacement or in advanced stage, withdrawal moves sometimes do not favour the employee.
The peculiarity of this case tickled my thought processes. Can the same principle be applied for the below given situation:
"An individual decides to go against the interest of general public - detonates a bomb to damage part of a bridge. Feels sorry later and undertakes to rebuild the damaged bridge. Though temporary disruption in traffic is felt; for being retributive - can he roam free enjoying the same old privileges as that of a non-destructive citizen?"
“Other side: If withdrawal offer (at any stage) of few see the light (with all benefits restored), why not of others too - who were also productive till the date of serving notice.”
Just remembered the ‘case-to-case-basis’ approach. May be it is good(!) and easy to practice Convenience Management ;-)
- donkeySOUP
Message: 18
Date: 24 Oct 2005 09:44:02 -0000
From: "Rakesh"
Subject: Supreme Court Judgment on Employment Law :- Put in your papers? You can change your mind before notice period
Put in your papers? You can change your mind before notice period (Source: Rediff)
The Supreme Court on Saturday held that an employee can withdraw his resignation during the notice period and is entitled to consequential benefits from the company if he is not allowed to work.....
Friday, October 14, 2005
Vegetarianism
General notion is that those who eat vegetables do not fall under the category of those who directly/indirectly support killing of living beings for food and sin is not committed. I have a different opinion on this:
If killing has a common meaning, then it applies across the board – whether it is killing a plant, a yolk or an animal. Here all are “Living Beings”. Since because plants discharge only colourless fluids instead of red colour blood, should not categorize them as a “non-living being”.
If killing the living being for food is viewed as sin/evil, then those who predominantly have vegetarian food are to be blamed for maximum killing. Theoretically, killing a goat or a yolk is like killing a ‘single living being’. Whereas having a ‘Dhal Fry’ would mean killing hundreds of living beings. Every seed has the potential to grow into a plant. Destroying one seed is equivalent to destroying one egg.
Am not discussing here about the health advantages of having vegetarian food over non-vegetarian food, rather the negative notion attached to non-vegetarian food. Every food has its advantage in a particular setting.
It is high time that we need to re-look into the concept of vegetarian food and non-vegetarian food. Rather food should be categorized based on its scientific composition (like Protein-rich, Fatty, Sugar-rich, etc). This will help general population to plan their food habits.
cont...
If killing has a common meaning, then it applies across the board – whether it is killing a plant, a yolk or an animal. Here all are “Living Beings”. Since because plants discharge only colourless fluids instead of red colour blood, should not categorize them as a “non-living being”.
If killing the living being for food is viewed as sin/evil, then those who predominantly have vegetarian food are to be blamed for maximum killing. Theoretically, killing a goat or a yolk is like killing a ‘single living being’. Whereas having a ‘Dhal Fry’ would mean killing hundreds of living beings. Every seed has the potential to grow into a plant. Destroying one seed is equivalent to destroying one egg.
Am not discussing here about the health advantages of having vegetarian food over non-vegetarian food, rather the negative notion attached to non-vegetarian food. Every food has its advantage in a particular setting.
It is high time that we need to re-look into the concept of vegetarian food and non-vegetarian food. Rather food should be categorized based on its scientific composition (like Protein-rich, Fatty, Sugar-rich, etc). This will help general population to plan their food habits.
cont...
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Definition – Evolution !!!
The way intersectional ideas evolve and being pursued for implementation, we can imagine a different world tomorrow. A human-being may travel from Chennai to Chicago without any artificial travel support. He may run faster than Cheetah to replace a motor-vehicle. Have endurance like a Camel to travel long without being exhausted. Fly like an intercontinental Siberian Crane to cross water bodies and mountains. If human is supposed to be a byproduct of a single cell, then in future he will even grow wings and fly. The fusion of genes will be more complex and advanced, that he will use his different abilities/skills in an intelligent way without getting exhausted.
Though the above looks like a crude fantasy, the emerging individualistic life style, frequent traffic-snarls and the depleting energy reserves may force future generations to look at such alternative avenues - whether to this extent of going far beyond natural is doubtful (?), but when the human being has started to deviate from the natural such changes are bound to happen. What is acknowledged as natural today (due to achieving the critical mass) was not considered a natural activity earlier. [Definition of 'Marriage' in a dictionary is a legal union between a man and a woman. Today a marriage can be between same sexes (No slight intended). Tomorrow it could be between different species???].
If such a scene becomes a reality, how do we DEFINE such “beings”?
Should I feel happy for having born earlier???
- donkeySOUP
Though the above looks like a crude fantasy, the emerging individualistic life style, frequent traffic-snarls and the depleting energy reserves may force future generations to look at such alternative avenues - whether to this extent of going far beyond natural is doubtful (?), but when the human being has started to deviate from the natural such changes are bound to happen. What is acknowledged as natural today (due to achieving the critical mass) was not considered a natural activity earlier. [Definition of 'Marriage' in a dictionary is a legal union between a man and a woman. Today a marriage can be between same sexes (No slight intended). Tomorrow it could be between different species???].
If such a scene becomes a reality, how do we DEFINE such “beings”?
Should I feel happy for having born earlier???
- donkeySOUP
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Horoscope or Hollowscope !!!
Another 'opportunity' up for grabs...
If data is also a criteria for authenticity, then the increasing percentage of 'failed horoscope-matched marriages’ will speak volume about its effectiveness and outcome...
Did i fail to appreciate the 'successful horoscope-matched marriages’ !!! Thought we are moving towards a more assertive society where individuals are more self-reliant...
- donkeySOUP
Companies Ask For Horoscope Besides CV (Source: The Economic Times/Naukri)
When a company scans through the crisp curriculum vitae and educational background of a job aspirant, it wants to be sure that the potential candidate has in him what the job demands and that he is not a round peg in a square hole.
To help the companies achieve this objective, an Ahmedabad-based astrologer has found out an unusual way of offering his services - by asking the companies to give the 'janam kundali' of the candidate to find out whether the stars are favourably disposed towards him in the specific field. This is because excellent academic qualifications may not necessarily indicate the inner bent, inclination and proclivities of the candidate which could make him a round peg in a square hole, according to astrologer Mr Maulik Bhatt who is providing his services to a number of companies.
If data is also a criteria for authenticity, then the increasing percentage of 'failed horoscope-matched marriages’ will speak volume about its effectiveness and outcome...
Did i fail to appreciate the 'successful horoscope-matched marriages’ !!! Thought we are moving towards a more assertive society where individuals are more self-reliant...
- donkeySOUP
Companies Ask For Horoscope Besides CV (Source: The Economic Times/Naukri)
When a company scans through the crisp curriculum vitae and educational background of a job aspirant, it wants to be sure that the potential candidate has in him what the job demands and that he is not a round peg in a square hole.
To help the companies achieve this objective, an Ahmedabad-based astrologer has found out an unusual way of offering his services - by asking the companies to give the 'janam kundali' of the candidate to find out whether the stars are favourably disposed towards him in the specific field. This is because excellent academic qualifications may not necessarily indicate the inner bent, inclination and proclivities of the candidate which could make him a round peg in a square hole, according to astrologer Mr Maulik Bhatt who is providing his services to a number of companies.
Happiness & Prosperity.....a full circle
Read the story given below and my thought processes gave me an alternative viewpoint. Though the story is good, I found value in the option elucidated by the MBA grad from Stanford.
Here I go…
Some of us have this notion of attaching happiness to being contented with small things in life - no big plans, no pressures and so happy always. Does the scope of happiness ends there? I beg to differ...
Consider the case of the same fisherman. Is he not under pressure when he sets out for fishing everyday - there could be no catch, an engine failure, a high tide, a tsunami, a cyclone, a cloud burst, a shark attack, et all. Yet he is happy and contented, because he has accepted them as part of the whole and so life goes on for him. Am sure a daily earner too will have his cup of woes, when his near and dear fall ill when he is exhausted... The same is the case of a businessman. He accepts the pressures as part of the game and goes on. Is he not experiencing happiness when he expands business and feeds more (both directly and indirectly)? Am sure that many of us are aware of big businessmen doing great philanthropic work, like Bill Gates contributing a huge sum for AIDS awareness. Some may question his approach to business - that of bullying the competitors. But the same applies to this fisherman too. He infringes on the right of the fish to live its life full till its natural death.
Yes the end result for both the daily earner and that of the businessman is same, but the path taken by both suits them perfectly. Daily earner is happy and contented with the small circle and the businessman with a large circle.
My views would stand only when this society has materialistic leanings. Feel we will remain materialistic, as practically it is highly impossible to go back to the ancient age when all were contented with the available natural resource.
Though given a chance many would prefer to live the life as that of this daily earner, some take the other route and act as a source or catalyst for direct or indirect happiness. Thus do not let the 'means' to define your happiness. If you keep it open, Happiness and Prosperity derives...
Shortest or Longest - either way you have day to day thrills. Savour it at every stage and be happy always...
- donkeySOUP
THE STORY: Happiness & Prosperity.....a full circle
A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village.
An American tourist named Jon complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them.
"Not very long," answered the Mexican.
"But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked Jon.
The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family.
"But what do you do with the rest of your time?"
"I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, love my wife. In the evenings I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. I have a full life."
The American interrupted, "I have an M.B.A. from Stanford and I can help you. You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat.
With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers.
Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New Jersey! From there you can direct your huge enterprise."
"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican.
"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years."
"And after that?"
"Afterwards? That's when it gets really interesting. When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!"
"Millions? Really? And after that?"
"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, love your wife, and spend your evenings drinking and playing the guitar with your friends!"
Here I go…
Some of us have this notion of attaching happiness to being contented with small things in life - no big plans, no pressures and so happy always. Does the scope of happiness ends there? I beg to differ...
Consider the case of the same fisherman. Is he not under pressure when he sets out for fishing everyday - there could be no catch, an engine failure, a high tide, a tsunami, a cyclone, a cloud burst, a shark attack, et all. Yet he is happy and contented, because he has accepted them as part of the whole and so life goes on for him. Am sure a daily earner too will have his cup of woes, when his near and dear fall ill when he is exhausted... The same is the case of a businessman. He accepts the pressures as part of the game and goes on. Is he not experiencing happiness when he expands business and feeds more (both directly and indirectly)? Am sure that many of us are aware of big businessmen doing great philanthropic work, like Bill Gates contributing a huge sum for AIDS awareness. Some may question his approach to business - that of bullying the competitors. But the same applies to this fisherman too. He infringes on the right of the fish to live its life full till its natural death.
Yes the end result for both the daily earner and that of the businessman is same, but the path taken by both suits them perfectly. Daily earner is happy and contented with the small circle and the businessman with a large circle.
My views would stand only when this society has materialistic leanings. Feel we will remain materialistic, as practically it is highly impossible to go back to the ancient age when all were contented with the available natural resource.
Though given a chance many would prefer to live the life as that of this daily earner, some take the other route and act as a source or catalyst for direct or indirect happiness. Thus do not let the 'means' to define your happiness. If you keep it open, Happiness and Prosperity derives...
Shortest or Longest - either way you have day to day thrills. Savour it at every stage and be happy always...
- donkeySOUP
THE STORY: Happiness & Prosperity.....a full circle
A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village.
An American tourist named Jon complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them.
"Not very long," answered the Mexican.
"But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked Jon.
The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family.
"But what do you do with the rest of your time?"
"I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, love my wife. In the evenings I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. I have a full life."
The American interrupted, "I have an M.B.A. from Stanford and I can help you. You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat.
With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers.
Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New Jersey! From there you can direct your huge enterprise."
"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican.
"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years."
"And after that?"
"Afterwards? That's when it gets really interesting. When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!"
"Millions? Really? And after that?"
"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, love your wife, and spend your evenings drinking and playing the guitar with your friends!"
previous post >>> who CREATED god?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
