I was browsing Jim Collins's site - a great site for management enthusiasts and generally for people who want to get some good insights into management - when I came across this story of the fox and the hedgehog.
You can find that story here
While reading the story, the following shloka of the gItA echoed in my mind almost in a flash.
Lord Krishna says in the gItA:
vyavasAyAtmikA buddhirekeha kurunandana |
bahushAkhAhyanantAshcha buddhayo.avyavasAyinAm ||
A rough translation - the buddhi of the industrious is one pointed. But the intellects of the unindustrious are many branched.
It may be also interpreted as - the intellect (buddhi roughly translated) that is single-pointed yields to industriousness. But if the intellect is numerously branched, it leads to one becoming an "avyavasAyi" or an unindustrious one.
Reading the shoka, I recognize myself to be an "avyavasAyi" as my intellect is spread across too many things to be able to do something meaningful in a single area.
Going back to Jim Collins's example/parable, it looks like I am a fox. I may be smart, but definitely ineffective when compared with hedgehog-like people.
The fox-hedgehog/one-pointed-many-directional intellect idea seems to be applicable on multiple levels.
We can see that single-mindedness yields success as a student, happiness in the family and a prosperous career.
Single-mindedness yields benefits even on the spiritual plane. A seeker sticking to one particular path that suits him most succeeds whereas a dabbler in different traditions will gain more intellectual knowledge, but will fall short of that ultimate goal of True Understanding.
Upon reflection, we see that what is said here is commonsense. If we lavish our attention on multiple goals, some of which may be mutually contradictory, we become too weak to concentrate on anything substantial and failure becomes inevitable. However, if we concentrate on a few essential things, the chance of succeeding becomes that much higher.
A simple truth, but really difficult to implement. It is so for me at least. I should try and minimize my areas of action so that I can be successful in a few. But numerous interests drag me hither and thither so that I just accomplish something minimal. This minimization becomes possible by mindful prioritizing. But we have to keep prioritizing things ceaselessly to succeed. It is pretty difficult to do that and needs a lot of mental energy. But in perseverance is the secret (and the difficulty). Doing it one week may be easy, but doing it on every day of one's life is pretty challenging. One has to be really strong-willed to succeed.
As Krishna, again so pithily, states :
abhyAsena tu kaunteya vairAgyena cha gR^ihyate |
By practice and dispassion, the mind can be controlled.
Again, simple to intellectually understand - but the implications of this statement are profound. And internalizing it is not exactly simple.
The gItA is indeed a valuable medicine chest - we go to it when we are unwell and upon following the Lord's prescription, we become well again.
Sometimes, though, we need the sugar coating of a story and some lively language to ingest a bitter pill (as in Jim Collins's article). But we see that the gItA within the mahAbhArata has already done it for us. This is not to belittle Jim Collins's wonderful insights, but only to recognize an alternate and older (read time-tested) encyclopedic source. I mentioned the mahAbhArata because, to understand the gItA, one must have a fairly good idea on the events that had transpired before the delivery of the teaching. I feel that aspiring and practising managers will benefit immensely by a serious study of the mahAbhArata (with or without the gItA in it).
Coincidentally, now is mArgashIrSha, the month in which gItA-jayantI (the anniversary of the descent of the gItA) falls - on the 11th day of the bright fortnight.
Reflecting on the teachings of the gItA will do well for us both in this life and beyond.
|| iti sham ||
Monday, December 05, 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Play called off on day one in the Chennai test and other thoughts
I knew something like this would happen. Isn't it quite well known that Chennai experiences this kind of weather at this time of the year? If it is already known so well, why would anybody in his right mind schedule a match there?
India and SA could not play the one dayer because of rain and now the first day's play of the test has been called off. Please, please - don't schedule a match in Chennai in the months of November and December.
This brings me to another point. Is weather such an important part of cricket. Cricket - as the cliche goes - is a game of glorious uncertainties. We've all known the Fremantle doctor wreak havoc on unfortunate batsmen in Perth. The dew in the day night games in India is all too well known. If, however, the match has to be an equal contest without being some kind of a lottery, the same conditions have to be given to both teams.
Just think about what happens normally. A team fielding first will have it easy when the wicket is still green and the ball is easy to catch. But the team that fields next will have it bad, especially in a day-night game - when it has to cope with the dew and the ball getting slippery and all. Sometimes, I think this is unfair. Winning the toss and deciding to bat or field is OK - some one has to do it first. But you just can't have the team that wins the toss win the game - assuming that they've read the wicket properly.
Isn't basketball better? No weather gods intervening. Of course there is psychological pressure - but that's it! The fight is between the teams and their abilities only.
Many puritans of the game love this uncertainty which comes in because of the weather, the wicket and idiosyncratic umpires, in addition to the pressure that is experienced by the players. But in these days of instant food and one dayers in colored clothing, do we need such things that bring us more uncertainty?
I, personally, am on the fence on this. As long as it is enjoyable, anything is fine. But sometimes, scheduling the matches at a place and time perfect for rain is unforgivable. Talk to South Africa who had a great chance in the 1992 world cup and lost it in the Semi finals because of the rain and two guys known as Duckworth and Lewis.
The Telstra dome in Australia seemed to be a good idea. Cricket administrators and insurance companies all over the world would salivate over that kind of a cricket venue. You don't have rain interfering and won't have dew. Teams fight it out with all other things being equal. It should be an ideal kind of place to play cricket. But, then, I there is something that is seen lacking in such synthetic environments.
An article written on cricinfo a while ago was on similar lines. Both the players and spectators won't get to see the sky. There wouldn't be any birds (especially the seagulls we see in Australia), and of course, there wouldn't be people sun bathing.
As I said earlier, anything in the game is fine as long as it is enjoyable ! But what is enjoyable? That is a tricky question and I don't have the time to answer it!
India and SA could not play the one dayer because of rain and now the first day's play of the test has been called off. Please, please - don't schedule a match in Chennai in the months of November and December.
This brings me to another point. Is weather such an important part of cricket. Cricket - as the cliche goes - is a game of glorious uncertainties. We've all known the Fremantle doctor wreak havoc on unfortunate batsmen in Perth. The dew in the day night games in India is all too well known. If, however, the match has to be an equal contest without being some kind of a lottery, the same conditions have to be given to both teams.
Just think about what happens normally. A team fielding first will have it easy when the wicket is still green and the ball is easy to catch. But the team that fields next will have it bad, especially in a day-night game - when it has to cope with the dew and the ball getting slippery and all. Sometimes, I think this is unfair. Winning the toss and deciding to bat or field is OK - some one has to do it first. But you just can't have the team that wins the toss win the game - assuming that they've read the wicket properly.
Isn't basketball better? No weather gods intervening. Of course there is psychological pressure - but that's it! The fight is between the teams and their abilities only.
Many puritans of the game love this uncertainty which comes in because of the weather, the wicket and idiosyncratic umpires, in addition to the pressure that is experienced by the players. But in these days of instant food and one dayers in colored clothing, do we need such things that bring us more uncertainty?
I, personally, am on the fence on this. As long as it is enjoyable, anything is fine. But sometimes, scheduling the matches at a place and time perfect for rain is unforgivable. Talk to South Africa who had a great chance in the 1992 world cup and lost it in the Semi finals because of the rain and two guys known as Duckworth and Lewis.
The Telstra dome in Australia seemed to be a good idea. Cricket administrators and insurance companies all over the world would salivate over that kind of a cricket venue. You don't have rain interfering and won't have dew. Teams fight it out with all other things being equal. It should be an ideal kind of place to play cricket. But, then, I there is something that is seen lacking in such synthetic environments.
An article written on cricinfo a while ago was on similar lines. Both the players and spectators won't get to see the sky. There wouldn't be any birds (especially the seagulls we see in Australia), and of course, there wouldn't be people sun bathing.
As I said earlier, anything in the game is fine as long as it is enjoyable ! But what is enjoyable? That is a tricky question and I don't have the time to answer it!
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Princeton - Weekly Bulletin 12/08/03 - Bhargava strikes balance among many interests
This is an old article - a couple of years old.This is one of those rare occasions where I have come across a really well-rounded personality. Manjul Bhargava is not just one of the youngest full professors of Mathematics around, (at all of 28 years old and that too at Princeton!) - but he seems to be a great teacher and a very good tabla player too. How many people around us have so many interests? And how many are really good in their multiple fields?
I came across his name in a mailing list to which I subscribe. What really caught my eye was that Manjul seems to know Samskrit - he apparently studied Samskrit at the Rajasthan Samskrit Vidyapeeth. He had studied Aryabhata when he was 22 (I guess he is 30 now).
I really felt proud on reading about a person who is so well balanced and adept at multiple fields. I felt even more pride on knowing that Manjul was of Indian descent and was quite proud of his culture and traditions. Contrast this with many other people of Indian origin in India and abroad who take every chance to put down the culture they were born in!
Look here for a good article on Manjul.
Look here for an audio interview with Manjul on NPR.
Look here for a more recent article.
May Manjul give a long lasting contribution to mankind and may he be allowed to work in an unhindered environment that will enable him to do so!
I came across his name in a mailing list to which I subscribe. What really caught my eye was that Manjul seems to know Samskrit - he apparently studied Samskrit at the Rajasthan Samskrit Vidyapeeth. He had studied Aryabhata when he was 22 (I guess he is 30 now).
I really felt proud on reading about a person who is so well balanced and adept at multiple fields. I felt even more pride on knowing that Manjul was of Indian descent and was quite proud of his culture and traditions. Contrast this with many other people of Indian origin in India and abroad who take every chance to put down the culture they were born in!
Look here for a good article on Manjul.
Look here for an audio interview with Manjul on NPR.
Look here for a more recent article.
May Manjul give a long lasting contribution to mankind and may he be allowed to work in an unhindered environment that will enable him to do so!
Thursday, November 24, 2005
For apparently no reason
I don't remember the last time I blogged. It must have been a couple of months ago. (I added this line after I saw my last blog - it was posted 2 weeks ago! 2 weeks without blogging seem like 2 months to me? I seem to have lost all sense of time!) All these days I somehow was not so inclined on blogging. Even now I am not. But I thought I could put up a quick post before I forgot why I had begun to blog at all.
A piece on secular-right.blogspot.com foresees the death of blogging. I wasn't surprised. I was in the same boat. Over the last several weeks, I did not feel like writing because I felt I had nothing meaningful to say. I read a few blogs after a few events had happened and they had echoed my thoughts. The Delhi Diwali blasts happened. India thrashed Sri Lanka. But everybody knew that and I had very similar thoughts as hundreds of others. So, I thought, if my thoughts had already been echoed, where was the need to put my own thoughts on the web and label them mine when hundreds of people had published the same thoughts? This thought led me to not writing and laziness set in.
I was never a fanatical blogger and I don't think I will ever be one. But I don't think blogging will die. As long as the fundamental need of man to be heard and understood exists, blogging too will.
In one of my earlier posts, I had thought of using my blog as a brain-dump when a certain event happened so that when I had the time, I could go back and look at what I thought at that instant. For me, that is still useful, though my laziness has to be overcome for that.
I don't know if it is because of the keyboard layout and ease of typing or something else, but I find blogging in Kannada more effort consuming than doing the same in English. Planet Sampada is a place where this blog feed is consumed. It is a site of blogs of several Kannadigas around the world. Someone had commented that Planet Kannada was a place where several Kannadigas wrote in English. Thinking about the reason for it, I found that it is just a matter of convenience that I blog in English. In Kannada, the written word is much different than the spoken word and speaking it is far easier than writing it or typing it. In English, just because we are so used to it, we don't even need to look at the keyboard when typing and whatever you say is almost whatever you write, so thoughts flow better. But in Kannada, typing "nAnu sumne bande. hIge ellgO hOgbEkittu" seems unnatural. Talking in Kannada on the other hand feels more natural to me.
I don't have much else to say now. Till something prods me to write again....
A piece on secular-right.blogspot.com foresees the death of blogging. I wasn't surprised. I was in the same boat. Over the last several weeks, I did not feel like writing because I felt I had nothing meaningful to say. I read a few blogs after a few events had happened and they had echoed my thoughts. The Delhi Diwali blasts happened. India thrashed Sri Lanka. But everybody knew that and I had very similar thoughts as hundreds of others. So, I thought, if my thoughts had already been echoed, where was the need to put my own thoughts on the web and label them mine when hundreds of people had published the same thoughts? This thought led me to not writing and laziness set in.
I was never a fanatical blogger and I don't think I will ever be one. But I don't think blogging will die. As long as the fundamental need of man to be heard and understood exists, blogging too will.
In one of my earlier posts, I had thought of using my blog as a brain-dump when a certain event happened so that when I had the time, I could go back and look at what I thought at that instant. For me, that is still useful, though my laziness has to be overcome for that.
I don't know if it is because of the keyboard layout and ease of typing or something else, but I find blogging in Kannada more effort consuming than doing the same in English. Planet Sampada is a place where this blog feed is consumed. It is a site of blogs of several Kannadigas around the world. Someone had commented that Planet Kannada was a place where several Kannadigas wrote in English. Thinking about the reason for it, I found that it is just a matter of convenience that I blog in English. In Kannada, the written word is much different than the spoken word and speaking it is far easier than writing it or typing it. In English, just because we are so used to it, we don't even need to look at the keyboard when typing and whatever you say is almost whatever you write, so thoughts flow better. But in Kannada, typing "nAnu sumne bande. hIge ellgO hOgbEkittu" seems unnatural. Talking in Kannada on the other hand feels more natural to me.
I don't have much else to say now. Till something prods me to write again....
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
History's Worst Software Bugs and the Software engineer's code of ethics
Look at this informative and well written article here
I've always liked Wired for such articles and got to this one via news.com. Though I used to feel that programming could not be considered "real" engineering (early in my career), that distinction is blurred in applications such as the ones listed in the above link. That necessitated the ACM and the IEEE Computer Society to come up with a software engineering code of ethics which you can read here.
Because errors in programming were not causing large scale mishaps, buggy code was (and still is) mostly tolerated as a nuisance. But this article makes you rethink that notion. The code of ethics is a welcome step in that area, though I don't see that being followed religiously. (Do doctors follow the Hippocratic oath?). Yet, this code of ethics, done in 1999, is a welcome step in that area that exhorts software engineers to give their profession due importance not from just a monetary point of view but also as a responsibility they have towards their organizations and to society at large.
Is there any company/organization that kind of mandates its employees to follow the software engineering code of ethics?
I've always liked Wired for such articles and got to this one via news.com. Though I used to feel that programming could not be considered "real" engineering (early in my career), that distinction is blurred in applications such as the ones listed in the above link. That necessitated the ACM and the IEEE Computer Society to come up with a software engineering code of ethics which you can read here.
Because errors in programming were not causing large scale mishaps, buggy code was (and still is) mostly tolerated as a nuisance. But this article makes you rethink that notion. The code of ethics is a welcome step in that area, though I don't see that being followed religiously. (Do doctors follow the Hippocratic oath?). Yet, this code of ethics, done in 1999, is a welcome step in that area that exhorts software engineers to give their profession due importance not from just a monetary point of view but also as a responsibility they have towards their organizations and to society at large.
Is there any company/organization that kind of mandates its employees to follow the software engineering code of ethics?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)