Yatho Bhavoh, Tatho Rasah!

"Yatho Hastas, Tatho Drishti; 
 Yatho Drishti, Tatho Manah; 
 Yatho Manah, Tatho Bhavah;
 Yatho Bhavoh, Tatho Rasah" 

A beautiful quote from Natyashaastra. 

Where the hands go, the eyes follow; 
Where the eyes see, the mind follows;
Where the mind wanders, the feeling follows; 
Where the feeling is, the emotions arise. 

Kamal Hasan, in his character in the movie Saagara Sangamam (Confluence with the ocean, language: Telugu), dubbed into Tamil as Salangai Oli (Sound of the bells) and Malayalam as Saagara Sangamam, says these lines to an acclaimed but arrogant dancer. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagara_Sangamam

You can see it in youtube at the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV-smzc09Cw  from 5.15 to 5.30. Do see it! 

The Whole Earth Catalog

The Whole Earth Catalog was published by Stewart Brand from 1968 to 1972, with the purpose of creating a catalog of everything. His intent, in his own words' was to provide education and access to tools, so a reader could find his own inspiration, shape his own environment, and share his adventure with whoever is interested'. Steve Jobs called it the 'google' of his time. Kevin Kelly called it a blogosphere of user-generated content. The phrase 'Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish' was the farewell message placed on the back cover of the last issue in 1974. 

The website gives pdf versions of most of their publications. 

Live life

Walk in the rain,

jump in mud puddles,

collect rocks,

rainbows and roses,

smell flowers,

blow bubbles,

stop along the way,

build sandcastles,

say hello to everyone,

go barefoot,

go on adventures,

act silly,

fly kites,

have a merry heart,

talk with animals,

sing in the shower,

read childrens' books,

take bubble baths,

get new sneakers,

hold hands and hug and kiss,

dance,

laugh and cry for the health of it,

wonder and wander around,

feel happy and precious and innocent,

feel scared,

feel sad,

feel mad,

give up worry and guilt and shame,

say yes,

say no,

say the magic words,

ask lots of questions,

ride bicycles,

draw and paint,

see things differently,

fall down and get up again,

look at the sky,

watch the sun rise and sun set,

watch clouds and name their shapes,

watch the moon and stars come out,

trust the universe,

stay up late,

climb trees,

daydream,

do nothing and do it very well,

learn new stuff,

be excited about everything,

be a clown,

enjoy having a body,

listen to music,

find out how things work,

make up new rules,

tell stories,

save the world,

make friends with the other kids on the block,

and do anything else that brings more

happiness,

celebration,

health,

love,

joy,

creativity,

pleasure,

abundance,

grace,

self-esteem,

courage,

balance,

spontaneity,

passion,

beauty,

peace,

relaxation,

communication and

life energy to...

all living beings on this planet.

- Bruce Williamson

TIME Person of the Year

TIME's introduction to Person of the Year says 'For capturing and highlighting a global sense of restless promise, for upending governments and conventional wisdom, for combining the oldest of techniques with the newest of technologies to shine a light on human dignity and, finally, for steering the planet on a more democratic though sometimes more dangerous path for the 21st century, the Protestor is TIME's 2011 Person of the Year.' 


And adds 'History often emerges only in retrospect. Events become significant only when looked back on.' About the protests, it says 'The protests marked the rise of a new generation. Technology mattered, but it was not a technological revolution. Social networks did not cause these movements, but they kept them alive and connected. This was not a wired revolution; it was a human one, of hearts and minds, the oldest technology of all.' 


Not all of TIME's choices in the past have been deserving, and many were outright wrong, and several of them biased toward America (a fact acknowledged by TIME in the past). TIME's definition of who should be Person of the Year is one who has made the maximum impact during the year. Julian Assange impacted more than Mark Zuckerberg last year. American Presidents who have won, at times twice, like George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, have been stupid choices, couldn't they find anyone else?; Osama bin Laden should've been, when Rudy Guiliani was. And why was Kate Middleton in the list this year? 


This year has been fair. Many had expected Steve Jobs to make the list, but he did not make any impact this year. TIME has chosen a common noun, as it has done in the past, like The Computer, The Middle Class, Young People, GI Joe etc. (YOU was a terrible choice). The Protestor has made the news this year, without doubt. And shall continue to have impact going forward. 

Poems, Prayers, Promises

And talk of poems and prayers and promises
And things that we believe in
How sweet it is to love someone
How right it is to care

How long it’s been since yesterday
And what about tomorrow
And what about our dreams
And all the memories we share

In search of a middle ground

In personal relationships, there are different perspectives involved. While there certainly are some actions that are clearly wrong, most are wrong only from a certain perspective. Each person's basic nature, upbringing, idea of life, frame of mind, are responsible for his or her unique view. 

Since most actions have to be be given the label of being misunderstood from a certain perspective, it becomes difficult to label a certain wrong action as wrong. So while, as an independent, impartial and rational judge of a situation, its possible for a judge to label an action as 'wrong', he can't do it, as he'd appear judgemental; one of the two parties involved will find his judgement unacceptable. 

While the judge may not fear telling the truth, his image of being impartial is unnecessarily tarnished, at least from one point of view. And it doesn't help reconcile differences and find common ground. So he shall have to appear impartial, while being partial.  

The only way such an issue is resolved is for the person on a higher moral pedestal to come down. That is, if we want the relationship intact. And relationships require to remain intact under various circumstances - marital relations, organisational compulsions.  

So in search of a middle ground, the one on a high pedestal has to compromise, an impartial judge has to behave partially, while the one in wrong benefits. 

The meek shall inherit the world!   

Charity or Save the world; be politically correct!

After a short day at office yesterday I was leaving home soon since I had to go to the bank to foreclose my car loan. I was at Vikhroli station in a hurry, when I was stopped by a young girl, about 20, who represented Greenpeace. And she asked me politely whether I could listen to her for a few minutes. I agreed.

She briefly described what Greenpeace was and what they were working on. I told her I knew quite a lot about Greenpeace, but didn't tell her that one of the projects my company was working on was delayed because of activism by Greenpeace.

I asked her how I could help, the response to which she delayed, continuing her script to conclusion. I was getting impatient, wondering what was it that she wanted from me. I thought of asking 'Do you expect me to save the world here?' but I blurted out 'How can I help?'. She had to come to the point. Contributions begin at Rs 250 a month, conveniently chargeable to my credit card.

She almost concluded that I would save the world, sorry, contribute. I said I can't decide contribution standing here at the station at an odd hour. I asked for their website and details and said I'd update her whether I contribute or otherwise.

I wondered what was it that drove this young girl of 20, possibly, to stand in the afternoon sun and promote a cause which may or may not benefit her. And thats not enough, lest I sound like a irresponsible citizen of the world. I'm sure this girl doesn't understand the complete story, nor does she know whether she is on the right side of the world.

I concluded that she was doing it to earn brownie points. Maybe she was going away to America for further studies. Maybe she needed the experience on her application.

Is this is a good cause to be associated with for that? With all the controversy surrounding such activist organisations, it may not be a safe bet. I mean, someone opposed to this idea, with a reasonable understanding of the scenario (which this girl lacks) will be able to win an argument.

I had never had the need to be associated with any such cause for brownie points, so I can't comment on the appropriateness. But this led me to think whether one should choose a safer alternative, such as an old age home, women's issues, children in orphanages or the like, where you could only be right. After all, most in the world choose to play safe.

That would be so politically correct!