Business to the Buddha

Tag: lost in translation

  • Syādvāda – The Doctrine of Postulation







    I had written about this earlier, however thought to revisit the same again. What is the meaning of system when it is not solving the required purpose? Let us take the same example again from my previous post Lost in translation. What is the meaning of grammar (System) if the language (Following the system) is not able to communicate the message using the grammer?

    To make my point further clear, let me take recent developments in India. In case of Anna Hazare, the Government was shouting about the SYSTEM in place, “THE SUPREME PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS” and therefore was not relenting to the rightful issue of sentiments of the common man of India. What is the use of such process which is not listening to the voices of people, and we call it DEMOCRACY! At the same time, Supreme court of India has kept death sentences (ruled in favor of High Court) for Killer of Mr Rajiv Gandhi and Afzal Guru (involved in parliament attack of 2003), let me repeat – Supreme Court of India. Yet for many years they are in jails of India. Now, the system of respecting the Supreme Court is not followed. What kind of SYSTEMS we are talking about?

    A man/woman – actually killer in some sense – is in jail not receiving the fruits of his/her crime, why because we can do away with some systems selectively to suit our benefits. At the same time a man (Anna) – who is fighting for a cause – is given rule-book and all sorts of stories of systems, stating what he is doing is not in favor of democracy. What nonsense! Are not these systems making us handicap rather than helping us? Is the system making us feel – in India, you can get away with murders too?

    Reiterating this from my earlier blog – …I am not arguing against systems. I am just trying to say that one has to answer the question – why at first place we designed systems?

    1. to facilitate operations of society (in case of religion, culture and laws)
    2. to facilitate operations of work (in case of businesses).

    Inputs from Prof Mankad on need of system –
    3. to facilitate understanding of the present and formulating vision for the future (in case of education)
    4. to facilitate orderly day to day living for people, ensure fairness in dealings, security and openness (in case of governance, transparency and judiciousness). At times, systems are inadequate too.

    And therefore my stand is no spiritual teacher advocated “create a religion in my name” …and do business on the same. They just showed the path, I recall Mahavir (one of the messengers of Jainism) used ‘Syādvāda’. What I understand about ‘Syādvāda’* is – this is true and that is also true. Everything is based on relativity. Systems are correct if they solve the basic purpose, if they do not – better to change them. Everything of 12th century (or Before Christ) may not be relevant today better abolish some of them, right? So, relevance is important and thus the doctrine of postulation… systems are correct but in context, be it democracy of India. Mahavir said that 500 years BC (Before Christ), we are still not listening/learning, are we?

    More on Syādvāda in future blogs.

    *Note – it is purely my understanding and please do your research for references

  • Lost in translation







    I read some status messages on gtalk and other places – ‘lost in translation’.

    It is good that people get caught only in translation; there are chances when someone can be lost in words. Take an example – when I write business to Buddha, meaning is not limited to ‘business to Buddha’. Here Buddha relates to humanity, to the messages of the masters (prophets) and how message of the masters are applicable to businesses e.g. Islamic banking. In a more subtle sense what these prophets taught and which is applicable, in general, in businesses too.

    The problem with us today is not translation only; the problem is getting hold of words incorrectly and staying with them. When the words could mean much more than the only dictionary meaning they convey, that’s where we find problems in understanding poetries. I have heard that someone was reading out a poem written by a Noble laureate to an aristocrat. Suddenly, the aristocrat stopped the reader and said either the line you read just now is incorrect or there is some mismatch. The reader re-read the line with some change of words (resulting in grammatically incorrect sentence) and hearing to the incorrect line the aristocrat said it sounds good with the poem. Later, the reader informed the aristocrat, sir “I suggested the correction in that line! Poet was not willing to accept the correction but when I told him the GRAMATICAL mistake he accepted my argument”. Here the big question to ask is – whether the message is important or the words, meaning and beauty or the grammar is more important? [Here again it seems a fight between system and utility of system relating to my earlier blog on line of understanding]

    During his life time, the Buddha never accepted his bhikkus to translate his messages to any other language. Why? May be for the reason that ‘soul of the message would be lost’. After his enlightenment he did not utter a word for few days. Why? Because ‘words create a boundary to any expression or feeling’. I have seen mails floating on why for many feelings we not only stop speaking but also close our eyes for? Because words fail to explain some deeper feelings of life. However, in business that cannot be accepted, you have to speak and you have to express. Therefore, marketing heavily resort on visual advertisements. I was reading an article of Harvard Business Review. The strategy initiatives fail not because of improper strategy formulation. The initiatives fail because there could be one of the reasons: miscommunication and therefore problem in implementation. So, how are you going to tackle this challenge of translation?

    I understand it this way – make life simple. Keep your messages simple. Say what you do, do what you believe in and believe in what you are. In my opinion, organizations too have an identity and this identity is formed by behavior of management and the employee. Understanding and sticking to this identity would make life simpler for organization, employee and internal and external interactions amongst all stakeholders. This would help reduce the bewilderment of translating strategy in to actions. This does not require anyone to be being “grammatically correct” always.