Business to the Buddha

Blog

  • Theory of constraints






    Prof Moradian taught us concept of the Theory of Constraint. He also suggested us to read a book by Eliyahu Goldratt – The Goal. In the novel, protagonist is struggling with the operational inefficiencies of his plant and therefore facing a constant fear of management decision to close the plant.

    Well, what is this theory of constraints (ToC)? In brief ToC states that “A chain is no stronger than its weakest link”. I was thinking that this concept is applicable to our society too. We are evolving, we are constantly developing some thing or the other, society is a sort of factory. And the concept of the ToC applies equally to our life. Look at it this way if rich becomes richer the poorer would become weaker link of the society. Have you heard that during recession crime rate increases? This is ToC for our society. Lately, lot of demonstrations are happening across world by the title Occupy Wall Street. This is where I think that ToC can be applied in the society.

    I thought about interdependent co-arising and the Theory of Constraints in conjunction. My understanding of interdependent co-arising is that – we are all dependent on each other and for growth of each individual other has to necessarily grows. In other words, if society wants to evolve, everyone in the society has to evolve. The weakest link of the society may hamper the growth of society in total. Here I see a solution to the constraint, perhaps a socialistic one. We as a society have to help each other to grow (strengthen the weakest link), otherwise we would see increasing “Occupy Wall Street” kind of movements or increasing crime rates in future.

    I shared these thoughts with Prof Moradian and he said the idea is good why don’t you think about throughput and operating expenses and develop this concept of ToC in society further? This made me dig deeper. It is said that ‘a stitch in time saves nine’. If we rewind to 2008, after months of searching for alternatives Mr Barnanke, Mr Paulson and others had to bail-out banks of USA. Why not we start doing something now and for future. I see the operating expenses of this approach as deferred expense of brand building (building society) exercise for future. The throughput of the exercise would be availability of competitive, capable and intelligent work force for companies. These capable people would be the spenders of tomorrow – moving the wheel of consumerism forward – effectively, the solution may not be as socialistic as I think.

    Related blog – Ideate – save the sinking ship

  • Forbidden Word







    I was thinking about few things and somehow it boiled down to one of my previous blog – Life is… Simple. I was thinking – when ‘I’ (Ego) would not remain many of our problems would end. Because physical problems happen to the body; bigger problems occurs because those problems germinate from our mind, right? Life is simple, we complicate it. When “I” think, “I” create a world with “my thoughts” and that world would always be imperfect. There would always be disconnect between the world created in mind and the world mind sees. Either the mind should create similar world, accept the world as it is or mind should cease to exist.

    I remembered The Book Of Mirdad when I thought about “I”. This book is very well written. The first chapter of the “Book of Mirdad” speaks about the Forbidden Word – ‘I’.

    The settings of the book are as follows – i. location Noahs ark and ii. out of many things – using the word “I” is forbidden according to the rules set by Noah centuries ago. The book of Mirdad starts with two chapters on “I”. Quoting from the book –

    …Your eyes are veiled with far too many veils. Each thing you look upon is but a veil.
    Your lips are sealed with far too many seals. Each word you utter forth is but a seal…

    In my understanding – we see what we want to see (a rope looks like a snake) and we hear what we want to hear. All because the interpretation is done by none other than our Mind. Further, Mirdad says –

    …The eye can veil, but cannot pierce the veils.
    The lip can seal, but cannot break the seals…

    The book is profound because in the very next chapter, Mirdad makes a completely opposite statement which is completely opposite to the decree of Noah (about using the forbidden word – “I”). On one page he says – avoid using the word “I” in your speech because this is not true on the very next page it says “I” is a “creative word” (it is source and center of all things). The rider here is – “…say forthwith in your heart ’ God be my refuge from the woes of I and be my guide unto the bliss of I’…”

    Effectively, when we say “I” it is largely the Ego talking, whereas when Mirdad says “I” (the creative word) it is the source of and from the creator of the world… Stop using “I”, harping and harnessing “the ego” and when you do that – “life is – Simple”.

  • Why I like Jab we Met







    I recently re-watched the movie – Jab We Met. I enjoy watching this movie and specially the characters. One a bubbly, lovely and risk (risk without any calculation) taking girl who lives in present. And the boy who learns a lot from her.

    This girl is (I am not talking about Kareena Kapoor, I am talking about the character played by her) is like a child, who does not know, does not want to think and does not care for tomorrow. She “lives in the present” as the Art of Living teaches. She believes in love and lives life for the love. Love is very close to a path of spirituality in Indian philosophy – Bhakti (Devotion). When she says – “…pyar me kuch sahi galat nahi hota” (there is nothing right or wrong in love), it reminds me of the divine love people have talked about in Bhakti marg (the path of devotion). As the song of this movie says – “Ye ishq haye baithe bhithai jannat dikhaye…” (when in love a person is in heaven without any desire, longing or work). I believe heaven is here and now. The way we live we define “what is heaven?”

    On the other hand, we have a boy whose girlfriend is marrying someone else. I define love in different ways – the love of Bhakti gives freedom to the loved one, whereas the love we show, talk and depict (in movies and largely assume in our life) is largely a jail or for that matter only lust. The reason for calling it jail is – when a person becomes possessive for the loved one, the person may not like few things about the other (for example talking to someone – specially the opposite sex). Or at times asking the loved one not to do A or B or C, this condition is not freedom, perhaps it is not love at all – it is a jail, am I right?.

    The best part is learning of the boy. He learns and starts loving his work too. This is the other premise in which I strongly believe. One should do what he/she enjoys doing, then work does not stay a burden. Lastly, the song which I like the most is – ‘…Na hai ye pana, no khona hi hai…’ (it is neither owning nor losing). This song largely states that love is not possession, love is being in a state of mind where you are free, happy and do things which you feel are right (of course not harming anyone).

  • …there is a new beginning!







    I was reading – Living with the Himalayan Masters by Swami Rama and came across an interesting analogy which I am sharing here.

    “…A candle light is extinguished by the breeze very easily, but if that light is protected and allowed to catch the forest, it will grow into a forest fire. Then the breeze helps that fire instead of extinguishing it. Similarly, when an aspirant, with the help of discipline, protects the flame of desire burning within, it grows more and more. Then all the adversities instead of becoming obstructions, in fact, start becoming means. The obstacles which are supposed to obstruct the path of self realization are not really obstacles. Our weaknesses and the values we impose on the objects of the world create these obstacles for us. Attachment is one of the strongest obstacles created by us…”

    End result changes when context changes. A breeze may extinguish or support fire. I read few lines long time ago –

    …पेड़ थे मजबुत वो जड़ से उखड कर गिर गये (stronger trees have been uprooted)
    और पौधो ने किया है आंधियो का सामना … (however, saplings/plants have faced storms)

    Here definition of strength becomes a weakness. Strength of a tree is being tall and ability to withstand forceful blow. However, this strength becomes a weakness in case of a storms. Here we need to think – the context defines many things, at times changes the approach to the decision making also. I remember my Professor of MBA – Prof Lopez – we used to have animated discussions on various things because context used to differ. He always suggested that there are no ready made solutions – one size does not necessarily fit all…

    With reference to the economic problem I may say that there are many issues. Initially, it was love for the ‘Free Market Economy’ (with respect to the above para – ‘attachment’) by the policy makers of USA, and later the other extreme (protectionism) is one of the issues. We may say that – ‘…any time world economy may crumble’. However, when I change the context I think the time has come to move on to a more inclusive world – Vasudhev Kutumbakam (in one way “not protectionist”). I am of the opinion that we need to think of each one of us as a unit. The solution is there, provided we move from ‘I’, ‘Me’ and ‘You’ to ‘Us’. The changed context will show us new possibilities – I think there is a new beginning. … Destruction sometimes has value!

  • How long will we live in the world of $! from ‘Network’







    The following are few dialogs (curtsey – www.imdb.com)… It is interesting so sharing on my blog. ‘How long will we live in the world of $!’

    The concept of movie is based on how a news channel management and one of its anchor share relations and What happens in an apparent conflict. This movie was released in 1976 (after the oil crisis – perhaps ’70s- , before the economic crisis in US – early ’80s). So effectively, we have been like that and we will remain the same, provided we learn a lesson this time around. The time is here and now, to learn – we would have an economic crisis again in 3 years and I wonder how long it will take to get back to normalcy. This movie was made 30+ years back, world saw 1910’s (World war), 1920’s (Great depression), 1930’s-1940’s (world war and after effect) and then 1970’s (oil crisis) and 1980’s (economic slow down). When did we have a peaceful time? There has to be some sense in the world – we need to learn, we have to learn – how long will we live in the world of $? Life also exist beyond the turmoil of $.

    The dialogs are below –
    Arthur Jensen (owner of the channel): [bellowing] You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale (the anchor), and I won’t have it! Is that clear? … The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immense, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. (I wonder why we do not understand interdependent co-arising only in terms of dollar) It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU… WILL… ATONE!

    Arthur Jensen: [calmly] Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those *are* the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, (in my opinion – world is more than *JUST* business or in other words everything is a business) Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that… perfect world… in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.

    Howard Beale: [ascending the stage] So, you listen to me. Listen to me: Television is not the truth! Television is a God-damned amusement park! Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth… Go to God! Go to your gurus! Go to yourselves! Because that’s the only place you’re ever going to find any real truth.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sySuIXG_IM]

  • Life is… Simple







    Life is simple, you breath in, you breath out. This is as simple as it can be. Right? Well, then comes a problem. You have your heart, your mind and your society. All of them start giving you some or the other perception, choices and opinions to affect you. The best part is you start listening to all of them. You listen to them and you are in a vicious circle of endless ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ and ‘yeses’ and ‘nos’. And thus, life becomes complex and at some time miserable. You forget in all this juggling – life is simple, you breath in and breath out. One day, you breath out and… everything stops (for you).

    In all this complexity, have you ever observed – you have forgotten a very simple fact. You are alive until you breath and you relegate this important activity and start taking it for granted. I think this is how people start meditating, right? Well, meditation is for elderly and learned people, I am not that. So, why to think so big?

    When I am thinking all this, I realized that I gave some thoughts to my mind and this mind has started creating opinions. I remembered reading something similar in a book of Richard Bach (I think in the book Illusions) – Existence “is”, that is enough. Why create story around that? So ‘life is…’ why even think if it is ‘simple’ LIFE IS… live it 🙂

  • Hotel California







    I heard this song recently, now writing about it! The most important line which attracted me to watch/read and listen to this song was –
    “…You can checkout any time you like,
    But you can never leave!” (perhaps only your body once you are dead)

    When I read the lyrics I noticed even further interesting parts –
    1. ‘…we are all just prisoners here, of our own device…’
    2. ‘…this could be heaven or this could be hell…’ (my earlier blog)
    3. …stab with steely knives but they cannot kill the beast… (felt like singer is trying to say – it is difficult to kill the beast within and with all the paraphernalia available the beast is becoming unmanageable e.g. prisoners of devices etc)

    Taking an example of Mobile phones, as devices and prisoners. Is not it true, if you think about 1995 (India) who felt that Mobile phones are very important. Now, mobiles are indispensable. I still strongly think that we can live without mobiles too, however how difficult it is to be without mobile?

    I also read that this song was a rage, I think that duration was a Hippy movement, and youngsters of that generation were more indulgent, rebellions and disillusioned by the reality of that time. I am trying to relate to the Hotel California, the prisoners, beast, heaven/hell and the checkout system… and the realities we are leaving in.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piW9MHpfCu4]

  • 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

  • Dichotomy on happiness…







    “There are some things money cannot buy…” I am not talking about Master Card! Generally speaking, I was thinking that there are many things money cannot buy. In fact, the Buddha left his whole empire! He too knew there are “somethings money cannot buy”. This is where I had two minds, and thought to share these thoughts and request for feedbacks.

    The first and foremost thing money cannot buy is LOVE, you are a better judge for this. Other important thing is happiness, in a spiritual context ‘bliss’.

    Sometime back I decided to leave a very lucrative offer the reason was I knew at my heart of my heart, I would not want to do this work and would not enjoy the work. The other option was – nothing! So, it was a tough decision to leave something (something immensely rewarding) for nothing. Recently, I met one of my friends (he knew my previous decision) his first and repeated question to me was – ‘Are you happy?’ And all the time my answer was – ‘YES, are not you happy with what you are doing?’ His response was with many riders – “yes for ‘X’ I am happy, but because of ‘Y’ I have some issues, you know this and you know that and this is what and whatever whatever etc”.

    I thought we take so many decisions “for” or “because of” some or the other things e.g. money. We tend to give drivers seat to our ‘mind’ for making criteria and decision too, while a rear seat to our ‘heart’. Relationship, emotions, all these relate to heart and we largely overlook these while making decision. However, being human we are driven largely by emotions and therefore there has to be a balance between rationality and emotion in decision making too.

    Then came the second perspective – if one wants to be happy no one can stop him/her from being happy. Happiness is a very personal matter. Two persons in similar circumstances could have different feelings (one ecstatic and other wretched). Peace of mind cannot be bought in the market, it has to be felt. If it has to be felt, why cannot one be peaceful while doing whatever he/she is doing? … So the dichotomy is – do we make decision based on few factors and that is the reason for us to be happy or we are happy because we want to be happy and irrespective of the decision we make or irrespective of what happens in our life.

    The question to ask is – happiness requires fulfillment of the CONDITIONS we create for being happy or it is a feeling irrespective of what happens in our life/to us? These conditions, to me, are never ending… as it happens to the squirrel in Ice Age-Trilogy and to Chaipau in Salaam Bombay“. Dichotomy of happiness is you decide on what you enjoy doing or you remain happy irrespective of the situation you are in….

    Related blogs – Cause…, the Middle Path, No judgement its all about perception and Balancing Act, When will we stop?

  • God be the CEO!







    From The book of Mirdad –

    God is your captain, sail, my Ark!
    …
    Love is your compass, ply, my Ark!
    …
    Faith is your anchor, ride, my Ark!

    Today I was wondering about what if the world is an organization and the God is the CEO! What would be the situation, in the boardroom and what must be going through His mind?

    Situation – the countries and continents are a department each. There is a cost center – USA – this department is in debt and there seems to be no way out for it to survive. The likely other cost center is the EU – European Union. Operations and manufacturing unit is China. Parts of Middle-East and India a chaotic department wherein the left hand ‘does not know‘, ‘does not want to know‘ and ‘does not want to support‘ what the right hand is doing. The chaos is such that the department is rather a destruction center, not even a cost center. Only good department seem to be Africa and the South East Asia region. Would the CEO resign? Or He would dismiss few those who are responsible for this. For namesake – Former president of USA George W Bush (he forced the world to a war – to me which was unnecessary – the Iraq war), Gaddafi, many politicians including Indian politicians, leaders of the terrorist organizations (Osama is already dead) and those others who are the culprits.

    Keep aside the joke of the God being the CEO. Do you think that the situation is really dire – accounts (economy), production and administration everything is in a chaos. If yes, do not you think that it is our responsibility to improve everything round us. Should one take life of the other in the biggest organization – The World? (terrorism). Should one be corrupt in the organization where her/his family will also be at the receiving end? (India). Should one produce products which could be contaminated by Lead (China – some toys), be prone to fail and take life (cars)? Should one be so extravagant that the whole organization is under debt because of that department? (USA).

    Even if we still continue thinking the God be the CEO, would not the CEO want every employee to do his/her job responsibly, be moderate and ethical? Let us hope that the CEO succeeds in his mission and vision of making the organization profitable with the triple bottom-line and make it an ethical organization. With that hope what we need is ‘responsible we’ – each one of us – and committed employee to make the organization a better place.

    Note – those who are agnostic, for the time being consider God exists. Or do not read the blog, or shoot your concerns/comments. Even if we do not want to consider God be the CEO, I thought about another philosophy from India – ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’. It means that the whole world is one single family. Would you kill your brother or sister, would you do something for which you may have to feel sorry in your family?