>Sahu is writing about how ideas get degenerated over a period of time. Actually he is not talking about how they get degenerated. He is saying that they get degenerated.
This echoed with something that I had experienced a couple of months back. I had gone to Sikkim some time back. Close to Darjeeling, there is a Japanese temple. In that temple, there is a ‘stupa’ which symbolises peace and harmony. Actually, it symbolises nothing as such as it is just like a tower shaped structure. The writing there says that it symbolises peace and harmony.
Seemingly, there was some man in Japan who felt there was too much of pain and sufferinng in the world. And he wanted to spread a message of peace and harmony in the world. For that, he founded an organization and raised a lot of funds and eventually built a couple of these structures across the world.
That’s what his intention was.
But let me tell you what I saw there. Myself and Vaishali walked to the structure. We were reading the writing on the wall. And a ‘tourist’ group walked in. All but one stood on the stairs leading to the Buddha statue. The one who was left took the camera can composed a shot. One of the guy from the group shouted, “It’s ok if the top of tower does not come in the photograph”. The photograph was shot. They walked out.
That’s what is happening eventually.
The message of peace and harmony is written on the wall. People come, read, shoot photograph and go back. But does it spread peace? And harmony? No.
What about the people maintaining the place? What are they doing to ensure that the structure continues to convey the message for which it was built? Nothing.
An ideology emerges from one person. And it spreads over to others. Everybody who joins the ideology brings in his/her own contribution. It may spoil the ideology or it may improve it or it may leave it mostly unchanged. But there is a change (even if it is a tiny bit).
In fact, beyond a point, it becomes impossible to say what that ideology means.
At this juncture, I’ll point to my post on ecosystem of ideas where I said:
Ideas are like living beings. An idea takes birth amid and out of other ideas, it evolves with some contemporary, some old and some new ideas. And eventually is superseded by newer ideas.
Some ideas degenerate but some do evolve.
>A couple of weeks back, I went to ISKCON. I have always found it funny the way religion is commercialized and systemetized there. No problems, but I have never found it particularly religionistic because of the systemetization.
However, my last trip to ISKCON temple was an eye opener. I realized a very simple thing. You have to board the train to change the direction in which it is headed.
What they are trying to do is increase their appeal to the Youth by being hap and cool. What I always saw as systemetization was actually just corportization of the religious bodies. The feeling is the same. The intentions to serve are the same. And the deeds are also good ones. One can always argue that there are things happening under the hood but we can give them benefit of doubt and (in good faith) believe that they are not really criminals because what they are doing sounds just too good and so above human beings.
I know I am just babbling here. A couple of random thoughts forcing their way out of my mind and getting jotted (or electronized?) in this blog.
I just wanted to say that I have started seeing something about ISKCON and Art of Living that makes me much less skeptic and more of a believer in their path. These people are boarding the train to change the direction in which it is headed.
>So, after a very long time, I was out on the road at 9:00 AM. Of course, as usual, heading to office. I used to travel a bit late but today I had to drop Vaishali so I left early.
And well, I decided to never repeat the mistake. Today, it took me 1 hour 15 minutes to get to office. Why? Traffic, traffic, traffic.
It is at times like this, you ask yourself very fundamental questions. Is this what I was born to do? I’ll never ask my kid what she wants to do when she grows up. I know she won’t be right. She’ll never say , “Papa, when I grow up, I want to drive through sick and frustrating traffic for several hours a day”. But that’s what she would do anyway.
What a sheer waste of human capital!!
Well, by the way, the answer I gave myself for *the* fundamental question was “NO”. I was not born to do this and I won’t do this for my life. There are always choices one can make.
By the way, I was not the only one to go through frustration.
>The fun thing about a growing organization is that you’ll see a lot of over-achievers and under-achievers. Also those who are average-achievers. The fun thing is the difference in their manners. It’s so obvious whether they have got rank/position too soon or they haven’t got it even after a long wait.
Over-achievers tend to be pretty casual, outgoing, visible and in general the ‘new kid in town’. It’s fun to see them because they are going through a maxima in their career and they actually believe that they have over-achieved because they are way smarter than others. They also tend to be high on motivation.
Under-achievers tend to be shy, under-confident. They have had a high opinion about themselves but they think they have got a raw deal in the organization. They have a shaken belief that they are smart. They believe (without 100% surety) that if they were in the position that over-achievers were, they would have done equally well. But just because they didn’t get the same kind of opportunities, they are not the ‘new kid in town’.
Sigh. It’s sad but can’t be helped. A fast growing organization can’t be too fair. It just can’t play by the rulebook. A growing organization’s priority is to grow and they have to take decisions which leave some people as under-achievers. Under-achievers are not created by the fast growing organization. A fast growing organization creates over-achievers by promoting some people. Creation of over-achievers creates under-achievers as under-achievers are practically the people with same calibre as the over-achievers but not in a very favourable position.
One key difference in the traits for over-achievers and under-achievers is that over-achievers tend to be more agressive in nature. That agression gives them more visibility which makes it easier for the management to pick them.
Yeah, I know the world is not fair but this is how it works.
In long run, everyone settles down with a balanced sense of achievements unless one keeps jumping from one growing organization to another growing organization and never tastes the stagnation or decline.