I stopped the car as we approached another signal. My friend was sitting next to me in the car. Traffic signals generally open a new topic. Don’t know why. When the car comes to a halt after flowing freely, I guess it happens to our thoughts as well. The system restart does happen. We forgot what we were talking until then. As the car stopped for the signal, my friend suddenly looked at me and asked . . . Read the rest of this entry »

Reading a book is a bit like reading a person. You could have your own methods. You can take less time or more time. Each one of us could have a unquie habit when it comes to reading. Personally, I have never finished reading a book. That’s because I don’t start reading a book as well. I know need to clarify now. Suppose I buy a book today. I’d look at the list of contents. If there is any interesting topic in the list, I’d jump to that for a quick read. I’ll read that bit as much as I can. I also have the habit of browsing the book. When I say browse, I just open the book and start reading the page from a logical start. It could be purely random.

I don’t use bookmarks too. For my method of reading, bookmarks don’t help, striking out might. If I happen to read a part that I have read before, I must be reminded. If I don’t realise that I’ve read that before and it’s interesting, it’s worth reading again. So, no bookmarks.

I never have this habit of reading from chapter one. I don’t know why. I don’t read fiction or biographies, where this may not make sense. Any book where the sequence is very important, this may not work. Luckily, for the kind of books I read, this is an allright habit. Even with the chapters I read, my interest should be sustained by book. I never read all paragraphs painfully because I have to complete reading a chapter. Not all books maintain the tempo and interest throughout the book. That does not really impact me because I don’t mind reading from anywhere. Also, I don’t finish reading books.

In every book, there is an essence right? I try to get that soon enough. You may call it synoptical reading or something like that. As soon as I get that theme and essence, I might even suspend reading the book. The writer of the book had an idea, theme or an essence based on which he has written a book. If I well and truly think I understand that heart and soul of the book, I mentally try to write that book, not all 500 pages. Just try to imagine what I would capture in a book, if I were to write based on that idea or theme, you know what I mean?

It’s all about what you want from reading a book. What’s your objective when you pick up a book? To complete reading a book or reading the book. There is a big difference between wanting to complete reading a book and reading the book. I’m never under this artificial self-created pressure of ‘ah! 200 pages more’ or ‘7th chapter is more interesting but sadly i’m only in the 2nd chapter now’. I never feel that I have to finish reading a book. Sometimes, I even think that I don’t have to read the whole book.

If you ask when will I be done reading the book that you just lent me, my answer would be ‘i don’t know’. I don’t allot daily reading time or anything like that. As you figured out I don’t have a rhythm when it comes to reading. You can call it a purely customised method of sporadic reading, slow reading, comprehensive reading and a bit of skimming. There are books that you can read very quickly. There are books that cannot be skimmed. There could be books with very good views, ideas and thoughts but unnecessarily prolonged to double the size upon the publisher’s request. And there are books where you read a couple of lines and you simply can’t proceed unless you spend time to think about those lines and completely understand the author.

My unrhythmic method of reading gives me the flexibility to read any type of books to my satisfaction. So you must have deduced that I could read many books simultaneously as well. I feel very comfortable with this method. Come to think of it, this is the way I used to read for my chartered accountancy too. Of course, ‘reading’ was one of the components of ’study’, which included few other things like classroom sessions, test papers, examinations, training sessions etc.

There is a quote ‘you read to know that you’re not alone’. Very true for this topic. Read this piece on what American thinker/writer Mortimer Adler says about reading a book:

Adler sets forth his method for reading a wholly or primarily non-fiction book in order to gain understanding. He claims that three distinct approaches, or readings, must all be made in order to get the most possible out of a book, but that performing these three readings does not necessarily mean reading the book three times, as the experienced reader will be able to do all three in the course of reading the book just once. Adler names the readings, “structural”, “interpretative”, and “syntopical”, in that order.

The first reading is concerned with understanding the structure and purpose of the book. It begins with determining the basic topic and type of the book being read, so as to better anticipate the contents and comprehend the book from the very beginning. Adler says that the reader must distinguish between practical and theoretical books, as well as determining the field of study that the book addresses. Further, Adler says that the reader must note any divisions in the book, and that these are not restricted to the divisions laid out in the table of contents. Lastly, the reader must find out what problems the author is trying to solve.

The second reading involves constructing the author’s arguments. This first requires the reader to note and understand any special phrases and terms that the author uses. Once that is done, Adler says that the reader should find and work to understand each proposition that the author advances, as well as the author’s support for those propositions.

In the third and final reading, Adler directs the reader to criticize the book. He claims that now that the reader understands the author’s propositions and arguments, the reader has been elevated to the level of understanding of the book’s author, and is now able (and obligated) to judge the book’s merit and accuracy. Adler advocates judging books based on the soundness of their arguments. Adler says that one may not disagree with an argument unless one can find fault in its reasoning, facts, or premises, though one is free to dislike it in any case.

So how do you read? What are your habits? Tell us about your methods and styles of reading and types of books you read and how your methods and styles helps you to read your types of books.

I want to climb the Himalayas. Well, that’s not the same as reaching the Mount Everest. I’m just talking about climbing the Himalayas. That must be some experience, isn’t it? I want to do that just for that unique adventure. At least for a short period of time, you get to experience the world that could not be distorted by man. You’ll be far far away from the reach of technology. That’ll be a place where there is no value for money. Rupees, dollars, pounds all are one and the same. That’s world at its purest form.

A baby is the purest form of mankind. Unadulterated. Then the baby gets loaded with all morals, values, ideas, rituals, formalities, knowledge etc and then it grows to become a man that can fit into this society. The world that we live in, be it Chennai or London or Newyork is like this grown man. The places like Himalayas are the babies which are as pure as they arrived, devoid of any human developments or distortions. That’s what attracts me to that place. To see how life can be lived in places where you have no phone, no internet, no electricity, no pizza huts, no malls, no shops, no cinema, no banks. All that’s left there is nature and some forms of lives. I can bet that it could be an unbelievable and unforgettable experience. I don’t think there can be a more humbling experience than this one where you look like a sand in a beach. Imagine if you were one of the people in the below photograph. You’ll be an ignorable dot in the massive himalayas.

The biggest challenge is to travel into that unknown. We can have our expectations based on the stories but the actual experience could be quite different from person to person. What one needs to be aware is that this expedition involved risk. The temparature could be in the negatives, water could be frozen, you need to eat what you get, no one might understand your language, your fatigue can end your trip or can even end your life.

I want to go there. I cannot force my folks at home to join me. I don’t think it’s wise. This whole expedition demands a lot of physical exertion. Step one to be able to do this is to persuade my wife and my parents that I’m going. The expedition is for about 15 days which includes the travel from Chennai to Delhi to mountain base at Dehradun and back. So that means going offline with your family, friends, colleagues, office and business for about 15 days. So persuasion for acceptance should happen first.

Now, the most important question. Who would take me there? I don’t know anything about himalayas and trekking there. I don’t even know where to start. All that I have is the desire and will to go. There are lots of agencies that organise himalayan expeditions and take people as groups. One such group is Youth Hostel Association of India (YHAI). They do it as a service and charge a minimal fee for a trip of this significance. Money wouldn’t be too much of a concern. The total cost involved is not beyond Rs.10,000 and most of it is spent on train tickets to reach Delhi and charges to reach the base. The organisers take about Rs.3,000 for arranging, organising and conducting the expedition. Anyway, there is little worth for money as you climb up so all that you spend would be when you’re at Dehradun and not beyond.

It would be real adventure. I’ve spoken to people who’ve personally experienced it. As with any adventure, there are risks. When you’re trying to reach a height of more than 12,000 feet from the sea level, you can’t do it like walking the dog. You need to climb, trek, cross rivers, pass through bridges, walk through streams, get past snow capped hills, dense forests and withstand very gutsy cold winds. The expedition that starts with a 30-member group might end with a 20-member group at the highest point because many people to give up in the middle and prefer to make a return. The group would be accompanied by a good number Sherpas, the local community who are experts in climbing and trekking. They are practically our life guards who can help, guide, support or even carry us if required. Generally, the ratio of Sherpas to participants would be 1:4 which spells safety.

To desire to climb the himalayas is not sudden. I have always wanted to do it since my college days. May be I wasn’t strong willed enough back then to really give it a go. That’s why I say I now have not just the desire but also the will. Does this mean I’ll pack my bags next week? Not really. I may not even do it this year. Certain things will have to fall in line – home, office etc. But I would certainly do this once in my life. My wish is to go before I get so old that my body becomes a burden for me to be able to do this to my satisfaction.

I’m sure I’ll be there one day. I’ll be here to tell the tale as well.

Yet another Zen story. As always, quite deep and thought-provoking. This is one of the longish zen stories but there’s reason why it has to be this long. I want you read this as many times as you want and come up with your comments. I want to know your interpretation of this story. The reason why I’ve posted this is I really want you to read this story plus, I don’t have time to post a written article today. Now, over to Zen.

There was once a stone cutter who was dissatisfied with himself and with his position in life.

One day he passed a wealthy merchant’s house. Through the open gateway, he saw many fine possessions and important visitors. “How powerful that merchant must be!” thought the stone cutter. He became very envious and wished that he could be like the merchant.

To his great surprise, he suddenly became the merchant, enjoying more luxuries and power than he had ever imagined, but envied and detested by those less wealthy than himself. Soon a high official passed by, carried in a sedan chair, accompanied by attendants and escorted by soldiers beating gongs. Everyone, no matter how wealthy, had to bow low before the procession. “How powerful that official is!” he thought. “I wish that I could be a high official!”

Then he became the high official, carried everywhere in his embroidered sedan chair, feared and hated by the people all around. It was a hot summer day, so the official felt very uncomfortable in the sticky sedan chair. He looked up at the sun. It shone proudly in the sky, unaffected by his presence. “How powerful the sun is!” he thought. “I wish that I could be the sun!”

Then he became the sun, shining fiercely down on everyone, scorching the fields, cursed by the farmers and laborers. But a huge black cloud moved between him and the earth, so that his light could no longer shine on everything below. “How powerful that storm cloud is!” he thought. “I wish that I could be a cloud!”

Then he became the cloud, flooding the fields and villages, shouted at by everyone. But soon he found that he was being pushed away by some great force, and realized that it was the wind. “How powerful it is!” he thought. “I wish that I could be the wind!”

Then he became the wind, blowing tiles off the roofs of houses, uprooting trees, feared and hated by all below him. But after a while, he ran up against something that would not move, no matter how forcefully he blew against it – a huge, towering rock. “How powerful that rock is!” he thought. “I wish that I could be a rock!”

Then he became the rock, more powerful than anything else on earth. But as he stood there, he heard the sound of a hammer pounding a chisel into the hard surface, and felt himself being changed. “What could be more powerful than I, the rock?” he thought.

He looked down and saw far below him the figure of a stone cutter.

What a lovely story! This has got to be one of the best. There’s always someone better or there’s always someone worse. The more you want the less you get, at least in your mind.

As you can see, the title of the blog is now ‘Critical Thoughts’. The earlier title ‘Random Opinions’ was just good enough but I don’t think it captured the essence like ‘Critical Thoughts’ does. Forget the aptness, the truth is I’m in love with this concept of critical thinking. For those who don’t know, ‘Critical Thinking’ is a very interesting and important concept. The word ‘critical’ might give a negative tone to the word but that’s because of our usage of the words like ‘criticise’ and ‘criticism’. Critical thinking need not necessarily be about negativity. So what is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

I might have taken you back to your school and college years with that kind of definition. But that’s the most comprehensive way to define critical thinking. Basically what it means is, improving one’s own thinking knowing with the awareness of the common pitfalls, and also continuously improve one’s own thinking . Apparently, good critical thinkers can be very good problem solvers.

Thinking is often casual or routine, whereas critical thinking deliberately evaluates the quality of thinking. The ability to think critically involves three things:

* Using logic, reason and the scientific method over abstract theories and emotional judgements.
* Awareness of heuristics (shortcuts) and biases (errors) that influence human thinking.
* Using these abilities systematically on everything in your life. From that, using the results to make improvements.

It is natural for humans, once an idea is formed, to look for supporting instead of conflicting evidence. The first goal of a rational thinker is that, once a theory is formed, evidence that conflicts with this theory is sought. Searching to be proven wrong, rather than vindicated, is a cornerstone of critical thinking.

Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

That’s a fantastic paragraph. We might not want to admit this – we are biased, prejudiced, partial and uninformed. But we still think and make decisions. May be due to the fact that our thoughts and subsequently our decisions can be faulty, we do get into problems. The quality of our decisions determine what kind of life we lead. There is a reason your office life or personal life is going in a certain way. Most of it is controllable by you provided your thoughts and decisions are good enough. It’s up to you to be aware of the known hurdles for thinking such as bias, distortion, partiality, lack of information or prejudice and ensuring that they don’t bring down the quality of your thoughts. There is a reason why it is said that ‘critical thinking is a way of taking up problems of life’.

Critical thinking is also defined as the art of taking charge of your own mind. Its value is also at root simple: if we can take charge of our own minds, we can take charge of our lives; we can improve them, bringing them under our self command and direction. Of course, this requires that we learn self-discipline and the art of self-examination. This involves becoming interested in how our minds work, how we can monitor, fine tune, and modify their operations for the better. It involves getting into the habit of reflectively examining our impulsive and accustomed ways of thinking and acting in every dimension of our lives.

Errors and mistakes can happen anywhere and everywhere. So they can happen in thoughts and thought processes as well. If the whole thought process is faulty, there is no way it’s gonna give you a good decision at the end of the process. The thing with the errors and mistakes with our thought process is, not many would come to know about the mistake. The result of the mistake in the thought process could be bad decisions, strained relationships, bad image and stuff like that. Those are things that we may not want to admit that those could be a result of our poor thinking. The thinker, which is you or me, would most probably come to know of the mistake. We have the options of believing that we are masters of the universe and not going back to analyse where exactly we went wrong and put the blame on something else or to analyse and identify why we could not come up with a good solution.

Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it. Much like professional athletes or musicians must practice to master their sport or art, so must thinkers practice to master their minds.

Come to think of it, I think I’ve always practised ‘critical thinking’ (though I might be a novice at that) without actually knowing that such a recognised concept exists. Many a times my thoughts and decisions have gone wrong. Over a period of years, I’ve learnt to think better. I’ve learnt to decide better. Though thinking is natural, critical thinking is not natural. Biased thinking and prejudiced thinking are very natural. I don’t know how good a critical thinker I am but I’m happy that I have been able to recognise critical thinking and also distinguish normal thinking and critical thinking. I’m sure one can become a better thinker with the practice of critical thinking.

This is an open question. What kind of thinker are you – impulsive, casual or critical? Has your thinking improved over time? Over time, you would have obtained better sources of information and more experience but let’s not mistake them for improved thinking. Unless we have made a conscious attempt to improve our thinking, it would most probably be the same style of thinking loaded with more information and exeprience. Hence my question. This is an instrospective question. You can ask yourself without burdening yourself with the thought of having to admit it to others. Is our thinking casual or critical? I know this is quite a heavy subject but how often do we get to ‘think about thinking’?

I love Osho’s writings. He does come up with some superb stories to explain his points. Here is one of the fantastic stories from Osho on Lao Tzu (supposedly a 3000-year old story). This story is from his book on ‘Freedom’ where he explains and enlightens us on what is freedom. It is not freedom from something or freedom to do something, it is being oneself. He also talks about how the society and institutions have curbed the evolution of man and how they won’t exist if the individual evolves. Read this superb story.

Lao Tzu became very famous, a wise man, and he was without doubt one of the wisest man ever. The emperor of China asked him very humbly to become the chief justice of the supreme court, because nobody could guide the country’s laws better than he could. He tried to persuade the emperor, “I’m not the right man”, but the emperor was insistent.

Lao Tzu said, “If you don’t listen to me . . . just one day in the court and you will be convinced that I’m not the right man, because the system is wrong. Out of humbleness I was not saying the truth to you. Either I can exist or your law and your order and your society can exist. So . . . let us try it.”

The first day a thief who had stolen almost half of the treasures of the richest man in the capital was brought into the court. Lao Tzu listened to the case and then he said that the thief and the richest man should both go to jail for six months. The rich man said, “What are you saying? I have been stolen from, I have been robbed – what kind of justice is this, that you sending me to jail for the same amount of time as the thief?”

Lao Tzu said, “I am certainly being unfair to the thief. Your need to be in jail is greater because you have collected so much money to yourself, deprived so many people of money . . . thousands of people are downtrodden and you are collecting and collecting money. For what? Your very greed is creating the thieves. You are responsible. The first crime is yours.”

Lao Tzu’s logic is absolutely clear. If there are going to be too many people and only a few rich people, you cannot stop thieves, you cannot stop stealing. The only way to stop is to have a society where everybody has enough to fulfil his needs, and nobody has unnecessary accumulation just out of greed.

The rich man said, “Before you send me to jail I want to see the emperor, because this is not according to the constitution;this is not according to the laws of the country.” Lao Tzu said, “This is the fault of the constitution and the fault of the law of the country. I am not responsible for it. Go and see the emperor.”

The rich man said to the emperor, “Listen, this man should be immediately deposed from his post; he is dangerous. Today I am going to jail, tomorrow you will be in jail. If you want to save yourself, this man has to be thrown out; he is absolutely dangerous. And he is very rational. What he is saying is right; I can understand it – but he will destroy us!”

The emperor understood it perfectly well. “If this rich man is a criminal, then I am the greatest criminal in the country. Lao Tzu will not hesitate to send me to jail.” Lao Tzu was relieved of his post. He said, “I tried to tell you before; you are unnecessarily wasting my time. I told you I am not the right man. The reality is your society, your law, and your constitution are not right. You need wrong people to run the whole wrong system.”

Your comments please!

Do you think sun signs have any significance? I’m a piscean. So I’m an unexciting sober introvert who is not a great company. Well, not entirely true as I was good enough to a find a non-piscean girl. Sun signs do talk about personalities. Some may find it ridiculous to group the whole population in twelve types of personalities. But I don’t think it’s entirely wrong. I mean, the people I know, I would fit them all in five or six categories, not even twelve.

Sun signs were not invented by Linda Goodman. And sun signs are not a thing of Western Astrology. Sun signs and moon signs are described very well in the ancient hindu astrology. There, sun sign denotes the body and moon sign denotes the mind. Sun signs talk about personalities and how someone is seen by the others. Moon signs talk about what emotional side of the person. Therefore, sun sign alone may not be sufficient to judge a person. You need to combine the qualities of the sun sign and the moon sign for a decent package. But sun signs, moon signs, ‘your day today’ and ’signs this week’ are not astrology. They are pieces of astrology which may not make full sense when used in isolation. By now you’d have understood that I believe in astrology. That makes me a bit old-fashioned, isn’t it? Sadly enough, I can’t even prove to you how it works. I cannot convince you.

Some people don’t believe astrology. That’s because they don’t ‘believe’. I believe in ancient hindu astrology. When you believe in astrology you’re either old-fashioned or superstitious or lacking self-confidence. Those are perceptions that are hard to erase. When I say I believe, let me clarify that I’ve never consulted astrology or sought any help from an astrologer or sought to know my future. Now you may ask, is it possible to predict the future? The way I see it, astrology is a science. It has its own methods, formulae and theories. It can predict the future and those predictions can go wrong, just like it happens with any science. Astrological predictions are like those by-pass heart surgeries. There are proofs of concept that it works. But it depends a lot on who performs it and various other circumstances. Just because a by-pass surgery fails we should not be doubting medical science.

Astrologers are like bloggers. To be an astrologer, you don’t need a degree or a certificate. So anyone can be an astrologers. Most of the amateur astrologers give astrology a bad name. Because of them, astrology has even become a joke. Reminds me of the local meteorological office. When they say it will rain, it will be sunny like sun has come closer by a million miles. That’s a local joke because they get it wrong most of the times. That’s why people don’t really take bloggers or astrologers or meteorologists any seriously.

The fake astrologers are like magicians. They show you what you want to see.

Astrologer: You must be a very hard worker. You’ll give anything and everything for your work. Right?
Astronut: Absolutely. You’re right!
Astrologer: You hate lies. You hate being lied to.
Astronut: You got it. My blood boils when I’m lied to!!
Astrologer: You’re a very creative person. You get upset when you’re ideas are not considered.
Astronut: Spot on. Looks like you know me better than I do!!!
(By this time, it is clear that the astronut is willing to get laid. Now comes the business end of the discussions which wins the bread)
Astrologer: You have some loans and that worries you.
Astronut: Yes, it drives me crazy. That’s why I’m here.
Astrologer: Okay now, what you need to do is . . .

Whatever he prescribes, if it works, the astrologer becomes a legend otherwise he can blame it on anything including the fact that the ‘astronut’ had his kitchen facing north and his gas stove facing west.

Let’s be clear. Unreliable astrologers should not mean astrology is unreliable. Astrology has stood thousands of years. I think the basis of astrology could be statistics. Suppose you survey a group of 1000 people wearing blue shirts and 800 of them are very positive-minded. Suppose you survey another group of 1000 people wearing white shirts of which 900 are very pessimistic and skeptical. Your survey conclusion would be that wearing blue shirts generates positivity and creates vibrancy whereas wearing the white shirt makes you negative. When you’re wearing a particular shirt, if 9 out of 10 times, your day has been fantastic, you’d ‘believe’ that it’s your lucky shirt and would wear for the right occasions. It’s all probability based on track record or past data.

Now take a bunch of 1000 pisceans and study they personality and behaviour. I’m sure you’re going to find lots of similarities. That’s because, before someone for the first time wrote that Pisceans are unexciting sober introverts that you should avoid, the survey and study must have happened. That is, thousands of years back, before the earliest scriptures of hindu astrology was written. My take is, it is a pattern. I need not be the introvert of highest degree because I’m a piscean but most pisceans could be. That’s statistics. That’s trend analysis and study of patterns. While this is understandable, you can still ask why should all pisceans be so boring? Why Sun in Pisces makes someone an introvert? That’s a bigger question. That’s where the fundamental belief of ‘planets do influence lives’ comes in. It’s like saying, ‘I know blue shirt is your lucky shirt but why?’.

Astrology is not just sun signs and moon signs. It is much deeper. Astrology is also based on mathematics and astronomy. Do not ask me how astrology works? I don’t have an answer. I’m sure this is not the only question for which you and I don’t have an answer. I certainly believe that astrology works because I believe planets can influence the people’s lives. There are so many things that we don’t understand. We call them luck, fortune, God, unknown, unknowable etc. Wait for a few years for a NASA group of researchers to come up with a paper to say that planets of the universe can influence people’s lives. Some might even win a nobel prize for that.

Now, go ahead. Knock me down!