:lol: :lol: :lol:
lol: :lol:
Dear Avalok and Satya,
"Emotional stability" and "Ability to bear and accept constructive criticism" are going to become extremely important personality traits in coming days.
When I commented on Sachin Tendulkar, there is some disturbance in you people. I did not deviate from the subect. How, I will explain later. Coming to Sachin Tendulkar, I love Selfish people. There is some inclination in many people to assume "moral high ground" by talking about lofty idealism, and people like Gandhi, Mandela, Budhdha, Ramana Maharshi etc.
That is why when I say, Sachin Tendulkar plays for his records there is some emotional outburst out there.
But my perception about Selfish people is different. I love Selfish people because they are also sources of creativity and productivity.
In one one day international game, India was 13/3. Sachin came and scored a century and when he left the field the score was 200/4. Whether he played for the country or for his own image does not matter as long as his contribution made a positive difference to the score.
That is how selfish people too contribute towards the productivity in organizations. With what motive they work is immaterial for us, as long as their work results into some output. In that context I have taken the name of Sachin Tendulkar. Hence I have not deviated from the subject.
Now coming to the issue of happiness, I don’t entirely agree with Ramana Maharshi’s views. Spirituality depends as much on Materialism, as much as Materialism depends on Spirituality. If all people become Yogis, and start living in forests then we would not have had Tajmahal and Eiffel Tower in our world. Passion, desire and selfishness are not enemies of true Spiritual leaders.
If any woman comes to me saying, “I am unhappy….I want to be happy….suggest me how to be happy…” then I will ask her, “what makes you happy” instead of giving spiritual discourses. If she says, “I need a Luxurious house” that makes me happy. I will explore by asking, “tell me the truth why do you want a Luxurious house”. If she says, “One of my relatives has it…” then I will get the idea that she is jealous of her relative’s house that is why she wants to possess it too.
Without “inquiry” no one can self-realize, no one can help others to self-realize. Without self-realization, no one can be happy. Many people don’t want to reveal the true reasons for their suffering. That makes their lives miserable. If a woman is open enough she will disclose to the extent of saying, “As I don’t have a luxurious house or a luxury car…I am unhappy….”. To admit that itself requires great deal of honesty. On further inquiry if she reveals that, because my cousin has a luxury car or luxurious house, I too want it, but I can’t afford it, then that is outstanding achievement for both the spiritual leader and the woman.
The woman may be jealous or there could be some other reason for her desire to own a luxurious house. But without inquiry, no one can find out the source of suffering and without knowing the source of suffering no one can know the source of happiness.
Read what Mark has written in his Psychometry write up yesterday that is appearing in our discussions:
(Quote) All we really need to know about psychology is this. The way we feel affects the way we think. What we think directs our behaviour. How we behave and the way others behave towards us affects the way we feel. This feeling – thinking – behaviour cycle was described by Galen almost 2000 years ago. It seems the smartest animal on Earth can sometimes be awfully slow to learn. (Unquote)
The woman if she is jealous about her relative possessing a luxurious house, she can’t be happy once she goes back home. She will be happy, as long as she will be in the presence of Swamiji. Once she goes back home the comparisons between her status and her relative’s status will again start haunting her and she will again go back to her old moods.
That is why I will not give any ready made spiritual discourse to anyone without “proper inquiry” into their state of mind.
Now, having known the problem, there are two ways of addressing it.
I would not tell her, “Desire is the root cause of suffering….if you don’t have desire…then you don’t have suffering….” like Budhdha or Ramana Maharshi.
I will ask her, “Are you capable of making money and constructing a luxurious house?”. If the answer is yes. Then I will suggest her to be on the job to earn money. If she is not capable of earning money, then we have to give spiritual discourse to her. That does not mean Spirituality is meant for incapable people/people who fail in the path of materialism.
I told in the beginning that Spirituality depends on Materialism as much as Materialism depends on Spirituality. It is Nature’s Dharma that some people have to practice spirituality and some people have to produce goods and lend their services to mankind. Without material being produced no Swamiji can have big buildings, auditoriums to give lectures on Spirituality. And Desire in human beings motivate them to work, and that work produces material (wealth).
Hence, there is nothing wrong in having a desire. One must pursue one’s desires with interest and passion. And enjoy the process of fulfilling those desires. Spiritual people carry the tendency to treat these personality traits as some kind of crime or sin on the part of people who possess them. But I view Selfish people too with same level of compassion and gratitude as I view unselfish people, because if they are selfish about their Material pursuits, we are selfish about our Moral high ground and Spiritual pursuits. There is not much difference between us and them.
We need not look at those poor “Selfish creatures” like Sachin Tendulkar and the Woman I mentioned above with sympathy as if to suggest they don’t know what we know. Nor should we presume that Sachin Tendulkar must be having a mindset of some Mother Theresa or Jesus Christ. Sachin Tendulkar need not possess the mindset of Jesus Christ in order to score Centuries. It is OK for me, to accept him, even if he is selfish about himself and his desire to score centuries and play for his own records, contribute to the Indian Score.
I don’t know anything about Hitler and Mussolini, regarding Kauravas my opinion is that they are perfect team players, they sacrificed their lives for the glory of each other. They got defeated in the battle of Kurukshetra for different reasons not because they were not good team players. Dharma was not on their side. That was the main reason why they lost the War.
There’s nothing permanent about Mind’s vagaries. Good thoughts, Bad thoughts occur like waves coming to the sea-shore from the depths of an Ocean. Hence I don’t categorize people or human beings as two groups, viz., selfish people or unselfish people. When we are in a loving mood, everybody appears lovable to us and we tend to appear unselfish. But after some time (an hour or a day) the bad thoughts start impacting our minds, and we start viewing everybody around with suspicion as though they are acting selfishly with us. Our feelings influence the behavior and reactions of others, as much as the feelings and motivations of others, influence our feelings and behavior.
How to be happy is not in our hands, as long as we don’t realize what impacts our psyche. Some people derive happiness by being selfish, and some people derive happiness by being unselfish. The same person may feel happy by being selfish sometime, and be happy by being unselfish some other time. It is not necessary that one be strictly unselfish in order to be happy.
Thanks and regards
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
3lol: :lol:
Dear Avalok and Satya,
"Emotional stability" and "Ability to bear and accept constructive criticism" are going to become extremely important personality traits in coming days.
When I commented on Sachin Tendulkar, there is some disturbance in you people. I did not deviate from the subect. How, I will explain later. Coming to Sachin Tendulkar, I love Selfish people. There is some inclination in many people to assume "moral high ground" by talking about lofty idealism, and people like Gandhi, Mandela, Budhdha, Ramana Maharshi etc.
That is why when I say, Sachin Tendulkar plays for his records there is some emotional outburst out there.
But my perception about Selfish people is different. I love Selfish people because they are also sources of creativity and productivity.
In one one day international game, India was 13/3. Sachin came and scored a century and when he left the field the score was 200/4. Whether he played for the country or for his own image does not matter as long as his contribution made a positive difference to the score.
That is how selfish people too contribute towards the productivity in organizations. With what motive they work is immaterial for us, as long as their work results into some output. In that context I have taken the name of Sachin Tendulkar. Hence I have not deviated from the subject.
Now coming to the issue of happiness, I don’t entirely agree with Ramana Maharshi’s views. Spirituality depends as much on Materialism, as much as Materialism depends on Spirituality. If all people become Yogis, and start living in forests then we would not have had Tajmahal and Eiffel Tower in our world. Passion, desire and selfishness are not enemies of true Spiritual leaders.
If any woman comes to me saying, “I am unhappy….I want to be happy….suggest me how to be happy…” then I will ask her, “what makes you happy” instead of giving spiritual discourses. If she says, “I need a Luxurious house” that makes me happy. I will explore by asking, “tell me the truth why do you want a Luxurious house”. If she says, “One of my relatives has it…” then I will get the idea that she is jealous of her relative’s house that is why she wants to possess it too.
Without “inquiry” no one can self-realize, no one can help others to self-realize. Without self-realization, no one can be happy. Many people don’t want to reveal the true reasons for their suffering. That makes their lives miserable. If a woman is open enough she will disclose to the extent of saying, “As I don’t have a luxurious house or a luxury car…I am unhappy….”. To admit that itself requires great deal of honesty. On further inquiry if she reveals that, because my cousin has a luxury car or luxurious house, I too want it, but I can’t afford it, then that is outstanding achievement for both the spiritual leader and the woman.
The woman may be jealous or there could be some other reason for her desire to own a luxurious house. But without inquiry, no one can find out the source of suffering and without knowing the source of suffering no one can know the source of happiness.
Read what Mark has written in his Psychometry write up yesterday that is appearing in our discussions:
(Quote) All we really need to know about psychology is this. The way we feel affects the way we think. What we think directs our behaviour. How we behave and the way others behave towards us affects the way we feel. This feeling – thinking – behaviour cycle was described by Galen almost 2000 years ago. It seems the smartest animal on Earth can sometimes be awfully slow to learn. (Unquote)
The woman if she is jealous about her relative possessing a luxurious house, she can’t be happy once she goes back home. She will be happy, as long as she will be in the presence of Swamiji. Once she goes back home the comparisons between her status and her relative’s status will again start haunting her and she will again go back to her old moods.
That is why I will not give any ready made spiritual discourse to anyone without “proper inquiry” into their state of mind.
Now, having known the problem, there are two ways of addressing it.
I would not tell her, “Desire is the root cause of suffering….if you don’t have desire…then you don’t have suffering….” like Budhdha or Ramana Maharshi.
I will ask her, “Are you capable of making money and constructing a luxurious house?”. If the answer is yes. Then I will suggest her to be on the job to earn money. If she is not capable of earning money, then we have to give spiritual discourse to her. That does not mean Spirituality is meant for incapable people/people who fail in the path of materialism.
I told in the beginning that Spirituality depends on Materialism as much as Materialism depends on Spirituality. It is Nature’s Dharma that some people have to practice spirituality and some people have to produce goods and lend their services to mankind. Without material being produced no Swamiji can have big buildings, auditoriums to give lectures on Spirituality. And Desire in human beings motivate them to work, and that work produces material (wealth).
Hence, there is nothing wrong in having a desire. One must pursue one’s desires with interest and passion. And enjoy the process of fulfilling those desires. Spiritual people carry the tendency to treat these personality traits as some kind of crime or sin on the part of people who possess them. But I view Selfish people too with same level of compassion and gratitude as I view unselfish people, because if they are selfish about their Material pursuits, we are selfish about our Moral high ground and Spiritual pursuits. There is not much difference between us and them.
We need not look at those poor “Selfish creatures” like Sachin Tendulkar and the Woman I mentioned above with sympathy as if to suggest they don’t know what we know. Nor should we presume that Sachin Tendulkar must be having a mindset of some Mother Theresa or Jesus Christ. Sachin Tendulkar need not possess the mindset of Jesus Christ in order to score Centuries. It is OK for me, to accept him, even if he is selfish about himself and his desire to score centuries and play for his own records, contribute to the Indian Score.
I don’t know anything about Hitler and Mussolini, regarding Kauravas my opinion is that they are perfect team players, they sacrificed their lives for the glory of each other. They got defeated in the battle of Kurukshetra for different reasons not because they were not good team players. Dharma was not on their side. That was the main reason why they lost the War.
There’s nothing permanent about Mind’s vagaries. Good thoughts, Bad thoughts occur like waves coming to the sea-shore from the depths of an Ocean. Hence I don’t categorize people or human beings as two groups, viz., selfish people or unselfish people. When we are in a loving mood, everybody appears lovable to us and we tend to appear unselfish. But after some time (an hour or a day) the bad thoughts start impacting our minds, and we start viewing everybody around with suspicion as though they are acting selfishly with us. Our feelings influence the behavior and reactions of others, as much as the feelings and motivations of others, influence our feelings and behavior.
How to be happy is not in our hands, as long as we don’t realize what impacts our psyche. Some people derive happiness by being selfish, and some people derive happiness by being unselfish. The same person may feel happy by being selfish sometime, and be happy by being unselfish some other time. It is not necessary that one be strictly unselfish in order to be happy.
Thanks and regards
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
8) :lol:
Ayn Rand influence?
--------------------
How To Be Unhappy
Make little things bother you. Don't just let them, MAKE them.
Lose you perspective on things and keep it lost: don't put first things first.
Get yourself a good worry, one about which you cannot do anything.
Be a perfectionist, which means not that you work hard to do your best, but that you condemn yourself and others for not achieving perfection.
Be right. Be always right. Be the only one who is always right, and be rigid in your rightness.
Don't trust or believe people, or accept them at anything but their worst and weakest. Be suspicious. Insist that others always have hidden motives.
Always compare yourself unfavorably to others. This guarantees instant misery.
Take personally everything that happens to you.
Don't give yourself whole-heartedly to anyone or anything.
--- Author Unknown
From India, Bangalore
Ayn Rand influence?
--------------------
How To Be Unhappy
Make little things bother you. Don't just let them, MAKE them.
Lose you perspective on things and keep it lost: don't put first things first.
Get yourself a good worry, one about which you cannot do anything.
Be a perfectionist, which means not that you work hard to do your best, but that you condemn yourself and others for not achieving perfection.
Be right. Be always right. Be the only one who is always right, and be rigid in your rightness.
Don't trust or believe people, or accept them at anything but their worst and weakest. Be suspicious. Insist that others always have hidden motives.
Always compare yourself unfavorably to others. This guarantees instant misery.
Take personally everything that happens to you.
Don't give yourself whole-heartedly to anyone or anything.
--- Author Unknown
From India, Bangalore
Hi!
This is in support of Mr. Chandrashekar's viwpoint....
From The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
Background:
Howard Roark is the Hero of Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead.
A brilliant architect and an uncompromising person.
The climax:
Meanwhile Keating asks Roark for help with the Cortlandt Homes, a public housing project. The idea of economical housing intrigues Roark. He agrees to design the project and let Keating take the credit on the condition that no one makes a single alteration to his plan.
When Roark returns from a summer-long yacht trip with Wynand, he finds that, despite the agreement, the Cortlandt Homes project has been changed. Roark asks Dominique to distract the night watchman one night and then dynamites the building. When the police arrive, he submits without resistance. The entire country condemns Roark, At the trial, Roark seems doomed, but he rouses the courtroom with a statement about the value of selfishness and the need to remain true to oneself. Roark describes the triumphant role of creators and the price they pay at the hands of corrupt societies. The jury finds him not guilty.
Howard Roark's
Courtroom Speech
“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.
“That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures—because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer—because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.
“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.
“No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.
“His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.
“The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.
“And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.
“Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons—a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind.
“But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.
“We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.
“Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.
“The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.
“The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.
“The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.
“The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.
“Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.
“No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of exploitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.
“The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality—the man who lives to serve others—is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.
“Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.
“Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the sufferings of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer—in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.
“Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.
“Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self.
“Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
“This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.
“The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.
“The egotist is the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.
“Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.
“In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.
“No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.
“The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.
“A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule—alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.
“Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.
“But men were taught to regard second-handers—tyrants, emperors, dictators—as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym.
“From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.
“The creator—denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited—went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.
“The ‘common good’ of a collective—a race, a class, a state—was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results.
“The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!
“Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.
“It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
“Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country.
“I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live.
“Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt.
“I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.
“I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.
“I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I dedigned it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.
“I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.
“I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they needed from me. They wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. I do not contribute gifts of this nature.
“It is said that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave them the right to my work. That their need constituted a claim on my life. That it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander’s credo now swallowing the world.
“I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.
“I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.
“It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.
“I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man’s creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who’re destroying the world.
“I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.
“I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, I wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place.
“My act of loyalty to every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer by the force responsible for the Cortlandt I dynamited. To every tortured hour of loneliness, denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend—and to the battles he won. To every creator whose name is known—and to every creator who lived, struggled and perished unrecognized before he could achieve. To every creator who was destroyed in body or in spirit. To Henry Cameron. To Steven Mallory. To a man who doesn’t want to be named, but who is sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him.”
From India, Bangalore
This is in support of Mr. Chandrashekar's viwpoint....
From The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
Background:
Howard Roark is the Hero of Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead.
A brilliant architect and an uncompromising person.
The climax:
Meanwhile Keating asks Roark for help with the Cortlandt Homes, a public housing project. The idea of economical housing intrigues Roark. He agrees to design the project and let Keating take the credit on the condition that no one makes a single alteration to his plan.
When Roark returns from a summer-long yacht trip with Wynand, he finds that, despite the agreement, the Cortlandt Homes project has been changed. Roark asks Dominique to distract the night watchman one night and then dynamites the building. When the police arrive, he submits without resistance. The entire country condemns Roark, At the trial, Roark seems doomed, but he rouses the courtroom with a statement about the value of selfishness and the need to remain true to oneself. Roark describes the triumphant role of creators and the price they pay at the hands of corrupt societies. The jury finds him not guilty.
Howard Roark's
Courtroom Speech
“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.
“That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures—because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer—because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.
“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.
“No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.
“His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.
“The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.
“And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.
“Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons—a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind.
“But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.
“We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.
“Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.
“The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.
“The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.
“The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.
“The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.
“Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.
“No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of exploitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.
“The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality—the man who lives to serve others—is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.
“Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.
“Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the sufferings of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer—in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.
“Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.
“Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self.
“Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
“This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.
“The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.
“The egotist is the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.
“Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.
“In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.
“No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.
“The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.
“A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule—alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.
“Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.
“But men were taught to regard second-handers—tyrants, emperors, dictators—as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym.
“From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.
“The creator—denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited—went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.
“The ‘common good’ of a collective—a race, a class, a state—was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results.
“The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!
“Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.
“It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
“Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country.
“I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live.
“Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt.
“I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.
“I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.
“I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I dedigned it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.
“I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.
“I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they needed from me. They wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. I do not contribute gifts of this nature.
“It is said that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave them the right to my work. That their need constituted a claim on my life. That it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander’s credo now swallowing the world.
“I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.
“I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.
“It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.
“I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man’s creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who’re destroying the world.
“I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.
“I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, I wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place.
“My act of loyalty to every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer by the force responsible for the Cortlandt I dynamited. To every tortured hour of loneliness, denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend—and to the battles he won. To every creator whose name is known—and to every creator who lived, struggled and perished unrecognized before he could achieve. To every creator who was destroyed in body or in spirit. To Henry Cameron. To Steven Mallory. To a man who doesn’t want to be named, but who is sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him.”
From India, Bangalore
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Contentment is friend of laziness, and enemy of creativity. Unhappiness and Desire are friends of perfection. Being unhappy with ourselves and our work sometimes leads to great achievements.
From India, Hyderabad
Contentment is friend of laziness, and enemy of creativity. Unhappiness and Desire are friends of perfection. Being unhappy with ourselves and our work sometimes leads to great achievements.
From India, Hyderabad
Hi
I do agree with most of your points except for the fact that Duryodhana/Karna were not team oriented. As far as they are concerned
they always worked as a team and displayed unity and concern for their team members in testing times too. Definitely the motives were not positive but the team work was very much there.
Regards
Urvashi
From India, Mumbai
I do agree with most of your points except for the fact that Duryodhana/Karna were not team oriented. As far as they are concerned
they always worked as a team and displayed unity and concern for their team members in testing times too. Definitely the motives were not positive but the team work was very much there.
Regards
Urvashi
From India, Mumbai
THREE CHEERS to Mr. Chandra Sekhar for standing to his point with some excellent examples and fentastic Quotes. Might be this is smething that is called as "CLARITY" in whatever you do!!!
HATS OFF to you Mr. Chandra Sekhar!!!
Regards,
Kiran.
From Netherlands
HATS OFF to you Mr. Chandra Sekhar!!!
Regards,
Kiran.
From Netherlands
Hi avalok,
Yes I got ur point this time.
U mean to say that when we give 100% to our job/life we tend to be happy.
Also I would like to add when live in the present moment and are not affected by "what would people think/what people think abt me" feeling,we tend to be happy.
Yes Krishna's advice is true to this day.
From United States, San Mateo
Yes I got ur point this time.
U mean to say that when we give 100% to our job/life we tend to be happy.
Also I would like to add when live in the present moment and are not affected by "what would people think/what people think abt me" feeling,we tend to be happy.
Yes Krishna's advice is true to this day.
From United States, San Mateo
Thank you Mr. Chandrashekar.
For agreeing with me that Team players are more important than selfish guys:
Quote from your treatise-"regarding Kauravas my opinion is that they are perfect team players, they sacrificed their lives for the glory of each other. They got defeated in the battle of Kurukshetra for different reasons not because they were not good team players" unquote.
Have a nice day!
From India, Bangalore
For agreeing with me that Team players are more important than selfish guys:
Quote from your treatise-"regarding Kauravas my opinion is that they are perfect team players, they sacrificed their lives for the glory of each other. They got defeated in the battle of Kurukshetra for different reasons not because they were not good team players" unquote.
Have a nice day!
From India, Bangalore
Hi! Shwetaps,
Am happy you got my point. I am really enjoying the conversations on this post. There are lots of guys who are wiser than me and am thnakful to one and all for sharing their thoughts with us,
From India, Bangalore
Am happy you got my point. I am really enjoying the conversations on this post. There are lots of guys who are wiser than me and am thnakful to one and all for sharing their thoughts with us,
From India, Bangalore
Hi,
What I have gleaned so far from the logic submitted is that:
We should be happy to be unhappy
We can be creative only when we are unhappy
Selfish behavior is good
Contentment equals laziness
The wisdom of Gurus are misleading and idiotic
Kauravas are good, but......
It is foolish to seek contentment - better to seek unhappiness
Unhappiness (sometimes) leads to excellence
Fill your organization with unhappy,discontented and selfish people for Success
Welcome to "clarity"
God bless you all, Unhappily!
From India, Bangalore
What I have gleaned so far from the logic submitted is that:
We should be happy to be unhappy
We can be creative only when we are unhappy
Selfish behavior is good
Contentment equals laziness
The wisdom of Gurus are misleading and idiotic
Kauravas are good, but......
It is foolish to seek contentment - better to seek unhappiness
Unhappiness (sometimes) leads to excellence
Fill your organization with unhappy,discontented and selfish people for Success
Welcome to "clarity"
God bless you all, Unhappily!
From India, Bangalore
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Happy-New-Year- 2011.jpg