Diffrence between logical and lateral thinking
(This story I got in a forwarded mail, thought interesting to share it here.)Many years ago in a small Indian village,
A farmer had the misfortune of owing a large sum of money to a village moneylender.
The Moneylender , who was old and ugly, fancied the farmer's beautiful daughter. So he proposed a bargain. He said he would forgo the farmer's debt if he could marry his daughter. Both the farmer and his daughter were horrified by the proposal.
So the cunning money-lender suggested that they let Providence decide the matter.
He told them that he would put a black pebble and a white pebble into an empty money bag. Then the girl would have to pick one pebble from the bag.
- If she picked the black pebble, she would become his wife and her father's debt would be forgiven.
- If she picked the white pebble she need not marry him and her father's debt would still be forgiven.
- But if she refused to pick a pebble, her father would be thrown into Jail.
They were standing on a pebble strewn path in the farmer's field. As they talked, the moneylender bent over to pick up two pebbles. As he picked them up, the sharp-eyed girl noticed that he had picked up two black pebbles and put them into the bag.
He then asked the girl to pick a pebble from the bag.
Careful analysis would produce three possibilities:
- The girl should refuse to take a pebble.
The girl should show that there were two black pebbles in the bag and expose the money-lender as a cheat.
The girl should pick a black pebble and sacrifice herself in order to save her father from his debt and imprisonment.
Take a moment to ponder over the story. The above story is used with the hope that it will make us appreciate the difference between lateral and logical thinking.
The girl's dilemma cannot be solved with traditional logical thinking. Think of the consequences if she chooses the above logical answers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, here is what she did ....
.
.
The girl put her hand into the moneybag and drew out a pebble. Without looking at it, she fumbled and let it fall onto the pebble-strewn path where it immediately became lost among all the other pebbles.
"Oh, how clumsy of me," she said. "But never mind, if you look into the bag for the one that is left, you will be able to tell which pebble I picked."
Since the remaining pebble is black, it must be assumed that she had picked the white one. And since the money-lender dared not admit his dishonesty, the girl changed what seemed an impossible situation into an extremely advantageous one.
Moral of the Story:
Most complex problems do have a simple solution.
It is only that we don't ATTEMPT to think.
તે મને શીખવ.
=x=X=~#~#~ ***~#~X#~x~#X~#~***~#~#~ =X=x= =x=X=~#~#~ ***~#~X#~x~#X~#~***~#~#~ =X=x= હે પ્રભુ,
સંજોગો વિકટ હોય ત્યારે,
સુંદર રીતે કેમ જીવવું?
તે મને શીખવ.
બધી બાબતો અવળી પડતી હોય ત્યારે,
હાસ્ય અને આનંદ કેમ ન ગુમાવવાં?
તે મને શીખવ.
પરિસ્થિતિ ગુસ્સો પ્રેરે તેવી હોય ત્યારે,
શાંતિ કેમ રાખવી?
તે મને શીખવ.
કામ અતિશય મુશ્કેલ લાગતું હોય ત્યારે,
ખંતથી તેમાં લાગ્યા કેમ રહેવું?
તે મને શીખવ.
કઠોર ટીકા ને નિંદાનો વરસાદ વરસે ત્યારે,
તેમાંથી મારા ખપનું ગ્રહણ કેમ કરી લેવું?
તે મને શીખવ.
પ્રલોભનો, પ્રશંસા, ખુશામતની વચ્ચે
તટસ્થ કેમ રહેવું?
તે મને શીખવ.
ચારે બાજુથી મુશ્કેલીઓ ઘેરી વળે,
શ્રધ્ધા ડગુમગુ થઈ જાય,
નિરાશાની ગર્તામાં મન ડૂબી જાય ત્યારે,
ધૈર્ય અને શાંતિથી તારી કૃપાની પ્રતીક્ષા કેમ કરવી?
તે મને શીખવ.
Escapism Vs. Practicality and India: Part – 2
There is an interesting incident from the ancient India that I want to share here. I think it can be perfectly fitted in the situation the country is facing right now in the Ayodhya issue. Some of my friends have suggested that there should be neither a temple nor a mosque on that place. Rather, there should be a hospital/school/monument, etc.
In Mahabharata also, the battle of Kuruskshetra happened because of property issue (kingdom). Both the sides were fighting for their right over the kingdom of Mahabharata. However, at that time, Lord Krishna sensed the urgency of mediation between them without any battle because after all both the parties involved in fight were brothers and relatives only (Just as today both the parties are Indians only). After convincing the Pandavas He went to Duryodhana to tell him to give away some part of the land to the Pandavas. To this, Duryodhana said he would not give land equivalent to even “the tip of a needle”!! Just as the situation is right now.
Now, it is interesting to learn what Krishna did after this. He said the very famous lines which I m putting here in Gujarati.
“પાર્થને કહો ચઢાવે બાણ, હવે તો યુદ્ધ એ જ કલ્યાણ!!”
(Ask Arjuna to prepare his bow, now battle is the only solution)
As soon as the Lord sensed that there is no feasible solution to the issue, HE STOPPED BEING PRACTICAL. And more importantly He didnt escaped. What He said is - "now dharmayuddha is the only solution and only in it lies the "kalyan" of all".
He wanted an permenant solution. Mediation is the best option to be used in the first place but when it fails, one should not leave the matter as it is. To bring any battle – legal or
otherwise to the final solution is “dharma” of both/all the parties involved in it. By not bringing the matter to solution, we are doing injustice to the problem itself. The problems without solutions only complicates the things more.
Once Lord felt that the battle is the only solution, He himself initiated that fire within the Pandavas. When Arjuna said Him that he dont want to fight for just a piece of land with his own brothers, Lord got angry on him. Krishna said him that it was not at his option - to fight or not. It was his dharma to fight. What Arjuna showed was not practicality, it was escapism. And Krishna saved him from that.
Today also, what India needs is the final solution. The solution that suits both the parties and puts the matter to end for always. I am not depicting one side as bad and the other as good, but the neccessity of final solution doesnt decreases due to that. It is always needed. Part time solutions like “build a park” are not expected. It will not put a final end to the issue.
In Mahabharata, what would’ve happened if Krishna said Pandavas to compromise and remain in forests forever? He could’ve said them this was the best option as it will save them from the battle, loss of lives, fear of failure, etc. etc. He was having all the reasons with Him to stop the fight. He could have easily stopped Pandavas from the battle. They wouldn't have denied Him. But He didnt even considered those escapist reason. He told Pandavas to fight it out. Same way, He also expected the Kauravas to do the same.
So, what i want to say here is, to remain peaceful and united as a society and as a nation, we should always try to reach to the final solution. And not leave a matter half-way down by some makeshift solution to it.
Because as i said earlier, solution is the “birthright” of every dispute. And to arrive at a solution, is the “dharma” of both the disputants. And it is the soultion only in which lies "param kalyan (liberation)" of the parties.
Escapism vs. Practicality and India
NOTE: Before starting this blog post let me clarify that I am not trying to be a hardliner Hindu. I respect views of both the communities. Kindly try to read the following post rising above that mundane communal difference – just as an Indian.Ours is the country with reach cultural heritage and diversity. We have always welcomed the different schools of thoughts and have even adopted them to the large extent. And this is the reason between our unique diversity and more unique, - unity among that diversity.
But looking at the past and present of India, I feel we have suffered largely sometimes as we have not understood the difference between “escapism” and “practicality”.
Escapism:
The tendency to escape from daily reality or routine by indulging in daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment.
Practicability:
Being flexibly adjustible with the circumstances in order to arrive at a consensus to an issue or problem.
Now there is a difference between both. We Indians are grown up in such a mindset that sometimes we put a mask of practicalism on the escapism and let the things happen as they are happening. We famously call this approach – “chalta hain approach” in India. But actually this type of approach increases the problems in the longer run instead of eliminating them.
Looking at the past of India as a person from younger generation, I can say that the approach of Nehru was escapism. While that of Sardar was practical. And due to this escapism or “chalta hain” approach only, we are facing encroachment
of around 10% of the total land mass of India by Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Republic of China in various parts of our country – J&K and Arunachal to name a few. We invited these problems because our leaders were (and are) escapist and not practical. They just suffered from the great Indian mentality – we the Indians just want to arrive at the solution at any end, it does not bother us how much we have to let go, we just want solution - the solution to put an end to the problem. Not the solution to solve the problem.
Yesterday the Hon. Allahabad High Court pronounced its judgment over the Ayodhya issue. The case (in fact cases) were pending since 60 years. And when finally the date of judgment arrived, instead of allowing the judgment, the some (especially younger) fractions of India began chanting that the judgment should not be delivered. Or that there should be some hospital or museum or monument on that site. (In fact I read one girl posting on facebook that rather than a school/hospital, should build a mall on Ramjanmabhoomi!!! All I can say is “He Ram!”)
Now this is escapism. This approach will only keep the problem latent for sometime but will not solve it. The advocates of this approach say if there is a verdict in any one party’s favour, there will be communal tension. Well, sorry but I don’t agree. India is not that immature these days. And I am of the favour that even if there is some tension, let the clear verdict come. Because then, this will put an end to this at one time. There may be some tension for some days but then for the coming decades there will be lasting peace. If the clear cut judgment is not pronounced, then yes there will be peace for now but who can guarantee for the decades to come?
If they build a hospital/school/monument there, do you feel there will be an end to the issue?? No. This issue can end only if there is a uni-directional judgment regarding the ownership right of that place. Otherwise people who can break temple/mosques, why can't they break the hospital? They can obviously. Who has seen the future? After some decades, some ambitious political leader will arise; will gather mob and people will again fight for their mosque/temple. This can end only if there is a clear judgment leaving no space for such people to fight over it.
And one more irony is, people who say there should be built a hospital are the same people who have never donated a single paisa in any of the hospitals! Probably many of them even fear donating their blood! Still they can talk about “humanity”! This is the height of "psuedo-democracy"
Well, this is India- the fusion India where being an intellectual means being an atheist. Only here can a chief minister of a state say that “Sita was actually a siter of Ram” and that “Ram is just a myth” (Click here for source). Here a government ruling at the center can file an affidavit in the apex court of the country that “There is no evidence to prove that Ram existed!” (Source 1, Source 2). This is the bullshit system we live in! Bloody in this regard, even the other backward autocratic countries are better. Atleast their government don't announce such bullshit about their faith for votes! But still, we have this mentality of “chalta hain”! The same government was re-elected (Please mind I am not opposing any party.. For me all parties have same crap..) All this can only happen in India. Because we are escapists. What will you feel if your CM tells you tomorrow that he has proof that your grandma and grandpa were actually siblings!! What will you do?? This is what actually has happened to you if you are a Hindu. Ram-Sita are ancestor for aryas. And still we have this “chalta hain”, unke kehne se thoda ho jayega? Bull shit.
So, coming back to the current topic, what is need of the hour is clear verdict. In favour of either of the party. No escapism from facts this time please. Tell us what is truth- and the permenant one, please.
And most important of the all, we shall remain united, remain peaceful.
P.S.: My take on the Judgement : For the first time, the India has shown to the British that how "divide and rule" can be used for good.".. :)
Thanx.
Read next part of the discussion on same topic here.
(This story I got in a forwarded mail, thought interesting to share it here.)
4 comments:
Post a Comment