Who I am ? Why should a company hire me? Why do I want to join a company?
Why do I want to join your company?
What the hell man.... I want to join every company above 6 lacs , which is a little well established, that people( basically my friends) consider good.
Why not a better a company then yours? Because THEY kicked me out.
Why not MS/MBA? I do not have sufficient resources for MS.
Why should a company hire me?
Ok I don't have good communication skills, but I can convey my self clearly to anyone. Ok I may not know everything about my field, but I can dig out the required knowledge when and where required and apply those skills. I can do almost any kind of work.
What are your weakness?
I am poor at answering this question.
poor handwriting .....let it be
poor communication skills ........improve them
poor language skills ......improve them
poor sleeping habits ......improve them
poor reading habits .....improve them
only concentrate on contents not on the packaging .......start concentrating
poor technical knowledge ........
poor general knowledge ........
be a hard worker
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
18 percentile
I always knew that I lack something in writing skills. Though I knew qualitatively that I was bad, but recently I received a quantitative figure. In the analytical portion of GRE test I received 18 percentile (3.5 score). Wow, so I am much below average in writing skills, still I have been shamelessly writing blogs and advertising them and thus flaunting by poor writing skills. So reader, please, if have some more time left after reading all this non-sense please point out some mistakes and suggest some improvements. There is 82 percent probability that you have better writing skills than me.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Learn from past, plan the future but live in present
If I was asked to describe philosophy of my life in one line, then it would have been the heading of this post. However, I donot believe in saying things in one line as they can be interpreted in different ways by different people. A philosophy, which is the teaching of all great philosophers including Bhagwad Gita, i.e. "to perform your duties without caring about the results" may also be derived from the headline of this post.
To understand the meaning of this headline, we would like to understand the meaning of word "live". So living in present means to be affected only by the present environmental conditions. Not to be worried about the future and not to repent on past mistakes. Living in present means to work in present not caring about adversities of future or mistakes of past. This heading can be also supposed to indicate to towards "Learn as if you were to live forever, live as if you were to die tommorrow."
Suppose you are targetting an examination, say CAT. Though you learn from past mistake that one should study very hard, one should do many sample papers and one should not waste time, but you don't let yourself down by thinking that I have started preparation very late or your english has been very poor since very begining. You plan the future, in this case you plan your time ahead for preparation, you give some time for verbal ability, some time for quantative ability but you don't worry about the limited seats available, high fees structure, "what if CAT pattern changes?"
In pursuit of your dreams, never think that I will live my life in future, because tommorrow never comes. Even when you are chasing your dreams, try to live your life to the fullest.
Sometimes we make unforgivable mistakes, which change our lives negatively. Never repent on past mistakes or decisions. Think "what to do now, so that conditions can be improved." This is what to live in present means.
To understand the meaning of this headline, we would like to understand the meaning of word "live". So living in present means to be affected only by the present environmental conditions. Not to be worried about the future and not to repent on past mistakes. Living in present means to work in present not caring about adversities of future or mistakes of past. This heading can be also supposed to indicate to towards "Learn as if you were to live forever, live as if you were to die tommorrow."
Suppose you are targetting an examination, say CAT. Though you learn from past mistake that one should study very hard, one should do many sample papers and one should not waste time, but you don't let yourself down by thinking that I have started preparation very late or your english has been very poor since very begining. You plan the future, in this case you plan your time ahead for preparation, you give some time for verbal ability, some time for quantative ability but you don't worry about the limited seats available, high fees structure, "what if CAT pattern changes?"
In pursuit of your dreams, never think that I will live my life in future, because tommorrow never comes. Even when you are chasing your dreams, try to live your life to the fullest.
Sometimes we make unforgivable mistakes, which change our lives negatively. Never repent on past mistakes or decisions. Think "what to do now, so that conditions can be improved." This is what to live in present means.
Learn from past, plan the future but live in present
If I was asked to describe philosophy of my life in one line, then it would have been the heading of this post. However, I donot believe in saying things in one line as they can be interpreted in different ways by different people. A philosophy, which is the teaching of all great philosophers including Bhagwad Gita, i.e. "to perform your duties without caring about the results" may also be derived from the headline of this post.
To understand the meaning of this headline, we would like to understand the meaning of word "live". So living in present means to be affected only by the present environmental conditions. Not to be worried about the future and not to repent on past mistakes. Living in present means to work in present not caring about adversities of future or mistakes of past. This heading can be also supposed to indicate to towards "Learn as if you were to live forever, live as if you were to die tommorrow."
Suppose you are targetting an examination, say CAT. Though you learn from past mistake that one should study very hard, one should do many sample papers and one should not waste time, but you don't let yourself down by thinking that I have started preparation very late or your english has been very poor since very begining. You plan the future, in this case you plan your time ahead for preparation, you give some time for verbal ability, some time for quantative ability but you don't worry about the limited seats available, high fees structure, "what if CAT pattern changes?"
In pursuit of your dreams, never think that I will live my life in future, because tommorrow never comes. Even when you are chasing your dreams, try to live your life to the fullest.
Sometimes we make unforgivable mistakes, which change our lives negatively. Never repent on past mistakes or decisions. Think "what to do now, so that conditions can be improved." This is what to live in present means.
To understand the meaning of this headline, we would like to understand the meaning of word "live". So living in present means to be affected only by the present environmental conditions. Not to be worried about the future and not to repent on past mistakes. Living in present means to work in present not caring about adversities of future or mistakes of past. This heading can be also supposed to indicate to towards "Learn as if you were to live forever, live as if you were to die tommorrow."
Suppose you are targetting an examination, say CAT. Though you learn from past mistake that one should study very hard, one should do many sample papers and one should not waste time, but you don't let yourself down by thinking that I have started preparation very late or your english has been very poor since very begining. You plan the future, in this case you plan your time ahead for preparation, you give some time for verbal ability, some time for quantative ability but you don't worry about the limited seats available, high fees structure, "what if CAT pattern changes?"
In pursuit of your dreams, never think that I will live my life in future, because tommorrow never comes. Even when you are chasing your dreams, try to live your life to the fullest.
Sometimes we make unforgivable mistakes, which change our lives negatively. Never repent on past mistakes or decisions. Think "what to do now, so that conditions can be improved." This is what to live in present means.
I can not be a Gandhi
I have been physically weak but mentally strong throughout my life, or atleast I believe so. But in the context, its worth mentioning that I am not brave. I am too concerned about "What people will say?". That's why I don't do things that are different from what people usually do.
Few years back I actually came to understand, the Gandhian philosophy. I was attracted. LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI gave some kind of public acceptance to the Gandhian philosophy. So, when I was working out solutions to some of the problems in Gandhian way, the movie motivated me to work harder as Gandhian followers were more socially acceptable(I told you I am not brave). But there were still questions in my mind, which may be called questions defining the border between "cowardliness" and "non-violence".
I pondered on the questions, I tried to find out the solutions of problems which arise in films:
1. In LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI, Munna bhai had radio (a mass media) as a tool. So a property issue can be solved by Gandhian methodology
2. In Khosla ka Ghosla, again there was a property issue. But this time, they did not had any mass media with them. Even police was against them. So, I was forced to doubt Gandhian philosophy.
3. I also read translation of a bengali novel named "ARJUN". In that too there was property dispute, finally solved by violence.
Now my trust on Gandhian philosophy was weakening. Even if we try to see hindu mythology, we find that its appropriate to use violence against evil people like ravana and kansa. But there have been religions like buddhism which inspire non-violence. Sometimes I used to look at nature to find that violence is a part of life, but then there are arguments that this is what makes humans different from animals.
I decided to read "My Experiments with Truth" by MK Gandhi. Till now I have only read a quarter of it. But I found something that solved almost every doubt in my mind. I found that Gandhi ji was against unnecessary acquisition of wealth and material. And non-violence was result of unconditional love.
So fighting over property is unnecessary according to Gandhian philosophy. I may be wrong here because this may be paradoxical to the concept of fighting for your rights. In fact I want to be wrong here, because I want to acquire some wealth and preserve it. And I also want to follow non-violence.
Based on my minuscule understanding of deep Gandihian philosophy, (which he says is easy to be followed by an innocent child) I have figured out solution to a problem. This problem is very common in our daily lives and I took up this problem because it sprouted in my discussion with my friend Saurabh Sharma.
Problem
You are going to some place by train (general compartment). So you arrive at station an hour before the scheduled time as you knew that getting tickets will take some time. As expected there is long queue for ticket. You stand in queue for 40 min to find yourself just 1 person next to ticket window. But a person with a strong built comes in front of you.
Now further course of action is dependent on your decision.
1. (As answered by Saurabh,a brave guy) You ask him to leave the queue. If he does then its great, otherwise he will have to fight you to rob you of your rights. Even if that means you get injuries, atleast you fought for your rights. You don't feel as a coward.
2. (What I usually do, cowardice) You ask him to leave the queue, politely (not lovingly). Some of the people at your back support you, they use their own methods to remove him from the queue. If their methods succeed then I succeed, otherwise I fail. But if you don't have any conscience or principles then this is the best method.
3. (What I think Gandhi ji would have done, keep in mind that gandhi ji unconditionally loves others, he places others interest above his own)
You lovingly ask the person the reason why he is in so much hurry. Suppose his reason for hurry is that he won't get ticket if he stands in 40 minute queue. Its his mistake, to be late. But you love him and the people behind you. You take the responsibility of his ticket and advise him to come earlier next time and never try to intrude into queue.
Now there are other cases. Suppose there is too much time left for train to come. So he says "how does it matters to you if one more person stands in front of you?". You say "It doesn't matters to me, but imagine what a chaos would be there if everyone starts to do so. So dear! please follow rules as they are meant for your convenience only." He replies "fuck off!!!". You still love him and people behind you. People behind you begin to shout at him. (However Gandhian philosophy is based on general goodness of mankind). Seeing all this drama, ticket officer decides not to give ticket to the INTRUDER. He calls you and gives you the ticket.
There can be many other cases, including a case when the intruder is truely needy, and a man like Gandhi ji would have sacrificed his own place in the queue for the comfort of the person and and others in the row.
But this was only one problem. There are many other problems in life which gives us options of non-violence, violence and cowardice. There are smaller and more unorganised versions of queues for example that for roti in mess. You can't go for satyagrah or fight someone for petite issue of breaking queue for getting roti earlier. Even though its your right.
With the concept of non-accumulation of wealth, some problems still ask for violence. Try replacing Lord Ram with Gandhi ji in a situation when Kasturba Gandhi has been abducted by Ravana. What do you think Gandhi ji would have done? Satyagrah?
Hunger strike? Yes, ofcourse Mata Sita was on a hunger strike after being kidnapped. But still a husband has his duties to perform. Since Gandhi ji was a follower of Bhagwad Gita. So I think he would have done his duties without caring about results. As he was kshatriya (on replacement with Rama)then his duty was to fight. So he would have fought.
When Gandhi ji said
bura mat dekho
bura mat suno
then I don't think he meant to close your eyes, or cover your ears. He must have meant to eliminate the "bura" if you see it or hear it.
Since being a gandhi requires non aquisition of wealth and self sacrifice beyond my capabilties. And Gandhian philosophy in my understanding can not solve all the problems of life, therfore I conclude that I can not be a Gandhi.
Few years back I actually came to understand, the Gandhian philosophy. I was attracted. LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI gave some kind of public acceptance to the Gandhian philosophy. So, when I was working out solutions to some of the problems in Gandhian way, the movie motivated me to work harder as Gandhian followers were more socially acceptable(I told you I am not brave). But there were still questions in my mind, which may be called questions defining the border between "cowardliness" and "non-violence".
I pondered on the questions, I tried to find out the solutions of problems which arise in films:
1. In LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI, Munna bhai had radio (a mass media) as a tool. So a property issue can be solved by Gandhian methodology
2. In Khosla ka Ghosla, again there was a property issue. But this time, they did not had any mass media with them. Even police was against them. So, I was forced to doubt Gandhian philosophy.
3. I also read translation of a bengali novel named "ARJUN". In that too there was property dispute, finally solved by violence.
Now my trust on Gandhian philosophy was weakening. Even if we try to see hindu mythology, we find that its appropriate to use violence against evil people like ravana and kansa. But there have been religions like buddhism which inspire non-violence. Sometimes I used to look at nature to find that violence is a part of life, but then there are arguments that this is what makes humans different from animals.
I decided to read "My Experiments with Truth" by MK Gandhi. Till now I have only read a quarter of it. But I found something that solved almost every doubt in my mind. I found that Gandhi ji was against unnecessary acquisition of wealth and material. And non-violence was result of unconditional love.
So fighting over property is unnecessary according to Gandhian philosophy. I may be wrong here because this may be paradoxical to the concept of fighting for your rights. In fact I want to be wrong here, because I want to acquire some wealth and preserve it. And I also want to follow non-violence.
Based on my minuscule understanding of deep Gandihian philosophy, (which he says is easy to be followed by an innocent child) I have figured out solution to a problem. This problem is very common in our daily lives and I took up this problem because it sprouted in my discussion with my friend Saurabh Sharma.
Problem
You are going to some place by train (general compartment). So you arrive at station an hour before the scheduled time as you knew that getting tickets will take some time. As expected there is long queue for ticket. You stand in queue for 40 min to find yourself just 1 person next to ticket window. But a person with a strong built comes in front of you.
Now further course of action is dependent on your decision.
1. (As answered by Saurabh,a brave guy) You ask him to leave the queue. If he does then its great, otherwise he will have to fight you to rob you of your rights. Even if that means you get injuries, atleast you fought for your rights. You don't feel as a coward.
2. (What I usually do, cowardice) You ask him to leave the queue, politely (not lovingly). Some of the people at your back support you, they use their own methods to remove him from the queue. If their methods succeed then I succeed, otherwise I fail. But if you don't have any conscience or principles then this is the best method.
3. (What I think Gandhi ji would have done, keep in mind that gandhi ji unconditionally loves others, he places others interest above his own)
You lovingly ask the person the reason why he is in so much hurry. Suppose his reason for hurry is that he won't get ticket if he stands in 40 minute queue. Its his mistake, to be late. But you love him and the people behind you. You take the responsibility of his ticket and advise him to come earlier next time and never try to intrude into queue.
Now there are other cases. Suppose there is too much time left for train to come. So he says "how does it matters to you if one more person stands in front of you?". You say "It doesn't matters to me, but imagine what a chaos would be there if everyone starts to do so. So dear! please follow rules as they are meant for your convenience only." He replies "fuck off!!!". You still love him and people behind you. People behind you begin to shout at him. (However Gandhian philosophy is based on general goodness of mankind). Seeing all this drama, ticket officer decides not to give ticket to the INTRUDER. He calls you and gives you the ticket.
There can be many other cases, including a case when the intruder is truely needy, and a man like Gandhi ji would have sacrificed his own place in the queue for the comfort of the person and and others in the row.
But this was only one problem. There are many other problems in life which gives us options of non-violence, violence and cowardice. There are smaller and more unorganised versions of queues for example that for roti in mess. You can't go for satyagrah or fight someone for petite issue of breaking queue for getting roti earlier. Even though its your right.
With the concept of non-accumulation of wealth, some problems still ask for violence. Try replacing Lord Ram with Gandhi ji in a situation when Kasturba Gandhi has been abducted by Ravana. What do you think Gandhi ji would have done? Satyagrah?
Hunger strike? Yes, ofcourse Mata Sita was on a hunger strike after being kidnapped. But still a husband has his duties to perform. Since Gandhi ji was a follower of Bhagwad Gita. So I think he would have done his duties without caring about results. As he was kshatriya (on replacement with Rama)then his duty was to fight. So he would have fought.
When Gandhi ji said
bura mat dekho
bura mat suno
then I don't think he meant to close your eyes, or cover your ears. He must have meant to eliminate the "bura" if you see it or hear it.
Since being a gandhi requires non aquisition of wealth and self sacrifice beyond my capabilties. And Gandhian philosophy in my understanding can not solve all the problems of life, therfore I conclude that I can not be a Gandhi.
I can not be a Gandhi
I have been physically weak but mentally strong throughout my life, or atleast I believe so. But in the context, its worth mentioning that I am not brave. I am too concerned about "What people will say?". That's why I don't do things that are different from what people usually do.
Few years back I actually came to understand, the Gandhian philosophy. I was attracted. LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI gave some kind of public acceptance to the Gandhian philosophy. So, when I was working out solutions to some of the problems in Gandhian way, the movie motivated me to work harder as Gandhian followers were more socially acceptable(I told you I am not brave). But there were still questions in my mind, which may be called questions defining the border between "cowardliness" and "non-violence".
I pondered on the questions, I tried to find out the solutions of problems which arise in films:
1. In LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI, Munna bhai had radio (a mass media) as a tool. So a property issue can be solved by Gandhian methodology
2. In Khosla ka Ghosla, again there was a property issue. But this time, they did not had any mass media with them. Even police was against them. So, I was forced to doubt Gandhian philosophy.
3. I also read translation of a bengali novel named "ARJUN". In that too there was property dispute, finally solved by violence.
Now my trust on Gandhian philosophy was weakening. Even if we try to see hindu mythology, we find that its appropriate to use violence against evil people like ravana and kansa. But there have been religions like buddhism which inspire non-violence. Sometimes I used to look at nature to find that violence is a part of life, but then there are arguments that this is what makes humans different from animals.
I decided to read "My Experiments with Truth" by MK Gandhi. Till now I have only read a quarter of it. But I found something that solved almost every doubt in my mind. I found that Gandhi ji was against unnecessary acquisition of wealth and material. And non-violence was result of unconditional love.
So fighting over property is unnecessary according to Gandhian philosophy. I may be wrong here because this may be paradoxical to the concept of fighting for your rights. In fact I want to be wrong here, because I want to acquire some wealth and preserve it. And I also want to follow non-violence.
Based on my minuscule understanding of deep Gandihian philosophy, (which he says is easy to be followed by an innocent child) I have figured out solution to a problem. This problem is very common in our daily lives and I took up this problem because it sprouted in my discussion with my friend Saurabh Sharma.
Problem
You are going to some place by train (general compartment). So you arrive at station an hour before the scheduled time as you knew that getting tickets will take some time. As expected there is long queue for ticket. You stand in queue for 40 min to find yourself just 1 person next to ticket window. But a person with a strong built comes in front of you.
Now further course of action is dependent on your decision.
1. (As answered by Saurabh,a brave guy) You ask him to leave the queue. If he does then its great, otherwise he will have to fight you to rob you of your rights. Even if that means you get injuries, atleast you fought for your rights. You don't feel as a coward.
2. (What I usually do, cowardice) You ask him to leave the queue, politely (not lovingly). Some of the people at your back support you, they use their own methods to remove him from the queue. If their methods succeed then I succeed, otherwise I fail. But if you don't have any conscience or principles then this is the best method.
3. (What I think Gandhi ji would have done, keep in mind that gandhi ji unconditionally loves others, he places others interest above his own)
You lovingly ask the person the reason why he is in so much hurry. Suppose his reason for hurry is that he won't get ticket if he stands in 40 minute queue. Its his mistake, to be late. But you love him and the people behind you. You take the responsibility of his ticket and advise him to come earlier next time and never try to intrude into queue.
Now there are other cases. Suppose there is too much time left for train to come. So he says "how does it matters to you if one more person stands in front of you?". You say "It doesn't matters to me, but imagine what a chaos would be there if everyone starts to do so. So dear! please follow rules as they are meant for your convenience only." He replies "fuck off!!!". You still love him and people behind you. People behind you begin to shout at him. (However Gandhian philosophy is based on general goodness of mankind). Seeing all this drama, ticket officer decides not to give ticket to the INTRUDER. He calls you and gives you the ticket.
There can be many other cases, including a case when the intruder is truely needy, and a man like Gandhi ji would have sacrificed his own place in the queue for the comfort of the person and and others in the row.
But this was only one problem. There are many other problems in life which gives us options of non-violence, violence and cowardice. There are smaller and more unorganised versions of queues for example that for roti in mess. You can't go for satyagrah or fight someone for petite issue of breaking queue for getting roti earlier. Even though its your right.
With the concept of non-accumulation of wealth, some problems still ask for violence. Try replacing Lord Ram with Gandhi ji in a situation when Kasturba Gandhi has been abducted by Ravana. What do you think Gandhi ji would have done? Satyagrah?
Hunger strike? Yes, ofcourse Mata Sita was on a hunger strike after being kidnapped. But still a husband has his duties to perform. Since Gandhi ji was a follower of Bhagwad Gita. So I think he would have done his duties without caring about results. As he was kshatriya (on replacement with Rama)then his duty was to fight. So he would have fought.
When Gandhi ji said
bura mat dekho
bura mat suno
then I don't think he meant to close your eyes, or cover your ears. He must have meant to eliminate the "bura" if you see it or hear it.
Since being a gandhi requires non aquisition of wealth and self sacrifice beyond my capabilties. And Gandhian philosophy in my understanding can not solve all the problems of life, therfore I conclude that I can not be a Gandhi.
Few years back I actually came to understand, the Gandhian philosophy. I was attracted. LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI gave some kind of public acceptance to the Gandhian philosophy. So, when I was working out solutions to some of the problems in Gandhian way, the movie motivated me to work harder as Gandhian followers were more socially acceptable(I told you I am not brave). But there were still questions in my mind, which may be called questions defining the border between "cowardliness" and "non-violence".
I pondered on the questions, I tried to find out the solutions of problems which arise in films:
1. In LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI, Munna bhai had radio (a mass media) as a tool. So a property issue can be solved by Gandhian methodology
2. In Khosla ka Ghosla, again there was a property issue. But this time, they did not had any mass media with them. Even police was against them. So, I was forced to doubt Gandhian philosophy.
3. I also read translation of a bengali novel named "ARJUN". In that too there was property dispute, finally solved by violence.
Now my trust on Gandhian philosophy was weakening. Even if we try to see hindu mythology, we find that its appropriate to use violence against evil people like ravana and kansa. But there have been religions like buddhism which inspire non-violence. Sometimes I used to look at nature to find that violence is a part of life, but then there are arguments that this is what makes humans different from animals.
I decided to read "My Experiments with Truth" by MK Gandhi. Till now I have only read a quarter of it. But I found something that solved almost every doubt in my mind. I found that Gandhi ji was against unnecessary acquisition of wealth and material. And non-violence was result of unconditional love.
So fighting over property is unnecessary according to Gandhian philosophy. I may be wrong here because this may be paradoxical to the concept of fighting for your rights. In fact I want to be wrong here, because I want to acquire some wealth and preserve it. And I also want to follow non-violence.
Based on my minuscule understanding of deep Gandihian philosophy, (which he says is easy to be followed by an innocent child) I have figured out solution to a problem. This problem is very common in our daily lives and I took up this problem because it sprouted in my discussion with my friend Saurabh Sharma.
Problem
You are going to some place by train (general compartment). So you arrive at station an hour before the scheduled time as you knew that getting tickets will take some time. As expected there is long queue for ticket. You stand in queue for 40 min to find yourself just 1 person next to ticket window. But a person with a strong built comes in front of you.
Now further course of action is dependent on your decision.
1. (As answered by Saurabh,a brave guy) You ask him to leave the queue. If he does then its great, otherwise he will have to fight you to rob you of your rights. Even if that means you get injuries, atleast you fought for your rights. You don't feel as a coward.
2. (What I usually do, cowardice) You ask him to leave the queue, politely (not lovingly). Some of the people at your back support you, they use their own methods to remove him from the queue. If their methods succeed then I succeed, otherwise I fail. But if you don't have any conscience or principles then this is the best method.
3. (What I think Gandhi ji would have done, keep in mind that gandhi ji unconditionally loves others, he places others interest above his own)
You lovingly ask the person the reason why he is in so much hurry. Suppose his reason for hurry is that he won't get ticket if he stands in 40 minute queue. Its his mistake, to be late. But you love him and the people behind you. You take the responsibility of his ticket and advise him to come earlier next time and never try to intrude into queue.
Now there are other cases. Suppose there is too much time left for train to come. So he says "how does it matters to you if one more person stands in front of you?". You say "It doesn't matters to me, but imagine what a chaos would be there if everyone starts to do so. So dear! please follow rules as they are meant for your convenience only." He replies "fuck off!!!". You still love him and people behind you. People behind you begin to shout at him. (However Gandhian philosophy is based on general goodness of mankind). Seeing all this drama, ticket officer decides not to give ticket to the INTRUDER. He calls you and gives you the ticket.
There can be many other cases, including a case when the intruder is truely needy, and a man like Gandhi ji would have sacrificed his own place in the queue for the comfort of the person and and others in the row.
But this was only one problem. There are many other problems in life which gives us options of non-violence, violence and cowardice. There are smaller and more unorganised versions of queues for example that for roti in mess. You can't go for satyagrah or fight someone for petite issue of breaking queue for getting roti earlier. Even though its your right.
With the concept of non-accumulation of wealth, some problems still ask for violence. Try replacing Lord Ram with Gandhi ji in a situation when Kasturba Gandhi has been abducted by Ravana. What do you think Gandhi ji would have done? Satyagrah?
Hunger strike? Yes, ofcourse Mata Sita was on a hunger strike after being kidnapped. But still a husband has his duties to perform. Since Gandhi ji was a follower of Bhagwad Gita. So I think he would have done his duties without caring about results. As he was kshatriya (on replacement with Rama)then his duty was to fight. So he would have fought.
When Gandhi ji said
bura mat dekho
bura mat suno
then I don't think he meant to close your eyes, or cover your ears. He must have meant to eliminate the "bura" if you see it or hear it.
Since being a gandhi requires non aquisition of wealth and self sacrifice beyond my capabilties. And Gandhian philosophy in my understanding can not solve all the problems of life, therfore I conclude that I can not be a Gandhi.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Jaxtr: This is shit for Indians
Today I just received an invitation for joining "JAXTR" .
http://www.jaxtr.com
I joined to find out what it was. I got it- for Indians, its a shit like all other VOIP services ( except if you are interested in ISD calls).
From this link you can call me or TEXT ME
http://www.jaxtr.com/wecacuee
and this is called a JAXTR widget:
So I think I should brief you about jaxtr:
JAXTR
What's different
Using jaxtr you can call anyone with "jaxtr account" using your phone, not through your PC+headphone set.
Suppose vikas has a jaxtr account.
So you can call Vikas for "local charges only(=STD charges depending on your location)" from 44 countries in the world including India. But Vikas looses jaxtr credits (I don't care for that). If you also have a jaxtr account vikas do not looses credits at all :).
About SMS
There is a "TEXT ME" option. But in India that does not mean SMS. Because SMS service is not yet supported by JAXTR. If you text me, I get a mail :(.
In SMS supported countries you get an option on the account page.
Procedure for Calling me
1. When you press call me button, you have to give your phone no.
2. Then JAXTR calls you and gives you my new LOCAL NO. (And that local no. is of mumbai even if I live in delhi)
3. Then you can call me using that no.
One advantage
You can give your JAXTR link on any site without caring about spam calls. Because you can easily block the spam callers. And your original Phone number always remains hidden. But I find this advantage, advantageous only to girls. [/)]
This is what I think and know about JAXTR. I would like to see your views as comments
http://www.jaxtr.com
I joined to find out what it was. I got it- for Indians, its a shit like all other VOIP services ( except if you are interested in ISD calls).
From this link you can call me or TEXT ME
http://www.jaxtr.com/wecacuee
and this is called a JAXTR widget:
So I think I should brief you about jaxtr:
JAXTR
What's different
Using jaxtr you can call anyone with "jaxtr account" using your phone, not through your PC+headphone set.
Suppose vikas has a jaxtr account.
So you can call Vikas for "local charges only(=STD charges depending on your location)" from 44 countries in the world including India. But Vikas looses jaxtr credits (I don't care for that). If you also have a jaxtr account vikas do not looses credits at all :).
About SMS
There is a "TEXT ME" option. But in India that does not mean SMS. Because SMS service is not yet supported by JAXTR. If you text me, I get a mail :(.
In SMS supported countries you get an option on the account page.
Procedure for Calling me
1. When you press call me button, you have to give your phone no.
2. Then JAXTR calls you and gives you my new LOCAL NO. (And that local no. is of mumbai even if I live in delhi)
3. Then you can call me using that no.
One advantage
You can give your JAXTR link on any site without caring about spam calls. Because you can easily block the spam callers. And your original Phone number always remains hidden. But I find this advantage, advantageous only to girls. [/)]
This is what I think and know about JAXTR. I would like to see your views as comments
Jaxtr: This is shit for Indians
Today I just received an invitation for joining "JAXTR" .
http://www.jaxtr.com
I joined to find out what it was. I got it- for Indians, its a shit like all other VOIP services ( except if you are interested in ISD calls).
From this link you can call me or TEXT ME
http://www.jaxtr.com/wecacuee
and this is called a JAXTR widget:
So I think I should brief you about jaxtr:
JAXTR
What's different
Using jaxtr you can call anyone with "jaxtr account" using your phone, not through your PC+headphone set.
Suppose vikas has a jaxtr account.
So you can call Vikas for "local charges only(=STD charges depending on your location)" from 44 countries in the world including India. But Vikas looses jaxtr credits (I don't care for that). If you also have a jaxtr account vikas do not looses credits at all :).
About SMS
There is a "TEXT ME" option. But in India that does not mean SMS. Because SMS service is not yet supported by JAXTR. If you text me, I get a mail :(.
In SMS supported countries you get an option on the account page.
Procedure for Calling me
1. When you press call me button, you have to give your phone no.
2. Then JAXTR calls you and gives you my new LOCAL NO. (And that local no. is of mumbai even if I live in delhi)
3. Then you can call me using that no.
One advantage
You can give your JAXTR link on any site without caring about spam calls. Because you can easily block the spam callers. And your original Phone number always remains hidden. But I find this advantage, advantageous only to girls. [/)]
This is what I think and know about JAXTR. I would like to see your views as comments
http://www.jaxtr.com
I joined to find out what it was. I got it- for Indians, its a shit like all other VOIP services ( except if you are interested in ISD calls).
From this link you can call me or TEXT ME
http://www.jaxtr.com/wecacuee
and this is called a JAXTR widget:
So I think I should brief you about jaxtr:
JAXTR
What's different
Using jaxtr you can call anyone with "jaxtr account" using your phone, not through your PC+headphone set.
Suppose vikas has a jaxtr account.
So you can call Vikas for "local charges only(=STD charges depending on your location)" from 44 countries in the world including India. But Vikas looses jaxtr credits (I don't care for that). If you also have a jaxtr account vikas do not looses credits at all :).
About SMS
There is a "TEXT ME" option. But in India that does not mean SMS. Because SMS service is not yet supported by JAXTR. If you text me, I get a mail :(.
In SMS supported countries you get an option on the account page.
Procedure for Calling me
1. When you press call me button, you have to give your phone no.
2. Then JAXTR calls you and gives you my new LOCAL NO. (And that local no. is of mumbai even if I live in delhi)
3. Then you can call me using that no.
One advantage
You can give your JAXTR link on any site without caring about spam calls. Because you can easily block the spam callers. And your original Phone number always remains hidden. But I find this advantage, advantageous only to girls. [/)]
This is what I think and know about JAXTR. I would like to see your views as comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
