Traditional Food, FOOD COMBINATIONS, and its implications...

On several occasions discussions on food engage me with other people. I am a reformed non-vegetarian. I was a total meat lover, hard core non-vegetarian for quite a long time and suddenly, in college, I just did not want to put meat in my mouth. Eggs followed, and then followed most junk foods. Initially I was confused. Many times I ate despite not really wanting to, because I would be in some party that would have mostly junk food alone. Soon, my body started 'rejecting' foods (this should be elaborated, but perhaps in some other post) that are considered some where on a spectrum of 'tasty' to 'absolute essential' by most kids my age.

Finally I started to read about what was happening and why. It has greatly enhanced my understanding and I realised the importance of 'mindfulness' and why being aware of 'what we eat' is crucial for our system. 

I am not anti non-vegetarians. I would just like to encourage everyone to pay attention to the changes in their behaviour and on the behaviour of other meat eaters after consuming meat for several weeks. What we eat, we become. (ugh, THIS too needs elaboration...perhaps another post. I will try give scientific data in support)

This post is about this amazing video I bumped into. This video is by Drunvalo Melchizedek and is the crux of what I try to tell people. I HAVE noticed change and I URGE you all to start noticing. Some of you may even (spontaneously) feel the need for a diet reform. Mine occurred when I was 21. 

Good as new!

Doesn't it hurt to part ways with memories?
The good thing is, when it comes to "things", we can give those memories a make over!
oCheck out these pictures of how my family temple evolved and got saved from the terrible fate of getting discarded.


"No one would buy it, not even on olx" I was told...check it out now:

The Boy Who Lived

Fear drives us away from all that is true. Fear keeps us from ‘waking up’. One may argue that one is free from all fear, that, however, is more than often, untrue or partially correct, at best.

We all have fears.

Yes, at-least in some phase of our lives or some particular ‘area’ (talking specifics here, although no ‘area’ exists in separation), fear governs us. Psychologists can provide ample scientific jargon about the subconscious self. Here, I am trying to keep it simple.

Fear doesn’t mean the kind of ‘reaction’ we have to, say, a scary snake. The fear I am referring to here is not a reaction at all. It is, in fact, the cause behind our action. 

To give you a metaphor (please don’t hate me for picking this one :P) I request you to imagine the following:

The pure, innermost, deepest self is like a child. He is surrounded by certain ‘obstacles’ or ‘fears’. The fears prevent the child from acknowledging the truth.  

Even when wishful thinking or any other ‘spiritual trigger’ answers the “prayers” of that child by synchronicities (or, messages from the universe in the form of, say, intuition or dreams etc), the fear keeps the child from reading that message. Is this fear evil? This, however, is another question all together (and the answer is a big NO). 

The little child is surrounded by a tumultuous sea. There is no escape. For is overwhelming him. The child feels helpless and confused. He wonders. He thinks. He ‘dwells’.  

Ultimately, thankfully, the child makes a wish. Perhaps he doesn’t know how powerful that wish could be. Perhaps he lacks faith in his own self. Nonetheless, he wishes. He wishes and oh! There comes the gigantic answer that can single handedly counter the fear and reveal the truth like some data being downloaded. The child is reborn, figuratively. He learns what he really is. He is the boy who lived (past the fears that limited him) and he does great things in times to come. Yes, SUCH is the power of THOUGHTS and WISHES.

Now, I want you to stop the imagining and refer to ‘Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone’, Chapter 1, ‘The Boy who Lived’ .

Harry is the little boy, limited (and protected) by the fear (the Durseleys, of course). they are the obstacles. they do not want him to know the truth about his past or about his identity. In the divine right time,and perhaps by the virtue of wishes, Owls come as the sacred messengers from the “universe”, so to say. The Durseleys prevent Harry from reading the message. Ultimately, Harry is on the island on his 11th birthday. He is surrounded by the Durseleys (his obstacles/ fear). The rain slashes and the weather is stormy. Harry draws a cake on the ground, complete with candles. He blows the candle and makes a wish when the door breaks and Hagrid walks in. The rest of the story we all know.

Who is ‘the boy who lived’? Is he Harry the infant who survived Voldemort’s dark spell? Well in another sense, it is the inner ‘Harry’ who faced the ‘Durseleys’ and learned the truth. THAT, in essence, is the boy who lived.

THE PLANK

Ask yourself “Who am I?”

No, I mean it. Close your eyes, take three deep breaths, and actually ask this question.

Target this question to the soul that you are and to the ether from which you are derived. 

Ask verbally if you will, or ask from your heart’s voice, if you know what I mean.

Seek answers in whichever form it most easily comes to you: a thought, a revelation, maybe an image.

Try understand what the answer meant.

Too often we are busy figuring out our identities as a human being. Way too often.

It isn’t incorrect, in fact it is relevant, in ways.

However, only as long as our identity as a human leads us to question our identity as a spirit.

If you are wishful enough, perhaps you shall find that identity.

Imagine all your life you were a large plank. You were in a wilderness, a polished piece of wood, beautiful in its craftsmanship, among the different

(and differently beautiful) wilderness around you. You spend several years as a plank, trying to be the best plank, the most loved plank or the like.

You see people struggling with their issues, with identity crisis, with ailments, with queries: with the quest.

You wonder why your life is perfect. Or, you wonder similarly: ‘Why am I a plank? How do I become a better plank? I wish to be a plank that saves people from drowning in the sea’ Oh yes, you could be very caring, very spiritual and very certain.

All set and done, you are a plank. Yes, you are certain.

But, then, one fine day, someone decides to raise a wall in the middle of your perfect wilderness. They pick you up and install you on the wall, viola! Now you are a DOOR! “What!”, you wonder, “all this while I was so sure I WAS a plank, but no! Turns out I am a door!” THAT is a whole new DIMENSION. It is something you couldn’t have imagined. You imagined all greatness as a plank. Perhaps you even imagined one day you would become a golden plank, or a famous plank. But no, not anymore. You have, so to say, evolved into something from where there is no going back. You are in what they call ‘a new dimension’. Suddenly, you are a door.

But what else changes? Well, a plank, a lower dimensional being, has a ‘function’, a door, on the other hand, has a ‘relevance’. A door is interdependent on the wall. What’s a door without a wall but a fallen angel!

So now you are a door. You have a wall you are fixed to. you lead people into a room where they find shade and comfort. You lead people into protection and joy. You not just have a ‘function’ you are ‘relevant’ to all existence (well you ALWAYS were, but now you SEE IT).

To al those who have metamorphosed into a Door, congratulations. To all the planks out there, perhaps this article is a door of sorts! (Do you see what I am saying?)

Anyway, there are points to ponder and dimensions to seek.

What shall happen if some day that wall is fell?

You can’t be a plank anymore because you know you are more than that. You can’t, however, be a door, standing in the middle of the wilderness, opening from no where to no where! A door is nothing without a wall, who is nothing without 'a something' that it demarcates. Thus I would say EACH ONE of us is interdependent on each one of us, it is only a matter of which dimension we are in, that we perceive the level of interdependence. And the aim is to be ONE with all, i.e. when all of us realise we are all deeply and intricately, ONE. Who knows unto which tenth dimension we need to be ‘awakened’ to, to achieve it. That isn’t something we need to bother about, however. What we do need to dwell upon is “what/who is the wall for you next evolution.”

Good luck!

FROM PARIS, WITH LOVE

The Story of Carbon Emission and What we are Upto:

Content:

Introduction:

• World bank data on CO2 emissions, nation wise
• Absolute and Per-capita GHG emission

Outcomes of COP 21

• The Plan
• Comparison with Kyoto Protocol of 1997
• The Paris agreement
• Differentiation
• Mitigation
• Stocktake
• Implementation
• The good news for small island nations
• "Double trigger" entry

INTRODUCTION:

We, as a people of the Earth, are getting increasingly concerned about our footprints on our planet. I mean Carbon Footprint. This is the first reason why I would say we need to smile and be optimistic. Being aware of an issue is the first step in solving it.
However, before we move on to discussing COP21 and its outcome, I would like to clarify, for those who believe otherwise, why the situation of India is not as grim as loosely portrayed.

Here is some data on the contributions of various nations towards global CO2 emissions:

( Source:http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC )

Now why we still need to worry is because the world does not work in isolation and because adding GHGs to the environment will affect us all, equally, eventually (not talking about economics here)
Also, India,as a nation, still bags a place in the top ten highest emitters of GHGs as seen from this data:





Now, this reflects the ABSOLUTE GHG emission. A more scientific approach would be to see the same in terms of per capita:


As we can see from this chart, India's per capita GHG emission is much lower than the global average.








So yes, we need to worry. All the people all over the globe need to, in-fact. The good thing is, that is exactly what we have been doing: worrying and worrying productively.

The Conference of Parties-21, that happened last year in Paris is a reason to smile. As India signs the pact, I would like to present what the conclusions of the COP21 were, from their official document:
(Cut-pasted)

OUTCOMES OF COP21, December 12, 2015

(Source: http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/cop-21-paris-summary-02-2016-final.pdf )

Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached a landmark agreement on December 12 in Paris, charting a fundamentally new course in the two-decade-old global climate effort. 

the new treaty ends the strict differentiation between developed and developing countries 

common framework that commits all countries to put forward their best efforts 

This includes, for the first time, requirements that all parties report regularly on their emissions and implementation efforts 

The Plan:

• Reaffirm the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2 degrees Celsius, while urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees 
• Establish binding commitments by all parties
  to make “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs)
  
• Commit all countries to report regularly on their emissions and “progress made in implementing and achieving” their NDCs, and to undergo inter- national review
  
• NDCs every five years
  
• obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC to support the efforts of developing countries and voluntary contributions by developing countries 
• Extend the current goal of mobilising $100 billion a year in support by 2020 through 2025
  
• Require parties engaging in international emissions trading to avoid “double counting
  
• Call for a new mechanism, similar to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, enabling emission reductions in one country to be counted toward another country’s NDC
  

As Compared With the Kyoto Protocol:

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol took a more “top- down” but highly differentiated approach, establishing negotiated, binding emissions targets for developed countries, and no new commitments for developing countries. Because the United States did not join, and some countries that did set no targets beyond 2012, the protocol now covers less than 15 percent of global emissions. 

With the 2009 Copenhagen Accord and 2010 Cancún Agreements, parties established a parallel “bottom-up” framework, with countries undertaking national pledges for 2020 that represent political rather than legal commitments. This approach attracted much wider participation, including, for the first time, specific mitigation pledges by developing countries. However, countries’ pledges fell far short of the reductions needed to meet the goal set in Copenhagen and Cancún of keeping average warming below 2 degrees Celsius above pre- industrial levels. 

The negotiations toward a Paris agreement were launched with the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action adopted at COP 17 in 2011. The Durban Platform called for “a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed 

outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties,” to apply from 2020, but provided no further substantive guidance. 

COP 19 in Warsaw called on parties to submit “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs) well before the Paris conference, signalling an important bottom-up feature of the emerging agreement. Heading into Paris, more than 180 countries producing more than 90 percent of global emissions had submitted INDCs, a much broader response than many had anticipated. 

THE PARIS AGREEMENT 

In broad structure, the Paris Agreement reflects a “hybrid” approach blending bottom-up flexibility, to achieve broad participation, with top-down rules, to promote accountability and ambition. 

DIFFERENTIATION 

A crosscutting issue was how to reflect the UNFCCC’s principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” On the whole, the Paris Agreement represents a fundamental shift away from the categorical binary approach of the Kyoto Protocol toward more nuanced forms of differentiation, reflected differently in different provisions. 

The agreement includes references to developed and developing countries, stating in several places that the former should take the lead. But it notably makes no mention of the Annex I (developed) and non-Annex I (developing) categories contained in the UNFCCC. 

Many provisions establish common commitments while allowing flexibility to accommodate different national capacities and circumstances—either through self-differentiation, as implicit in the concept of nation- ally determined contributions, or through more detailed operational rules still to be developed. 

MITIGATION 

The Paris Agreement articulates two long-term emission goals: first, a peaking of emissions as soon as possible (with a recognition that it will take longer for developing countries); then, a goal of net greenhouse gas neutrality (expressed as “a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks”) in the second half of this century. The latter was an alternative to terms like “decarbonisation” and “climate neutrality” pushed by some parties. 

The core mitigation commitments are common to all parties, but there is some differentiation in the expectations set: developed countries “should” undertake absolute economy-wide reduction targets, while developing countries “are encouraged” to move toward economy- 

wide targets over time. In addition, developing countries are to receive support to implement their commitments. 

NDCs will be recorded in a public registry maintained by the UNFCCC secretariat 

STOCKTAKE  (5 year cycle)

“global stocktake” to assess collective progress toward meeting the agreement’s long-term goals. The first stocktake will take place in 2023. 

The highlight: Transparency, accountability, flexibility

All countries are required to submit emissions inventories and the “information necessary to track progress made in implementing and achieving” their NDCs. 

Information reported by countries on mitigation and support will undergo “expert technical review,” and each party must participate in “a facilitative, multilateral consideration of progress” 

IMPLEMENTATION/COMPLIANCE 

The agreement establishes a new mechanism to “facilitate implementation” and “promote compliance.” The mechanism—a committee of experts—is to be “facilitative” in nature and operate in a “non-adversarial and non-punitive” manner. It will report annually to the COP. 

The agreement commits developed countries to provide nance for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries (“in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention,” 

• LOSS AND DAMAGE
  In a victory for small island countries and other countries highly vulnerable to climate impacts, the agreement includes a free-standing provision extending the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage.
  The mechanism, established as an interim body at COP 19, is charged with developing approaches to help vulnerable countries cope with unavoidable impacts, including extreme weather events and slow-onset events such as sea-level rise. Potential approaches include early warning systems and risk insurance.
  

The agreement establishes a “double trigger” for entry-into-force: it requires approval by at least 55 countries accounting for at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. 

COP 22 is set for November 7-18, 2016, in Marrakech, Morocco. 

India and France led 120 countries in announcing an Inter- national Solar Alliance supporting solar energy deployment in developing countries. More than 20 developed and developing countries launched Mission Innovation, pledging to double public investment in clean energy research and development over five years. 

Microsoft founder Bill Gates and 27 other major investors in 10 countries launched the Breakthrough Energy Coalition to steer more private capital into clean energy deployment. And at a side summit hosted by Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, the Compact of Mayors declared that the collective commitments of more than 360 cities will deliver over half of the world’s potential urban emission reductions by 2020. 

From the Bhagwad

(Disclaimer: I haven't written this.)

There is an important distinction between effectiveness and efficiency in managing.
Effectiveness is doing the right things and  efficiency is doing things right.

The general principles of effective management can be applied in every fields the differences being mainly in the application than in principles. Again, effective management is not limited in its application only to business or industrial enterprises but to all organisations where the aim is to reach a given goal through a Chief Executive or a Manager with the help of a group of workers.

The Manager's functions can be briefly summed up as under :
Forming a vision and planning the strategy to realise such vision.
Cultivating the art of leadership
Establishing the institutional excellence and building an innovative organisation.
Developing human resources.
Team building and teamwork
Delegation, motivation, and communication and 
Reviewing performance and taking corrective steps whenever called for.

Thus Management is a process in search of excellence to align people and get them committed to work for a common goal to the maximum social benefit.

The critical question in every Manager's mind is how to be effective in his job. The answer to this fundamental question is found in the Bhagavad Gita which repeatedly proclaims that 'you try to manage yourself'. The reason is that unless the Manager reaches a level of excellence and effectiveness that sets him apart from the others whom he is managing, he will be merely a face in the crowd and not an achiever.

Management deals with the problems at superficial, material, external and peripheral levels, the ideas contained in the Bhagavad Gita tackle the issues from the grass roots level of human thinking because once the basic thinking of man is improved it will automatically enhance the quality of his actions and their results. 

The management thoughts emanating from the Western countries are based mostly on the lure for materialism and a perennial thirst for profit irrespective of the quality of the means adopted to achieve that goal. This phenomenon has its source in abundance in the West particularly the U.S.A. Management by materialism caught the fancy of all the countries the world over,India being no exception to this trend. 

The modern technique of management places most reliance on the worker (which includes Managers also) -to make him more efficient, to increase his productivity. They pay him more so that he may work more, produce more, sell more and will stick to the organisation without looking for alternatives. The sole aim of extracting better and more work from him is for improving the bottom-line of the enterprise. Worker has become a hireable commodity, which can be used, replaced and discarded at will.

The workers have also seen through the game plan of their paymasters who have reduced them to the state of a mercantile product. They changed their attitude to work and started adopting such measures as uncalled for strikes, Gheraos, sit-ins, dharnas, go-slows, work-to-rule etc to get maximum benefit for themselves from the organisations without caring the least for the adverse impact that such coercive methods will cause to the society at large.

Thus we have reached a situation where management and workers have become separate and contradictory entities wherein their approaches are different and interests are conflicting. There is no common goal or understanding which predictably leads to constant suspicion, friction, disillusions and mistrust because of working at cross purposes. The absence of human values and erosion of human touch in the organisational structure resulted in a permanent crisis of confidence.

The western management thoughts although acquired prosperity to some for some time has absolutely failed in their aim to ensure betterment of individual life and social welfare. It has remained by and large a soulless management edifice and an oasis of plenty for a chosen few in the midst of poor quality of life to many.

The popular verse 2.47 of the Gita advises non- attachment to the fruits or results of actions performed in the course of one's duty. Dedicated work has to mean 'work for the sake of work'. If we are always calculating the date of promotion for putting in our efforts, then such work cannot be commitment oriented causing excellence in the results but it will be promotion oriented resulting in inevitable disappointments.

So, the Gita tells us not to mortgage the present commitment to an uncertain future.

ATTITUDE TOWARDS WORK 

Three stone-cutters were engaged in erecting a temple. As usual a H.R.D. Consultant asked them what they were doing. The response of the three workers to this innocent-looking question is illuminating. 

'I am a poor man. I have to maintain my family. I am making a living here,' said the first stone-cutter with a dejected face. 

'Well, I work because I want to show that I am the best stone-cutter in the country,' said the second one with a sense of pride. 

'Oh, I want to build the most beautiful temple in the country,' said the third one with a visionary gleam. 

Their jobs were identical but their perspectives were different. What Gita tells us is to develop the visionary perspective in the work we do. It tells us to develop a sense of larger vision in one's work for the common good. 

Some people argue that being unattached to the consequences of one's action would make one un-accountable.

Bhagavad Gita is full of advice on the theory of cause and effect, making the doer responsible for the consequences of his deeds.
The Gita, while advising detachment from the avarice of selfish gains by discharging one's accepted duty, does not absolve anybody of the consequences arising from discharge of his responsibilities. 

It is the common experience that the spirit of grievances from the clerk to the Director is identical and only their scales and composition vary. It should have been that once the lower-order needs are more than satisfied, the Director should have no problem in optimising his contribution to the organisation. But more often than not, it does not happen like that; the eagle soars high but keeps its eyes firmly fixed on the dead animal below. On the contrary a lowly paid school teacher, a self-employed artisan, ordinary artistes demonstrate higher levels of self- realization despite poor satisfaction of their lower- order needs. 

This situation is explained by the theory of Self-transcendence or Self-realisation propounded in the Gita. Self-transcendence is overcoming insuperable obstacles in one's path.

It involves:

Renouncing egoism,
Putting others before oneself,
Team work,
Dignity,
Sharing,
Co-operation,
Harmony,
Trust,
Sacrificing lower needs for higher goals,
Seeing others in you and yourself in others etc.

The portrait of a self-realising person is that he is a man who aims at his own position and underrates everything else.

On the other hand the Self-transcenders are the visionaries and innovators. Their resolute efforts enable them to achieve the apparently impossible. They overcome all barriers to reach their goal.

The work must be done with detachment.' This is because it is the Ego which spoils the work. If this is not the backbone of the Theory of Motivation which the modern scholars talk about what else is it? I would say that this is not merely a theory of Motivation but it is a theory of Inspiration. 

It is on the basis of the holistic vision that Indians have developed the work-ethos of life.
They found that all work irrespective of its nature have to be directed towards a single purpose that is the manifestation of essential divinity in man by working for the good of all beings -lokasangraha.

This vision was presented to us in the very first mantra of lsopanishad which says that whatever exists in the Universe is enveloped by God. How shall we enjoy this life then, if all are one? The answer it provides is enjoy and strengthen life by sacrificing your selfishness by not coveting other's wealth.

It is in this light that the counsel 'yogah karmasu kausalam' should be understood.
Kausalam means skill or method or technique of work which is an indispensable component of work ethic.

Yogah is defined in the Gita itself as 'samatvam yogah uchyate' meaning unchanging equipoise of mind.

Tilak tells us that performing actions with the special device of an equable mind is Yoga.

By making the equable mind as the bed-rock of all actions Gita evolved the goal of unification of work ethic with ethics in work, for without ethical process no mind can attain equipoise.

Insights - Lao Tzu

EMPATHY

More than often, a lot of us judge. Is it wrong to be judgemental? Well, if we categorise judgemental approach as good or bad, it itself becomes judgemental! Don't you think!

The human self has the learning ability that works on the principle of duality. Duality, while the apparent truth, is seem as one by the enlightened: like the two sides of the same coin.

'You don't walk in my shoes so don't judge my walk'... This is infact the truth. Each one of us comes into the material world with the purpose of learning something. This learning may also come via the cause-effect relationship (as symbolised by the 'lotus' in Hinduism and Buddhism) of the Karmic baggage.

The point is, none of us can possibly be harmed if we have an attitude of compassion (read, Love) towards everyone, human or not. From compassion comes the ability to accept. From acceptance, we see ourselves in everyone and the false boundaries of 'individuality' are blurred. This leads to the feeling of oneness: belongingness to one giant organism: the living, breathing, Earth (or perhaps the entire cosmos). From 'oneness' comes 'empathy' and from 'empathy', we HEAL.

Let us all try and be healers to those whose lives we touch.

Namasté

7 Chakras in Brief