Skip to main content

Better to be Jack of all than master of one

 1. Let us suppose that the objective of the human life (at least brain) is to seek and find the truth. Everything is from truth and everything rest on truth. Now, let us assume that 5 fields of knowledge get established in any society to achieve the maximum social welfare and also individual perfection. 

2. As the maximum social welfare is possible only upon getting truth established in the society or getting as near as possible, all field has equal value. Hence, chance of getting near truth is 1/5 or 20% in each field. 

3. Now assume that there is waste of time in learning any particular field, i.e. when desired by any individual or society, they can learn all fields or more than one fields. 

4. Suppose, X mastered one field say Physics, i.e. 99.99%(use 100% for calculation) of the available things get studied by X. Whereas, Y studied 2 fields say Physics and Law and mastered 80% of each field. Here X gets the objective fulfilled by 100%*20%=20% and Y does so by 80%*20%*2=32%. 

5. Hence, mastering one field is not appropriate for those who wish to Lead own life and especially that of country or society. (It is obvious that given unlimited time, it is better to master every field to get knowledge to reach the truth. )

Note:

Truth means that one ultimate truth by which everything else. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hindu Jurisprudence- Smriti And some property law

I just don’t have the energy to write against the popular teaching (perhaps I have read the wrong books) that Hindu jurisprudence is contained within the Smriti, mainly the Manusmriti, and the property systems of the two schools — Mitakshara and Dayabhaga (I forget which region each school belongs to). But these are laws, not jurisprudence. I admit I do not know the subject of jurisprudence deeply — such a tragedy — but it seems to me these were laws made for the time and place according to the wisdom of the sages of that era. The Smriti writers themselves clearly said that the source of their understanding is the Veda. So, anyone who wants to understand exactly what truth Hindus hold must study the Vedas. Those who cannot may go through the Upanishads (major texts distilled by sages to teach the essence of the Jñāna part of the Veda). Those who still find that difficult may turn to the Mahabharata (which is in itself a “great battle” to understand), or they may study Mīmāṁsā, Nyāya-śā...

Sabda Bramha-Words are everything

They say Om is Sabda Bramha Vayu is Pratakshya Bramha I(Aatma) am Bramha I am the essence Sounds and letters ignite the mind They are capable of saying new things to mind Though not against Rit of the Bramhanda But they dont repeat they enlighten If that word be Om or Ram or Radha or Radhe or Bramha or Agni or Indra or Savita or ... No joy can match the joy of Naam Jap When emotion is so strong it lost itself in Mother then words may loose themselves But words no matter what are capable of carrying what is forgotten and what will one become etc. Title may demand more explanation - -- - -- - -- -

Dharma - Nyaya

(To clear my thought process ) Dharma is that which bears, that which provides stability to a thing, a person, or a nation in motion. Nyaya is specific to the individual; A person who abides in Dharma may still be affected by the Adharma of another who fails to uphold it then the State/Society must inject Nyaya to tha specific person or group or even state. Jurisprudence (in my limited understanding and information ) could not ditinguish between these two concepts and confused it with morale, divine rule, command, society, economics etc. These two are related, but Dharma is what guides the Naya but here it has nothing to do with legal system, it is independent and move with truth, whereas Naya alone requires legal system. Hence, Jurisprudence has long divorced its essence of Dharma (somehow natural school using reason could hover around truth) and focus on legal system alone. ..................