On a random whim, I had updated my LinkedIn profile a few years ago to -

I try to live by these axioms

1. 1.01³⁶⁵ = 37.78 (relates to the compounding nature of self-improvement efforts)
2. Keep your identity small
3. Fix more, whine less (borrowed from a t-shirt I had gotten as an intern at FB in 2011)
4. Focus on systems rather than goals

I deeply believe in all of these principles. However, there seems to be some overlap between them. Ideally axioms should be designed in a manner where there is no overlap. That allows a minimal set of axioms to define a life philosophy. Decision making is quicker if you have a small set of axioms to guide you. It’s akin to finding the eigenvectors of a matrix. Overlap suggests that there are more fundamental axioms that prop these principles up.

I’ve been mulling this over the recent past. Life axioms are a set of principles that can explain all actions in your life. They form the independent axes of your value system. I realized that I’ve updated my life axioms to the following.

1. Time is the only resource.
2. Information is the only currency.
3. Events are not good or bad — just information transactions.
4. Truth, internal and external, is the only way of life.

There is still some overlap between 1 and 2. So this is a work in progress (what isn’t really?).

If we model ourselves as machines, the input is time and the output is everything that adds value to the world. The efficiency of this machine is inversely proportional to the size of the Ego. The Ego is at the root of all hurdles. Death of the Ego maximizes efficiency. At the Vipassana, I learnt that the death of the Ego is synonymous with enlightenment. I also learnt a definition for enlightenment — it’s a state of complete equanimity (i.e. #3). From therein, sprouts a fountain of infinite love and compassion. Before the Vipassana, I thought that enlightenment was beyond the reach of the average human and was reserved for some special folks like the Buddha. After trying out the Vipassana technique, I believe deep inside that enlightenment is accessible to everyone. The technique just makes complete sense (more on that, later). In hindsight, I also realize that this was an example of the linear thinking that our brains are constrained by, that makes us think that things are out of our reach when most things are a few phase transitions away. Like imagine a block of ice at -20C thinking it’ll always remain solid doesn’t matter how much it increases its temperature, and getting validated in its belief all the way through -15C, -10C, -1C and then suddenly experiences a drastic change at 0C. And looks back and goes “oh that wasn’t that difficult”.

I attempt to live by these axioms but I often fail. Which is fine (see #3😉).

A combination of #1 and #2 means I try to ask a lot of open-ended questions. Sometimes I get so engrossed in this that I come across as interrogative — like I’m in a hurry to gather all information I can in the time I have. Then I have to remind myself to ease up lest I drive away the source of information.

3 means I almost always say yes to an event I haven’t experienced yet and try to zone in on situations that embarrass me and work towards getting to a point where they don’t embarrass me. Embarrassment is a great tool. I think it’s the tool I’ve leveraged the most in my personal battle against my Ego. It exposes insecurities. Insecurities are the building blocks of the Ego. Openness about insecurities weakens these blocks. I’ve been trying to do a lot of that. Openly talk about my weaknesses and insecurities. I think that works very well partly because people are more hesitant to leverage your weaknesses against you if you openly declare them. Lately, I’ve found some of my insecurities being supplanted by an egotic pride of having fewer insecurities. The Ego is a tricky bastard. I’m not sure what the solution for this is. I think it’s better to have one egotic aspect to deal with than multiple insecurities because then you can track better when your actions are being driven by that egotic aspect and prevent those actions from happening.

The hardest amongst these axioms has been #4. I have borrowed this axiom from this verse that Pramod introduced me to-

सत्यम ब्रूयात प्रियं ब्रूयात न ब्रूयात सत्यम अप्रियं |

प्रियं च नानृतं ब्रूयात एषधर्मः सनातनः ||

Speak truth in such a way that it should be pleasing to others.

Never speak truth, which is unpleasant to others.

Never speak untruth, which might be pleasant.

This is the path of eternal morality, sanatana dharma.

It’s insane how many times I’ve gone back to this verse or showed it to people.

I’ve been attempting a modification of step 1. Always speak truth that is pleasing to others which translates to giving sincere compliments whenever they occur to you.

Step 2 translates to not being mean. In terms of the axioms up above, I see it as a corollary of #2 and #3. People, who you are mean to, close themselves up to you. You may be truthful, but that truth won’t transmit if your receptor decides to shut the doors. Information transmission failures are a waste of time. Waste of time violates #1.

I’ve found Step 3 to be very difficult. At least in American or Indian culture where insincere praise seems to commonly fall under “being nice”. Perhaps the difficulty level of these steps varies depending upon what culture you’ve grown up in. I wonder if ease of getting to enlightenment also correspondingly varies.

I don’t fully understand the role Truth plays in the path to enlightenment. I do believe that Truth reduces overall cognitive load. You don’t have to maintain complex mental models of the realities you’ve painted in front of different people (eg. this is what my work colleagues know vs. this is what my friends know). So it likely contributes to your overall efficiency.

Footnote — these ideas have been borrowed from Naval Ravikant, Nicholas Nassim Taleb, Eckhart Tolle, SN Goenka, Scott Adams and some systems thinking books.