Thanks, Aishwarya. I really needed to hear this. Have you explored when/why something feels like an obsession vs devotion? Is it people specific—some people are more likely to be driven by obsessions? Is it rooted in childhood comfort stuff about feeling stupid? Would love to hear your thoughts!
This is an interesting perspective on doing things. If you were inspired by Hanuman Chalisa, I suggest you read the story about Swami Vivekanand and his discussion of this idea in the context of - a bee drinking honey by sitting at the periphery of the cup while the other bee just diving in the middle of the cup !
a little research: swami vivekananda used the metaphor of two bees—one cautiously sipping honey from the edge of a cup and the other diving directly into the middle—to illustrate different approaches to life and spirituality. the cautious bee represents mindful, deliberate action, savoring the sweetness without risk, while the diving bee symbolizes passionate but sometimes reckless immersion, often leading to entanglement. he emphasized the importance of balancing enthusiasm with wisdom, combining jnana (knowledge) and bhakti (devotion) to fully experience the richness of life and navigate its challenges effectively.
i find this deeply resonant and important. devotion feels like the anchor that keeps me going through the hardest times. while progress often requires action, noticing feedback loops, and making adjustments, i wonder if a certain depth of devotion simplifies all of that. maybe the doing—action, observation, and refinement—becomes almost secondary or flows naturally when our primary focus is devotion. it feels like our ultimate duty is to remain steadfastly devoted—service for the sake of service—and trust that the rest will take care of itself i.e., if we are devoted, we will do what's needed, including gain the correct jnana.
Thanks really Aishwarya, I have been thinking more on the lines of spirtiualism vs chasing aspirations. But probably your take of devotion makes more sense than viewing it as being spiritual. What do you think? I have been reciting hanuman chalisa everyday, and everyday some new line of the chalisa resonates more with me. Sometimes it is how his vidya/skills helps Lord Ram attain all his goals, and sometimes it is how he takes different forms/sizes depending on the situation.
i feel devotion inherently has a sense of respect toward the thing you're devoted to. obsession feels intrusive. devotion feels enthusiastic. geniuses failed their experiments all the time. their devotion to their subject(s) made them show up again and again with enthusiasm and loyalty. obsession emanates discomfort. devotees are at ease. they are present. they feel the fullness of all their subjects, whether that be physics, alchemy, or lord rama. they don't obsess. they are characterized by a sense of deep sacrifice. i explore a bit of this in an essay on ramanujan, who was also devoted to math precisely due to his spirituality with the goddess namagiri: https://www.aishwaryadoingthings.com/the-ramanujan-theory-of-genius
Once again, thanks Aishwarya. It seems we have more in common -- I have been reading Paul Grahams writings too recently. His writings are really thought provoking and many of his writings keep running in my mind for days and weeks until I get to the essence of what he is trying to say. Hence, I am taking my time and reading them. This one - The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius was not one I had read. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. It took me a while to ponder on both your writings.
Regarding the essay's on the Ramanujan Theory of Genius and Bus Ticket Theory of Genius, I am still a little at odds with what you mentioned. (I apologize for polluting the comments section of this essay on a discussion regarding another writing, however, I do not think I have the option to comment on the writings on your blog on aishwaryadoingthings).
Starting with the following lines from your essay, "He suggests a recipe for genius, the bus ticket theory: to have a disinterested obsession with something that matters. In other words, an impartial fixation on a subject of significance". I wouldn't replace the word 'disinterested' with 'impartial' in Paul Grahams writing. While impartiality implies being just, and having unbiased views, disinterested focuses on doing something beyond personal advantage. I believe we can be 'impartial', and yet gain personal advantages as a result of being impartial. For example a judge in a court -- revered for doing this job of making impartial decisions, and yet draws a salary on it too.
For this reason, I believe Paul Graham has been talking about "devoted obsession" when he says "disinterested obsession".
The second thing I am at odds with is the essense of what you say - Replace obsessions with devotion to become a genius. I would say - devotion mostly comes after obession. You cannot necessarily skip the obsession phase. It might sound controversial, but hear me through. You quoted "True devotion finds a way through obstacles and the ebb of energy". Which means, you work towards something despite it giving you pain, because you essentially find a sense of purpose attached to it. For some people their purpose is defined already for them -- lets say for example, by their guardians/parents. A child who chooses to become a doctor because his parents want him to, would also find his way due to his devotion to his parents and to his career in extension. In this case, the obession stage is skipped, because the child did not choose based on his internal interests. But I am not sure devotion leads to genius in such scenarios. He/she might be an extremely good doctor, but would you say a genius doctor? Note - in the examples we consider of Ramanujan or Einstien, genius is not just brilliance, it is achieving something no one else has.
I believe you inherently have certain obessions which intrude your thoughts initially. I agree that obessions in isolation are 'negative'. However, when you listen to these obessions, and attach it to a purpose greater than you - you are on the path to becoming a genius. In essence Ramanujan did the same, he refused to use his obession for math for his own materialistic gains. He would still have been impartial in this work had he taken it up. However, he only took it up when he could attach it to something more than him.
I agree with underlying message in your essay - Devotion is essential; without it, just obsession may likely become harmful. But I guess what I am trying to say is, Paul Graham was also essentially trying to explain the same - even in the connotation.
Thanks, Aishwarya. I really needed to hear this. Have you explored when/why something feels like an obsession vs devotion? Is it people specific—some people are more likely to be driven by obsessions? Is it rooted in childhood comfort stuff about feeling stupid? Would love to hear your thoughts!
i wrote a bit about it here: https://www.aishwaryadoingthings.com/the-ramanujan-theory-of-genius
let me know if it resonates!
Wow.
This is an interesting perspective on doing things. If you were inspired by Hanuman Chalisa, I suggest you read the story about Swami Vivekanand and his discussion of this idea in the context of - a bee drinking honey by sitting at the periphery of the cup while the other bee just diving in the middle of the cup !
Where can I find this discussion?
thanks, bonny and praan! this is so fascinating.
a little research: swami vivekananda used the metaphor of two bees—one cautiously sipping honey from the edge of a cup and the other diving directly into the middle—to illustrate different approaches to life and spirituality. the cautious bee represents mindful, deliberate action, savoring the sweetness without risk, while the diving bee symbolizes passionate but sometimes reckless immersion, often leading to entanglement. he emphasized the importance of balancing enthusiasm with wisdom, combining jnana (knowledge) and bhakti (devotion) to fully experience the richness of life and navigate its challenges effectively.
i find this deeply resonant and important. devotion feels like the anchor that keeps me going through the hardest times. while progress often requires action, noticing feedback loops, and making adjustments, i wonder if a certain depth of devotion simplifies all of that. maybe the doing—action, observation, and refinement—becomes almost secondary or flows naturally when our primary focus is devotion. it feels like our ultimate duty is to remain steadfastly devoted—service for the sake of service—and trust that the rest will take care of itself i.e., if we are devoted, we will do what's needed, including gain the correct jnana.
Oh Wow! I dont think it could have been explained better :).
Bonny Singh --- I have been meaning to read more on Swami Vivekanand's teachings too. Anything in particular you would recommend?
Thanks really Aishwarya, I have been thinking more on the lines of spirtiualism vs chasing aspirations. But probably your take of devotion makes more sense than viewing it as being spiritual. What do you think? I have been reciting hanuman chalisa everyday, and everyday some new line of the chalisa resonates more with me. Sometimes it is how his vidya/skills helps Lord Ram attain all his goals, and sometimes it is how he takes different forms/sizes depending on the situation.
i feel devotion inherently has a sense of respect toward the thing you're devoted to. obsession feels intrusive. devotion feels enthusiastic. geniuses failed their experiments all the time. their devotion to their subject(s) made them show up again and again with enthusiasm and loyalty. obsession emanates discomfort. devotees are at ease. they are present. they feel the fullness of all their subjects, whether that be physics, alchemy, or lord rama. they don't obsess. they are characterized by a sense of deep sacrifice. i explore a bit of this in an essay on ramanujan, who was also devoted to math precisely due to his spirituality with the goddess namagiri: https://www.aishwaryadoingthings.com/the-ramanujan-theory-of-genius
Once again, thanks Aishwarya. It seems we have more in common -- I have been reading Paul Grahams writings too recently. His writings are really thought provoking and many of his writings keep running in my mind for days and weeks until I get to the essence of what he is trying to say. Hence, I am taking my time and reading them. This one - The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius was not one I had read. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. It took me a while to ponder on both your writings.
Regarding the essay's on the Ramanujan Theory of Genius and Bus Ticket Theory of Genius, I am still a little at odds with what you mentioned. (I apologize for polluting the comments section of this essay on a discussion regarding another writing, however, I do not think I have the option to comment on the writings on your blog on aishwaryadoingthings).
Starting with the following lines from your essay, "He suggests a recipe for genius, the bus ticket theory: to have a disinterested obsession with something that matters. In other words, an impartial fixation on a subject of significance". I wouldn't replace the word 'disinterested' with 'impartial' in Paul Grahams writing. While impartiality implies being just, and having unbiased views, disinterested focuses on doing something beyond personal advantage. I believe we can be 'impartial', and yet gain personal advantages as a result of being impartial. For example a judge in a court -- revered for doing this job of making impartial decisions, and yet draws a salary on it too.
For this reason, I believe Paul Graham has been talking about "devoted obsession" when he says "disinterested obsession".
The second thing I am at odds with is the essense of what you say - Replace obsessions with devotion to become a genius. I would say - devotion mostly comes after obession. You cannot necessarily skip the obsession phase. It might sound controversial, but hear me through. You quoted "True devotion finds a way through obstacles and the ebb of energy". Which means, you work towards something despite it giving you pain, because you essentially find a sense of purpose attached to it. For some people their purpose is defined already for them -- lets say for example, by their guardians/parents. A child who chooses to become a doctor because his parents want him to, would also find his way due to his devotion to his parents and to his career in extension. In this case, the obession stage is skipped, because the child did not choose based on his internal interests. But I am not sure devotion leads to genius in such scenarios. He/she might be an extremely good doctor, but would you say a genius doctor? Note - in the examples we consider of Ramanujan or Einstien, genius is not just brilliance, it is achieving something no one else has.
I believe you inherently have certain obessions which intrude your thoughts initially. I agree that obessions in isolation are 'negative'. However, when you listen to these obessions, and attach it to a purpose greater than you - you are on the path to becoming a genius. In essence Ramanujan did the same, he refused to use his obession for math for his own materialistic gains. He would still have been impartial in this work had he taken it up. However, he only took it up when he could attach it to something more than him.
I agree with underlying message in your essay - Devotion is essential; without it, just obsession may likely become harmful. But I guess what I am trying to say is, Paul Graham was also essentially trying to explain the same - even in the connotation.
I have written an article as an iteration to Paul Graham's writing too - https://praanspages.substack.com/p/shower-thoughts . Hope you enjoy it :). Cheers!