What was the reason for Raja Shankara’s change in behaviour ? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. What was the reason for Raja Shankara’s change in behaviour ?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->WHICH IS THE BIRTH PLACE OF SRI SHANKARA....

QA->Which work of Adi Shankara expounds the Advaita Vedanta philosophy in the form of 580 verses in the Shardula Vikridita metre ?....

QA->Raja Raja Chola invaded Kerala in:....

QA->Who gave Raja Ram Mohan Roy the title "Raja""?....

QA->Which Indian-American, is among those who were honoured by the White House as ‘Champions of Change’, for her effort in protecting environment and communities from the effect of climate change?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it Certain words/phrases have printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the question.Once upon a time there lived a vicious king Raja Shankara short-tempered and temperamental “God I am” he said to his image as he started into the mirror everyday many times a day He was obsessed with himself He loved no one but himself He was blinded towards the injustice in his kingdom because he had little time for his subjects He wasted most of his time in pouring milk and honey over himself Interruption in his possessed life was dealt with stern reprimanding and sometimes on petty issues he would behead his servants Provoked by his evil advisor Twishar he went on with his self-indulged life unaware of the plot his very devoted advisor was planning.A plot to dethrone the king rule the kingdom with his wicked ways only to harness wealth and the reputation of a King. One morning the king was on his usual morning horseback rounds but returned to the palace with an intense look on his face.He locked himself inside his palatial room only to unlock it at sundown.Just as the doors cracked open and Raja Shankara emerged from it his wife rushed to embrace him. She feared a damaging incident had occurred. The King spoke seldom that day and awoke the next day to make a proclamation to his servants and subjects.The whole kingdom feared what was in store for them from their angry King.But to their surprise he said to all gathered.”From now on I will be a different kings.A softer and a patient king. True to his words from that day on the king had truly turned on a new leaf he cleaned out the corruption and injustice in a tender manner with punishments aimed to renew the person from within. One fine day his evil advisor gathered courage to ask the reason for his paradigm shift And the king answered.When I went on horseback that morning a month ago, I noticed a dog brutally chasing a cat,The cat managed to sneak into a hole only after the dog bit her leg,maiming her for life.Not far the barked at a farmer who picked up a sharp stone and hit it straight in the dog’s eye.Bleeding profusely the dog yelped in pain.As the farmer walked on he slipped on the edge of the road and broke his head. All this happened in a matter of minutes before me and then I realized that evil begets evil.I thought about it deeply and was ready to give up my worldly life for the betterment of my subjects I wanted to give up evil in me as I did not want evil to encounter me. Sniggering away the immoral advisor thought what a perfect time it was to dethrone the king because the Raja had grown kind hearted and patient and would not endeavour a combat.Thinking how he would plan his attack he stumbled over a step that took him hurling down the remaining steps bringing his stop with a crash He howled in pain only to discover he had broken the bones in both his legs.How can Raja Shankara be described before his transformation ? (A)He was unjust (B)He was preoccupied with himself (C)He was cruel....

MCQ-> Recently I spent several hours sitting under a tree in my garden with the social anthropologist William Ury, a Harvard University professor who specializes in the art of negotiation and wrote the bestselling book, Getting to Yes. He captivated me with his theory that tribalism protects people from their fear of rapid change. He explained that the pillars of tribalism that humans rely on for security would always counter any significant cultural or social change. In this way, he said, change is never allowed to happen too fast. Technology, for example, is a pillar of society. Ury believes that every time technology moves in a new or radical direction, another pillar such as religion or nationalism will grow stronger in effect, the traditional and familiar will assume greater importance to compensate for the new and untested. In this manner, human tribes avoid rapid change that leaves people insecure and frightened.But we have all heard that nothing is as permanent as change. Nothing is guaranteed. Pithy expressions, to be sure, but no more than cliches. As Ury says, people don’t live that way from day-to-day. On the contrary, they actively seek certainty and stability. They want to know they will be safe.Even so we scare ourselves constantly with the idea of change. An IBM CEO once said: ‘We only re-structure for a good reason, and if we haven’t re-structured in a while, that’s a good reason.’ We are scared that competitors, technology and the consumer will put us Out of business — so we have to change all the time just to stay alive. But if we asked our fathers and grandfathers, would they have said that they lived in a period of little change? Structure may not have changed much. It may just be the speed with which we do things.Change is over-rated, anyway, consider the automobile. It’s an especially valuable example, because the auto industry has spent tens of billions of dollars on research and product development in the last 100 years. Henry Ford’s first car had a metal chassis with an internal combustion, gasoline-powered engine, four wheels with rubber types, a foot operated clutch assembly and brake system, a steering wheel, and four seats, and it could safely do 1 8 miles per hour. A hundred years and tens of thousands of research hours later, we drive cars with a metal chassis with an internal combustion, gasoline-powered engine, four wheels with rubber tyres a foot operated clutch assembly and brake system, a steering wheel, four seats – and the average speed in London in 2001 was 17.5 miles per hour!That’s not a hell of a lot of return for the money. Ford evidently doesn’t have much to teach us about change. The fact that they’re still manufacturing cars is not proof that Ford Motor Co. is a sound organization, just proof that it takes very large companies to make cars in great quantities — making for an almost impregnable entry barrier.Fifty years after the development of the jet engine, planes are also little changed. They’ve grown bigger, wider and can carry more people. But those are incremental, largely cosmetic changes.Taken together, this lack of real change has come to man that in travel — whether driving or flying — time and technology have not combined to make things much better. The safety and design have of course accompanied the times and the new volume of cars and flights, but nothing of any significance has changed in the basic assumptions of the final product.At the same time, moving around in cars or aero-planes becomes less and less efficient all the time Not only has there been no great change, but also both forms of transport have deteriorated as more people clamour to use them. The same is true for telephones, which took over hundred years to become mobile or photographic film, which also required an entire century to change.The only explanation for this is anthropological. Once established in calcified organizations, humans do two things: sabotage changes that might render people dispensable, and ensure industry-wide emulation. In the 960s, German auto companies developed plans to scrap the entire combustion engine for an electrical design. (The same existed in the 1970s in Japan, and in the 1980s in France.) So for 40 years we might have been free of the wasteful and ludicrous dependence on fossil fuels. Why didn’t it go anywhere? Because auto executives understood pistons and carburettors, and would be loath to cannibalize their expertise, along with most of their factoriesAccording to the above passage, which of the following statements is true?
....

MCQ->What did Raja Shankara’s wife think about the Raja’s peculiar behaviour that particular day ?....

MCQ->What was the reason for Raja Shankara’s change in behaviour ?....

MCQ-> Directions : In the following questions, you have two brief passages with 5 questions in each passage, Read the passages carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives. PASSAGE -I Stuck with be development dilemma? Stay away from management courses. Seriously, one of the biggest complaints that organisations have about management courses is that they fail to impact the participants' on-the-job behaviour. Some management trainers stress the need for follow-up and reinforcement on the job. Some go so far as briefing the participants' managers on what behaviour they should be reinforcing back on the job. Others include a follow-up training day to review the progress of the participants. None of this is really going far enough. The real problem is that course promoters view development as something which primarily, takes place in a classroom. A course is an event and events are, by definition limited in time. When you talk about follow-up after a course, it is seen as a nice idea, but not as an essential part of the participants' development programme. Any rational, empowered individual should be able to take what has been learnt in a course and transfer it to the work place or so the argument goes. Another negative aspect of the course mindset is that, primarily, development is thought to be about skill-acquisition. So, it is felt that the distinction between taking the course and behaving differently in the work place parallels the distinction between skill-acquisition and skill-application. But can such a sharp distinction be maintained ? Skills are really acquired only in the context of applying them on the job, finding them effective and therefore, reinforcing them. The problem with courses is that they are events, while development is an on-going process which, involves, within a complex environment, continual interaction, regular feedback and adjustment. As we tend to equate development with a one-off event, it is difficult to get seriously motivated about the follow-up. Anyone paying for a course tends to look at follow-up as an unnecessary and rather costly frill. PASSAGE II One may look at life, events, society, history, in another way. A way which might, at a stretch, be described as the Gandhian way, though it may be from times before Mahatma Gandhi came on the scene. The Gandhian reaction to all the grim poverty, squalor and degradation of the human being would approximate to effort at self-change and self-improvement, to a regime of living regulated by discipline from within. To change society, the individual must first change himself. In this way of looking at life and society, words too begin to mean differently. Revolution, for instance, is a term frequently used, but not always in the sense it has been in the lexicon of the militant. So also with words like peace and struggle. Even society may mean differently, being some kind of organic entity for the militant, and more or less a sum of individuals for the Gandhian. There is yet another way, which might, for want of a better description, be called the mystic. The mystic's perspective measures these concerns that transcend political ambition and the dynamism of the reformer, whether he be militant or Gandhian. The mystic measures the terror of not knowing the remorseless march of time:he seeks to know what was before birth, what comes after death. The continuous presence of death, of the consciousness of death, sets his priorities. and values: militants and Gandhians kings and prophets must leave all that they have built:all that they have un-built and depart when messengers of the buffalo-riding Yama come out of the shadows. Water will to water, dust to dust. Think of impermanence. Everything passes.What is the passage about?
....