This paper deals with idea of mysticism represented in form of Buddhist Philosophy. I will be discussing the writings of Andrew Harvey and Pico Iyer. Both of them are commendable travel writers, they have extensively travelled and wrote about Buddhism. I will be comparing the writings of both and the way they looked at Buddhism and its philosophy for the welfare of people. A Journey in Ladakh by Andrew Harvey and Sun After Dark by Pico Iyer, both of them talk of about Buddhist dominant regions and its effect on people. The difference between the two is that, the writings of Andrew Harvey is more spiritual whereas Pico Iyer is more technical and political. Both of them express their special bond with India and its people. They talk about the peculiarities of people, the culture and cuisine.
AbstractRisk and resilience assessments for critical infrastructure focus on myriad objectives, from natural hazard evaluations to optimizing investments. Although research has started to characterize externalities associated with current or possible future states, incorporation of equity priorities at project inception is increasingly being recognized as critical for planning related activities. However, there is no standard methodology that guides development of equity‐informed quantitative approaches for infrastructure planning activities. To address this gap, we introduce a logic model that can be tailored to capture nuances about specific geographies and community priorities, effectively incorporating them into different mathematical approaches for quantitative risk assessments. Specifically, the logic model uses a graded, iterative approach to clarify specific equity objectives as well as inform the development of equations being used to support analysis. We demonstrate the utility of this framework using case studies spanning aviation fuel, produced water, and microgrid electricity infrastructures. For each case study, the use of the logic model helps clarify the ways that local priorities and infrastructure needs are used to drive the types of data and quantitative methodologies used in the respective analyses. The explicit consideration of methodological limitations (e.g., data mismatches) and stakeholder engagements serves to increase the transparency of the associated findings as well as effectively integrate community nuances (e.g., ownership of assets) into infrastructure assessments. Such integration will become increasingly important to ensure that planning activities (which occur throughout the lifecycle of the infrastructure projects) lead to long‐lasting solutions to meet both energy and sustainable development goals for communities.
