Lovely. In 2007, I created a framework that I called Tresonance or Transformational Resonance. I figured that we often look for our purpose but fail to find it because it is a lagging indicator. So we must search for and manifest the leading indicators. These are Thrill (what we are passionate about) and Skill (what we are naturally, spontaneously and effortlessly good at - our inborn talent). They first have to be uncovered or discovered. The next step is to find a drill, a choice of profession or vocation, in which both of these align. Once we do so, we attain a Tresonance, and what reveals to us is the divine Will, the purpose of our life. Those who are fans of the 4Ps of Kotler can call this Passion, Proficiency, Profession and Purpose. When we attain Tresonance, we feel fulfilled.
What a beautiful convergence. Thrill and Skill as leading indicators, Purpose as the revelation that follows. That's a more precise sequencing than I offer. Tresonance captures something my Three Ps leaves implicit: that purpose isn't something you find by looking for it directly. You find it by aligning what lights you up with what you're built for, and letting the meaning emerge. I'm glad these threads found each other here.
Thanks Mohan. And, interestingly, thrill and skill together is one's swabhav whilst the alignment of the three kind of leads to your swadharm. It was truly an epiphany for me to look back at my life and join the dots to create this framework which is nothing but swabhav-niyatan-karma, the pursuit of which leads to self purification and realization.
This is a beautifully constructed framework, and the multiplicative insight is the most important part, and also the most honest. So many career frameworks treat these elements as additive, which leads people to think they can compensate for a deficit in one area by doubling down on another. The multiplication model captures something true: a zero is a zero, no matter how strong the other factors are.
I’d push on one thing, though. The framework assumes these three pillars are relatively stable properties of a person in a role. But in practice, they’re deeply dynamic, and they interact with each other in ways that aren’t always intuitive.
Passion, for instance, often follows competence rather than preceding it. Cal Newport has written about this extensively, and it maps to experience: people frequently discover passion after getting good at something, not before. That has real implications for how you use this framework. If you’re early in a career and don’t feel the passion pillar yet, it may not mean the role is wrong. It may mean the performance pillar hasn’t matured enough to ignite it.
Purpose is similarly slippery. Parimal’s story is instructive here: the creativity wasn’t new, but the context that made it feel meaningful was. Purpose often isn’t found, it’s constructed, through the stories we tell about our work, the people we do it alongside, and the moments where we see our impact land.
That doesn’t diminish the framework. It actually makes it more useful as a diagnostic tool than a selection filter. Rather than asking “does this role have all three?” before you take it, the better question might be: “which of the three is currently the weakest, and is there a realistic path to strengthening it?”
Thank you for this. You are pushing the framework in exactly the right direction. The point about passion following competence rather than preceding it is well taken, and it's a genuine limitation in how I presented the model. Newport's argument maps to something I've seen with my former students. They are miserable in year two of a role become deeply engaged by year five, not because the role changed but because mastery changed their relationship to it. The framework as written treats passion as an input when it often behaves more like an output.
Your reframe of purpose as constructed rather than found is equally important. Parimal's story was meant to illustrate exactly that. The work hadn't changed, but the meaning he assigned to it had. I could have made that more explicit.
The diagnostic vs. selection filter distinction is the most useful thing you've added. You're right that asking "does this role have all three?" before taking it is often unanswerable. in fact, it may be the wrong question entirely. The better question is the one you've identified: which pillar is weakest, and is there a credible path to strengthening it?
Thank you for sharpening and deepening the framework. These are exactly the kinds of conversations I want to have on Substack.
For me, the dynamic nature also comes from the fact that your passion and proficiency (and here I may be referring more to my model of Tresonance, shared in the comment, so forgive me) keep evolving as the saw sharpens through application. And this, in turn, means different drills and a continuously evolving "higher" purpose being achieved, the ultimate perhaps being self-realization
Lovely. In 2007, I created a framework that I called Tresonance or Transformational Resonance. I figured that we often look for our purpose but fail to find it because it is a lagging indicator. So we must search for and manifest the leading indicators. These are Thrill (what we are passionate about) and Skill (what we are naturally, spontaneously and effortlessly good at - our inborn talent). They first have to be uncovered or discovered. The next step is to find a drill, a choice of profession or vocation, in which both of these align. Once we do so, we attain a Tresonance, and what reveals to us is the divine Will, the purpose of our life. Those who are fans of the 4Ps of Kotler can call this Passion, Proficiency, Profession and Purpose. When we attain Tresonance, we feel fulfilled.
What a beautiful convergence. Thrill and Skill as leading indicators, Purpose as the revelation that follows. That's a more precise sequencing than I offer. Tresonance captures something my Three Ps leaves implicit: that purpose isn't something you find by looking for it directly. You find it by aligning what lights you up with what you're built for, and letting the meaning emerge. I'm glad these threads found each other here.
Thanks Mohan. And, interestingly, thrill and skill together is one's swabhav whilst the alignment of the three kind of leads to your swadharm. It was truly an epiphany for me to look back at my life and join the dots to create this framework which is nothing but swabhav-niyatan-karma, the pursuit of which leads to self purification and realization.
This is a beautifully constructed framework, and the multiplicative insight is the most important part, and also the most honest. So many career frameworks treat these elements as additive, which leads people to think they can compensate for a deficit in one area by doubling down on another. The multiplication model captures something true: a zero is a zero, no matter how strong the other factors are.
I’d push on one thing, though. The framework assumes these three pillars are relatively stable properties of a person in a role. But in practice, they’re deeply dynamic, and they interact with each other in ways that aren’t always intuitive.
Passion, for instance, often follows competence rather than preceding it. Cal Newport has written about this extensively, and it maps to experience: people frequently discover passion after getting good at something, not before. That has real implications for how you use this framework. If you’re early in a career and don’t feel the passion pillar yet, it may not mean the role is wrong. It may mean the performance pillar hasn’t matured enough to ignite it.
Purpose is similarly slippery. Parimal’s story is instructive here: the creativity wasn’t new, but the context that made it feel meaningful was. Purpose often isn’t found, it’s constructed, through the stories we tell about our work, the people we do it alongside, and the moments where we see our impact land.
That doesn’t diminish the framework. It actually makes it more useful as a diagnostic tool than a selection filter. Rather than asking “does this role have all three?” before you take it, the better question might be: “which of the three is currently the weakest, and is there a realistic path to strengthening it?”
Thank you for this. You are pushing the framework in exactly the right direction. The point about passion following competence rather than preceding it is well taken, and it's a genuine limitation in how I presented the model. Newport's argument maps to something I've seen with my former students. They are miserable in year two of a role become deeply engaged by year five, not because the role changed but because mastery changed their relationship to it. The framework as written treats passion as an input when it often behaves more like an output.
Your reframe of purpose as constructed rather than found is equally important. Parimal's story was meant to illustrate exactly that. The work hadn't changed, but the meaning he assigned to it had. I could have made that more explicit.
The diagnostic vs. selection filter distinction is the most useful thing you've added. You're right that asking "does this role have all three?" before taking it is often unanswerable. in fact, it may be the wrong question entirely. The better question is the one you've identified: which pillar is weakest, and is there a credible path to strengthening it?
Thank you for sharpening and deepening the framework. These are exactly the kinds of conversations I want to have on Substack.
For me, the dynamic nature also comes from the fact that your passion and proficiency (and here I may be referring more to my model of Tresonance, shared in the comment, so forgive me) keep evolving as the saw sharpens through application. And this, in turn, means different drills and a continuously evolving "higher" purpose being achieved, the ultimate perhaps being self-realization