Book Review: An Atheist Gets the Gita

Authors: Rahul Singh and Galyna Kogut

Rating: 3/5

Premise: ‘Will this make us happy?’ A business meeting where this rather unusual phrase is spoken piques the curiosity of Anweshak Jigyanshu, a fresh IIM MBA working in a Singapore investment bank. Should happiness be the goal of business? Curious to know more about the person who said those words, he manages a breakfast invitation at his place, which spills over to the evening. Over the course of the day, Anweshak is introduced to the ancient Hindu text of Bhagavad Gita, how it acts as a guide to happiness, and what are other lessons can be learnt from it. Anweshak, being an atheist, is hesitant at first. As the hours progress, he becomes more responsive to the arguments.

Review: A lot is said about the knowledge hidden in Bhagavad Gita. A common claim is that the book is not religious but a guide to life. The knowledge it offers is universal and can benefit each person on Earth. Is that really the case? ‘An Atheist Gets the Gita’ tries to answer these questions. Does it succeed?

The Indian philosophical system is not monolithic. It contains numerous texts. The Bhagavad Gita itself is a part of the larger Mahabharata. And there are countless other texts that go by monikers like Upanishads, Puranas, Vedas, and many more. The historical origins of some of them have been found (e.g. the works of Adi Shankara, who was a bonafide historical figure), while others remain mystical at best. In all this, one detail remains- the texts are both internally and externally inconsistent. They do not add up. The books are full of contradicting information. For example, while the Bhagavad Gita says that lust is the gateway to hell, other depictions of Krishna talk about his numerous wives. In all likelihood, the books were not written by a single person. They were written by different people who added to the existing story, at times basing them on real people they knew. Trying to pass mythological texts as historical facts is a process of going down a deep rabbit hole.

Any religion or belief system comprises three aspects- Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics. Epistemology means the relation between the observer and the observed- in other words, it is all about knowledge. Ethics talks about the proper conduct to follow. And Metaphysics is about explaining the origin of the Universe and life in its different parts. Even the various schools of Indian philosophy (Vedanta, Nyay, Sankhya, Vaisheiskha, Mimamsa, and Yoga) differ on these three aspects. They differ because they consider some of the aforementioned texts as more important while completely negating others or interpreting texts according to their worldview. Even the Vedanta subschools (Acintya bheda abheda, Advaita, Bhedabheda, Dvaita, Nimbarka Sampradaya, Shuddhadvaita, Vishishtadvaita) differ considerably.

In such circumstances, trying to pass off any religious book as the ultimate guide leads to gross misrepresentations. Many knowledge points discussed in ‘The Atheist Gets the Gita’ were not from Bhagavad Gita but other texts like Shrimad Bhagavatam, Ramayana, Kathopnishad, and more. If you sift the relevant portions, they do contain snippets of wisdom.

The book by Rahul Singh and Galyna Kogut scores in one place- the detailed research done by the authors. Both scientific facts and mythological details are presented with great diligence. Some of the arguments are logical, especially those relating to epistemology (karma, atma, and so on) and ethics. The ones about metaphysics (age of Universe, concept of time) should not be included in a managerial take on the Gita. The book started with the question, ‘Will this make us happy?’ Does Gita contain points that can help one find happiness? Yes, it does. But a lot of that (especially the how) depends on the text’s interpretation, which varies according to the school one follows. Is Gita the ultimate book? Certainly no. Gita was written when the understanding of humanity was at a relatively nascent stage. There is a far greater understanding of how the mind works, which one won’t find in an ancient text like Gita. And will this book make an atheist into a believer? Or make someone who believes in something different into a strict follower of Gita? No.  

The Brand Is Not Enough

In the October of 2015, the world was witness to a movie titled 'Beast of No Nation'. An Africa set war-drama, this film had hopped across the festival circuit before finding a worldwide audience in that month and year. It was the start of something new. It was the first of its kind, a phenomenon that would become the mainstay of film buffs in pandemic times. It was the first Netflix original movie. Till a greater part of this century, Netflix was known as a shop to rent DVDs. Not many years had passed since it had started its internet streaming service, aided by the increasing ubiquitousness of high-speed internet. Netflix had already produced critically acclaimed web series like 'House of Cards', 'Orange Is the New Black', 'Daredevil', and more. But this was the first time the web platform was venturing into movie releases. Naturally, the film industry watched the development with keen interest. Some dismissed Netflix as a passing fad, others doubted its mainstream relevance, while some were really optimistic about it. As time showed, the people in the last category won the opinion war. Not just Netflix but many other OTT channels exist to bring original movies right to the device.

'Beast of No Nation' was directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, a Japanese American auteur whose credentials included some relatively unknown movies like 'Sin Nombre' and 'Jane Eyre'. It is ironic that the same person who started one phenomenon also ended another. He is the director of 'No Time to Die', the latest (and perhaps the last?) movie in the series featuring the debonair spy James Bond aka 007. At the end of the film, in a scene reminiscent of Iron Man in MCU, James Bond sacrifices himself to save the world. It wasn't just this scene that MCU inspired- the lead character's story arcs and the main villain's motivations are very similar in both cases. 

The key question remains- now that James Bond is dead, what should be done with such an iconic brand? The movies have existed since 1962, and the stories have existed since the early 1950s. The name James Bond (or just Bond as he prefers to be addressed) has so many connotations- it can mean an expert, a person confident in his field. It can also mean someone morally ambiguous yet with a heart of gold. Love Bond, hate him (and the movies), or even ignore- but no one can deny that the brand James Bond carries a lot of equity. Perhaps more than all the Netflix original movies combined. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the makers 'No Time to Die' chose to wait for more than a year for a theatrical release instead of an OTT release. Now that James Bond is no more, what should be done?

The positioning of James Bond got changed over the decades. While the original stories capitalized on the cold war frenzy, they were meant to be entertainers than profound discourses on international geopolitics. That was evident by the over-the-top and many times silly situations and villains that the films offered. Spectre stands for Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion! The actors changed, and the movies tried to explore contemporary themes. 'The Living Daylights' had a plot dealing with 'heroic' Afghan Mujahiddens- it looks absurd in hindsight, just like Rambo 3. With its theme of media interference in politics, 'Tomorrow Never Dies' especially stands out in this regard. Before the Craig era, no Bond film had a story arc- they could be mostly watched independently. That changed with the Daniel Crag starer 'Casino Royale' in 2006. With the subsequent movies released, the idea was to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. By the time 'No Time to Die' came out, people were interested in the fate of the characters, not just the action and the scenery- something akin to the 'Fast and Furious' series. The Craig starters were characterized by more relevant political themes and less in-your-face sexism. Even Bond had become woke like the rest of the world.

As the franchise celebrates 60 years in theatres, it has to take a call on what is next for the iconic brand. A complete reboot is an option but does that make sense in an era where the spy genre is crowded with movies in multiple languages? A likely route will be to continue with Nomi's character, played by Lashana Lynch, as 007. Taking a cue from other iconic British characters like Sherlock Holmes and Harry Potter, the franchise can also go for prequels, animated series, and video games (which already exist). Bond-themed merchandise stores and a museum are also worth considering. Whatever is the plan, things need to be done fast lest the franchise gets forgotten in these fast-changing times. Not even Bond has all the time in the world.

No Stars Are Born

 

‘Koi Hero Yahaan, Koi Zero Yahaan, Koi Star Hai, Koi Bekaar Hai’ – Song Lyrics from Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani.

The word ‘Star’ has a rather metaphorical connotation. Lie stars in the sky, their earthly counterparts represent a pinnacle that people aspire to be. Be it the performing arts, sports, or the different sciences- there are people celebrated for their stellar talent and accomplishments, thus earning them the title ‘star’. From Sachin Tendulkar to C.V. Raman, and from Shah Rukh Khan to J.R.D. Tata- all of them are/were stars in their respective fields.

This blog post attempts to dig deeper into the phenomenon of stardom. Where there are stars, there are fans. The following contemplation is applicable for almost every field except politics. As someone said, the day we become a fan of a politician, we have failed in our duties as a citizen.

Take any field and name three prominent people that immediately come to mind. Very high chances that those people have been around for a long time or are even deceased with their legacy living on. That is quite natural. Becoming a prominent ‘star’ requires years, even decades of consistent effort. But what about the stars of tomorrow? That is where things get tricky.

Call it is a diffusion of opportunities or any other name, it cannot be ignored that opportunities are now restricted to a select few. The OTT era has led to the presence of actors whose names are mostly unknown. The same is true for sports- the roster in national teams and club games has increased to never before numbers. Hardly any two tournaments have the same constituent of team members. And a replacement for someone is readily available. In the Indian context, there was a time when the names of the latest Olympic medalists (and all the current members of the Cricket team) were on everyone’s tongue tips. That is not the case now. The same is true for other fields- Chetan Bhagat is not the only writer of contemporary fiction now. At one time, Bollywood had four main male singers and two main female singers. No more now.

Let us come to the sciences- be it physical, biological, or social. In many fields, the main stuff has already been discovered and whatever is being done s only incremental. Such scientists attain prominence, but it is remains restricted to others their fields. There are fields where breakthroughs happen- like Prof. Sarah Gilbert’s team inventing the Astra Zeneca Covid vaccine. But there are so many others attempting the same or something similar. Such fame is usually short-lived. How many of us can recall the names of the Nobel Prize winners of this year, forget the preceding years? In the world of business, there are superstar businessmen. But such people are usually never free from controversies. And because of the diffusion of opportunities, either direct competition, substitutes, or even a disruption of the norm is never far away.

Stardom is not going to be the same as before. The Internet has led to a democratization of human activities- things are no longer enclosed in hallowed chambers. Unlike the lyrics of the song from Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani, no one is the best- at least not for long.

 

Can law be protected by breaking it?

"A license to kill is also a license not to kill"- Quote by M (Ralph Fiennes) in Spectre.

Law-enforcement is not an easy job. Very often, enforcement personnel have to collect evidence against suspects. Since obtaining a search warrant is a time-consuming process often involving judicial red-tape, the police use surreptitious methods to do the task done. And in doing so, they commit the crime of breaking-and-entering.

A more serious matter is that of encounter killings. These are killings by the Police that are not sanctioned by the judiciary. This was very useful in eliminating underworld gangsters in Mumbai and the dacoits in Chambal. But as expected, the encounter cops became too powerful for their own good. To have a better record than rivals in the department, some encounter cops started staging fake-encounters i.e. killing innocent people after framing them for crimes they had not committed. Worse, some cops were even found to indulge in supari killings (contract killings). The near elimination of organized crime had left a vacancy in people willing to kill for money. And who better than morally-compromised trigger happy encounter cops to fill the place?

In the global space, the world powers are known to commit heinous acts in the name of counter-terrorism. The War on Terror has caused the countless loss of life in the Middle East and Africa. A similar situation happened in Mexico and Columbia in the War on Drugs. The intelligence personnel were known to favour certain incumbents in the criminal trade. These wars certainly eliminated some terrorists and drug-cartels respectively. But did it curb the root problem or only made it worse? It dehumanized by desensitizing the local population to violence and only created resentment against the global peacekeeping process.

Gangsters and terrorists cannot be allowed to go scot-free. But what is the appropriate action against them? It is ethical for nations to indulge in preventive killings within their borders and in international territories? Who should have a licence to kill, and when? And should that person be of the stature of James Bond, or even the local constabulary should have that privilege?

As you sow, so shall you reap?

Literature in Psychology is full of concepts about thoughts, beliefs, and actions. How thoughts are created, what are their influences, how thoughts become beliefs, and beliefs guide our decision process- these are the pet domains of both academic scholars and motivational speakers. A so-called New-Age concept made famous by Rhonda Byrne- The Secret aka The Law of Attraction (LoA)- technically isn’t new age. Even before the famous book/movie, people have talked about it in different forms. In brief, for the very few people who are hearing it for the first time, this concept requires us to think (or focus) only on what we want to achieve. Not contradictory thoughts that go against our desires. That is because thoughts have energy, and energy resonates with like objects. Having the right thoughts creates the right energy that eventually comes true as a physical manifestation.

One may or may not agree with the metaphysical part. But there is no doubt about the fact that thoughts influence behaviour. And having the right thoughts may result in the person taking the appropriate action to achieve the result. Psychologists have even talked about priming, where not natural but artificially induced thoughts have caused people to alter their behaviour. In controlled experiments, different cues eliciting different emotions made people behave differently. In an experiment, making people hear words associated with old age (grey, wrinkle, bald, etc) is shown to slow their walking speeds in a particular corridor!

There is no doubt about the power of thoughts? But the question remains- does the LoA work? Can thoughts become things and can we really reap what we are thinking about? The following analogy may help. If we sow nightshade, there is no question about a harvest of mango fruits. But does sowing a mango plant always result in mango fruits? No- it also depends on soil nutrients, weather conditions, and even random or unaccounted factors. Even after there is a mango tree, there is no control on the number of mangoes harvested per year or for that matter, the sweetness of the fruits. And when the mangoes get harvested, there is no control on the market price! That is why the law of attraction does work at some times. One cannot and should not think only of the fruits- the constraints are important as well. Using another analogy, focusing only on the rose presents an incomplete picture- there are thorns as well. Needless to say, the concept of  LoA has been heavily abused in many contexts- like in the propagation of pyramid schemes, by gambling addicts, and in the execution of risky projects.

No psychological concept- whether academically rigorous or metaphysical- comes without caveats. Blanket generalization of any concept, whether in the physical, biological, or social sciences leads to errors, at times disastrous in nature. There is always a context. In many cases, the contexts are understood, like in Newton’s laws of Mechanics. Those apply to uniformly accelerated macroscopic bodies with velocities much less than that of light. In other cases, like the Law of Attraction, the dynamics are still unknown.

Is There an Invisible Hand?

 

The first Microeconomics concept that students study is that of the demand curve and supply curve. When the two curves meet, the market is in equilibrium. Consumers (the buyers) know how much they want and the price they are ready to pay. Producers (the sellers) know how much the consumer wants and the price they can get for it. And hence everyone ends up happy!

And how exactly do the consumers know the optimum quantity needed and the associated price? That is where the magic of the invisible hand comes. According to the founding father of modern economics, Adam Smith, the market forces make sure that the equilibrium point is achieved, whether through a series of iterations or trials-and-errors. For example, if the producer prices something too high, people will stop consuming it in the same quantities. Then the price would automatically come down. The opposite is also true. Market forces can be exerted by both consumers and producers.

We all know this does not work well in practice. Microeconomic theory has different explanations like imperfect markets, externalities, etc. Let us talk about one of them- information asymmetry. One side has more information than the other. More often, it is the seller who knows what exactly the product is, while the buyer does not. George Akerlof, who won the Economics Nobel Prize in 2001, gave the concept of Adverse Selection in his famous paper called ‘The Market For Lemons’. He described how not properly communicating the product quality to the consumers will make them suspicious that the product being sold is inferior. This leads to a vicious circle when they are not ready to pay a premium price because they suspect the product is inferior. Hence, the producer would only be ready to supply an inferior product from the range that can be offered.

Akerlof suggested that the two ways to counter this are Signalling and Screening. The producer can signal (or communicate) that the product is of superior standard through procedures like quality certificates, product reviews, and more. The consumers can screen the product for quality and find out what it really is. The problem comes when buyers do not have the knowledge or skills for screening, and the sellers are adept at sending false signals- catchy advertisements, misleading claims, and the other tools in their paraphernalia.

That is why free markets are a disaster in many cases like financial markets. No invisible hand works to ensure that the buyers get the right loan or insurance product. A free market is like traffic without traffic police. A strong regulatory framework is absolutely necessary to ensure that order is maintained. And we need bodies with authoritative powers to enforce them. So who will watch the watchmen? The same regulatory bodies can be selectively biased, which sets up conditions for institutionalized corruption. The best solution is to make the bodies autonomous, without any political interference. The appointments and promotions in the regulatory bodies should be done after ‘screening’ the candidates for integrity.

Of course, nothing in the world is perfect. But something is better than nothing. The markets cannot be left open at the mercy of sellers with ulterior motives. It is not always about wisdom- the public often does have complete information.