Marxism and the Gita

Fewer pairs of topics will seem to be more radically different than the atheistic philosophy of Marxism and the theistic philosophy of the Bhagavat-Gita. But there are some similarities underneath the turbulent surface of differences.

Some of these similarities (based on my crude understanding) may be listed below:

• Marx's theory bases itself on the equality of mankind; the Gita bases itself on the oneness of mankind.
• Marxism deals with two fundamental classes: the exploited and the exploiter. The Gita deals with two fundamental natures: the divine and the demoniac.
• Marx's theory of a total revolution when there is increasing exploitation also corresponds with the Gita's theory of a total change when there is a decline of righteousness.
• Marx says: "Workers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains." Lord Krishna says [phrasing changed]: "Abandon all fear and doubt and come unto Me! You have nothing to lose but your sins."
• Just as Marxism never clearly describes how a communist state would function, the Gita also never clearly describes how a righteous world would be like. There is no surprise in this: Marxism and the Gita are concerned how we function in the present, and not the description of an ideal future.
• The above-mentioned gap has been sought to be filled by other sources in both cases. In the case of Marxism, other communist scholars have done the job, in the case of the Gita, other Vedas and Puranas do the job.
• Marxist philosophy was succeeded by many communist movements which deviated from the original philosophy while retaining the name; the Gita's teachings were also conditionally interpreted to give rise to a number of religious movements.
• Marxism was sought to be substituted by more moderate social democracy; the Gita was sought to be substituted by temporary worship of various Gods.
• Marxism says that economic forces will eventually engulf the world in capitalism; the Gita indicates [does not directly say] that material forces will eventually engulf the world in unrighteousness.
• Marxism and Gita have their fair share of critics respectively; and are regarded as the supreme doctrines in their respective domains.

Guilt and Shame

Man is not a perfected being. Man makes mistakes. Sometimes they are found out; at other times they remain hidden. But whatever happens, they are known to the doer. Since all of us have an inner conscience, our mistakes become an albatross around our necks. The manifestation of this is guilt. When our mistakes are found out, this feeling manifests itself as shame. But should they be so?

Let us analyse this in a little more depth. People think that we feel guilty when we try to hide some wrong-doing from others. Most of the times it is true; but this need not always be the case: Man will feel guilty if he thinks that he has done something wrong and he thinks that others don't know about it. There is no question of the facts here. It's all a matter of perception. Similar is the case with shame.

Since it is a matter of perception, the feelings of guilt and shame cannot be imposed on us by somebody else, unless we have given away the keys of our emotional storeroom to others. Since these feelings are in our own hands, we can control them and make a very positive use of them. Indeed, for most of the times they are used to correct our attitude towards our internal problems and how we can solve them. But when they are allowed to be controlled by others, they are often manipulated and force the subject into a sense of inferiority. That is where the point of emotional blackmailing starts: every case makes use of our lack of control over these two conditions.

Remember, our life is our own. Though we make it useful for others, we must not let others make use of it. Our emotions reflect our state of energy: bad emotions result in lowered energy levels, and consequently lowered self-esteem. The man who wishes to conquer his emotions must have an appropriate controlled response to these twin emotions.

Don't we have a choice?

Man is remarkable for an enigma: He has an infinite capacity to understand all the possible knowledge in the world, but most of the times, he chooses to stick to whatever he has and does not strive to improve upon his imperfect knowledge.

Some time ago I was reading a weblog on "Herd Mentality". This is a remarkable phenomenon; though it is all-pervading in the human race, still I have never been able to come to terms with it. I still cannot reconcile with the fact that I should do something just because 'somebody else is doing that'.

Man always seeks to stay within a comfort zone. This ensures that he does not explore the unknown or walk the untrodden way. The man who strives to be different is characterized as a 'loner' or 'uncool' or something like that. Never has Creation made two identical people; there is no need for us to imitate anybody.

But when one sees a large group behaving in an eerily identical manner, he gets intimidated and begins to think that if he does not conform to that group's behaviour, he will have to shift out of his comfort zone.  Most of us are reluctant to do that; for doing that means we must take a risk; but we must not forget the fundamental law of statistics: higher the risk, higher the probability of return.

All the great men who have lived in our world were men who did not conform to this herd mentality. They achieved precisely because they chose to go the unknown way, and hence were toughened by the ravages of risk-taking. Going by the herd mentality will do us no harm; but it will do us no good either.

Do we have a choice? For, in most situations, it will seem that we must do the same thing others are doing; for that will seem to be the right way. But we must never forget the teachings of great philosophers. Some of their tenets have been:

• Don't do just because someone else has been doing.
• Don't do anything without a sound reason; if it doesn't have any reason, it probably should not be done at all.
• Don't do things that will cause harm to others.
• Don't do things that will cause harm to yourself.
• Don't do things that satisfy your animal instincts while they deaden your soul.
• Don't keep company whose nature you abhor. Part ways when you know you are incompatible.

Remember, rivers always take the path of least resistance, and end up being around two to three times longer than the distance between the source and the mouth. The same thing applies to mankind; it may be the least path of resistance to do what others are doing, but it will be painful for him in the times to come.

The Trinity of Human Nature

For long have philosophers wondered: What is man? What is this body? Is the man different from his body? Is there a higher force, which acts upon him to shape his behaviour in different ways? And so on are many questions that leave the best of minds puzzled and perplexed. The Hindu Philosophy seeks to answer these questions by the trinity theory of human nature; it is discussed in detail in the Bhagavat-Gita. This is the subject of my post.

A brief introduction about what is said about this will be in order. There are three modes of material nature; and every human being, indeed, every living being is subjected to all these three modes. No action of ours is exempt from any them; and no result can be obtained without their combined operation. These three modes are Saatvik or Goodness (derived from satva, meaning truth), Raajasik or passion (derived from rajas, meaning energy), and Taamasik or ignorance (derived from tamas, meaning darkness).

I must make it clear that though the soul is neutral to these three modes; the body is not. As long as the soul resides in the body, it is bound by these three modes. If we want to visualise it, we can imagine that all of us are puppets in a puppet show, and these three modes are the puppeteers; and each puppet is controlled by all the three puppeteers.

But this is not all. In most of us, one of these modes is predominant, while the other two remain subdued. Each mode has its own symptoms. The most important symptoms are: In the mode of goodness, we are conditioned by a sense of happiness and knowledge; in the mode of passion; we are conditioned by desire and anger; and in the mode of ignorance, we are conditioned by confusion and laziness. But there are a number of other symptoms also. They are described in the Gita in vivid detail; I am just giving a summary of them below.

In goodness, we get real knowledge; in passion, we get greedy; and in ignorance, we get foolish. Even the different kinds of food that we eat are of three different kinds.

Food in the mode of goodness increases the duration of life, gives strength, and is generally juicy, fatty, complete, and pleasing. Food in the mode of passion has extreme tastes, and gives a burning sensation. Food in the mode of ignorance is usually of a decomposed nature and gives unpleasant odours. We thus can easily see that the food of a particular mode will make us act in the same mode.

The Gita also describes many other symptoms; how they worship, what happens to them in the future, and so on. By now most of us would have an indication that the mode of goodness is the most preferred one. Though we can never become 100 percent good, that must be our guiding target. Some activities in the other two modes are unavoidable (eg. getting excited is in the mode of passion, and sleeping is in the mode of ignorance); but these can be kept to a minimum.

The trinity of human nature is sometimes confused with the trinity of Hindu Gods. So far, I have not come across any evidence of this kind.

A lot more has been described in our Vedas and Upanishads; in fact, I have not read any of them. People who read my post are free to share any additional information; and may even contradict me if I am wrong.

With this I conclude what I had to say. Let us now get back to being operated by the three modes of material nature. (In case they temporarily stopped operating on us!)

Mahabharata: The fifth Veda

Author's Note: The Mahabharata is not a story of characters who are wholly good or wholly evil. Those who are under such an impression are humbly requested not to entertain any biased views on the Epic. I however will consider any counter-opinions as comments.

In my first blog, I wrote a little on the Mahabharata. Indeed, it has remained my favourite, and no other story or fiction can take its place in my mind.

People will always continue to debate: Is the Mahabharata a fact or fiction? My answer is: It doesn't matter. We have a lot to learn from the Mahabharata; those who consider it to be fact, may take it to be a historical treatise; those who consider it to be a fiction, may consider it to be an anthropological treatise.

I have been hearing the story of the Mahabharata since childhood, but only recently got to read its full version on the net. There are many stories in this Epic; and they are woven into the main fabric of the conflict between the Pandavas and the Dhartarashtras. (We know them better as the Kauravas, but I disagree with this nomenclature, since Kaurava means descendants of Kuru, and the Pandavas were also technically 'Kauravas'. I stick to Dhartarashtras, or sons of Dhritarashtra.)

Veda Vyasa sums up the Mahabharata aptly in the Adi Parva by means of the following verse (I have read only an indirect reference about it, but it is very much appropriate):

“Whatever is found here, is found elsewhere, but what is not found here, is found nowhere else.”

Truly, in the Mahabharata, we find every possible situation we may face in life: greed, envy, jealously, anger, pride, affection, difficulties faced by the honest... the list is endless. In every story, we are narrated stories on how people faced numerous difficulties, and how they sorted them out. We also learn that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, but each had one’s own way. All these have a direct relevance to our lives.

Indeed, no part of the Epic is more important than the eighteen-day war of Kurukshetra, which occupies nearly a quarter of the Epic. Incidents in the war demolish all notions that one side represents all that is good and the other represents all that is evil. Wrong and sinful deeds are committed by both the warring parties. Before the war begins, Balarama (Lord Krishna’s elder brother) says, “Let us avoid an armed conflict by all the means in our power. Only that which accrues in peace is worthwhile. Out of war, nothing but wrong can issue”.

When war becomes imminent, he says “the descendants of Bharata have let themselves be overwhelmed by greed, anger and hatred and that the peace talks have broken down and that war has been declared. Dreadful destruction is ahead. The earth is going to is a bloody morass strewn with mangled bodies! It is an evil destiny that has maddened the Kshatriya[military race] to foregather here to meet its doom.” Thus Balarama stays neutral during the war. This is just one of the ways people deal with their moral dilemmas. But I like Balarama’s opinion the most; hence I lay more stress upon it.

When we say that we must fight wars with other countries, we forget that we are putting ourselves in a state of ignorance. War can bring no good to humanity. At the end of the chapter “The Death of Karna”, C. Rajagopalachari rightly says:

 “It was Lord Krishna who incited Arjuna to kill Karna when he was vainly trying to raise his chariot out of the mud in which it had stuck. According to the code of honour and laws of war prevailing then, it was wholly wrong. Who could bear the responsibility for breaches of dharma except the Lord Himself? “

“The lesson is that, it is vanity to hope, through physical violence and war, to put down wrong. The battle for right, conducted through physical force leads to numerous wrongs and, in the net result, adharma[unrighteousness] increases.” This resonates with Balarama’s opinion.

There are many other places where the Mahabharata’s teachings are very relevant. I have just quoted one; and probably the most important one.

Some people, who sympathise with the Pandavas (but actually have antipathy towards the Dhartarashtras), justify these incidents (wrongdoings by Pandavas in the Kurukshetra War) by saying that they were fighting an evil enemy and a bigger army of better warriors. Others, who have antipathy towards the Pandavas (rather than being sympathetic to Duryodhana), quote these incidents to say that the Pandavas were no better than the Kauravas in matters of wrong and right. Again, my opinion is simple: No man is wholly good or wholly evil. The Pandavas were able to win the war because the scales of dharma were in their favour; but that is all.

It is very easy to say that Duryodhana was an evil man. Actually, I would sympathise with him a bit. Consider his childhood: a blind father who could never see him, a mother who would never look at him (even though she was not blind), a pampering uncle who would always encourage him to commit improper deeds, and elders and teachers in the family who would be always praising his cousins in front of him. (The Pandavas had not yet come into the picture). Today, any one put in Duryodhana’s situation will also become a man like him. The effects of childhood psychology have been well studied in the Mahabharata; they are well brought out in Duryodhana’s story.

I am stressing upon his character only because he is portrayed as the villain in the Mahabharata; otherwise I have no specific reason. Similarly, every other character we may consider will have such a two-sided facet to his nature. It is up to us to emulate the good side while learning from the negative side.

One more thing: With all reverence to Lord Krishna and those who worship Him, I want to stress that He is an Avataram (Incarnation). Even though He can be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, He chooses not to be (most of the time), because He has to set an example to mankind. Thus He decides not to do any actual fighting during the war (to let the world think that the Pandavas win on their own strength, and thus every man exerts himself fully to achieve success) and seemingly makes them commit improper deeds (to explain to the world that no good can come out of a war).

The only thing I can do in this post to the Mahabharata is a great injustice. There are a lot of lessons and morals to be learnt from this Epic and apply them to our daily lives.

I do not expect all people to approve of my opinion in this matter. Still, one must learn to appreciate it in a true spirit; of emulating the good while learning from the evil. That indeed is the true destination of mankind.

Purposeful Discrimination or Structural Problem?

Author's Note: This article is not intended to criticize developmental work in rural areas. It only aims to point out that this is not a long-term solution to the problem of rural backwardness.

Last month, as part of my coursework, we had a group discussion about rural backwardness. I had some ideas in my mind which I expressed during that time, but it has become more coherent as I continue to think about it. I decided to make that the topic of my post today.

Let me make two things very clear. "Rural areas are backward" is well understood. "Why rural areas are backward" is less understood. My aim is to increase the understanding of the second point. Let us begin by understanding the economics of rural and urban areas. The predominant productive activity of rural areas is agriculture, which takes up the energy of most of its inhabitants.  In contrast, the activities of urban areas are so diverse that we cannot start counting them here. This by itself is a big handicap for rural areas. Is not the man who has only one source of income less secure than the man who has multiple sources of incomes?

But this is not a serious disability for rural areas. The problem arises from another, less observed factor.  Let me make one point clear before we proceed. Two things are very infectious in human society: diseases and ideas. Rural areas have a less density of population than urban areas. In urban areas, typically 20,000 people are huddled in each square kilometre of built-up area. This results in a rapid exchange of ideas and thoughts in the concrete jungle. Rural areas are much less densely populated, and are also less expansive than urban areas. Thus the rural hinterland is always short on progressive thinking, not because there is a dearth of intellectuals there, but because the population there is less.

Some people have an idea that rural poverty can be alleviated, if the governing body of the area brings suitable facilities and social and economic infrastructure to these areas for their rapid development. Let us critically analyze this line of thinking. First, we are not a rich country. Second, we have a large rural population. And third, it is more expensive to bring the facilities to rural areas (on a per-person scale) as compared to urban areas. Work out the maths and you will see why it is not easy for a country like India to bring facilities to rural areas. Look at the plain and simple facts, rural poor migrate to towns to become urban poor, but have you ever heard of the urban rich migrating to villages to become the rural rich?

Some will say that we must bring development to our rural areas at any cost. No doubt, it is a noble thought, and may even solve the problem for the time being; but it is better to be wiser, and know that this is not a real solution. Gandhiji once said: "India lives in villages." What he did not say (but probably intended to say) was: "India's future does not live in villages, but in its industrial townships, where economic activity is carried out on a large scale."

For the time being, we must carry on with developmental activities in rural areas; but we shall achieve long-term prosperity only when the rural masses gradually migrate to townships. I am not saying that they should migrate to big cities and live in slums (indeed, why should they be at all forced out of their villages?), but suitable economic opportunity must be created in the smaller towns where they can migrate for a living. Surely, this will be cheaper than bringing infrastructure to villages. Some people may point out that the rural areas of developed countries are prosperous; but don't forget the massive subsidies their governments pump into their agriculturists. I don't think India has that luxury today.

I have put forth my points on this topic. I hope other readers think over this and bring out their opinions (not necessarily as comments) on how we can alleviate rural backwardness.

Scientific Advancements or Satisfaction of Whims?

Author's Note: This post must not be construed as an article against scientific achievements. In every way I support scientific research, for if nothing else, it stimulates intellectual thinking.

I was reading an article: "Physicists Create Magnetic Monopoles--Sort Of". While I was reading it, I was impressed by how far we have left behind John Dalton's Plum-Pudding theory of the structure of the atom. No doubt, man is truimphiantly progressing on the two pillars of scientific advancement and economic prosperity. However, I am not satisfied with blindly accepting scientific achievements (however rational this may sound).

Whenever I see some article on some invention or discovery, the first question that comes to my mind is: Will this benefit humanity, how soon and in what way? Mankind devotes a lot of intellectual energy in pursuit of science, so it is only natural for mankind to expect something in return. Truly, no discovery has helped the world more than the discovery of fire; and no invention has helped the world more than the invention of the wheel. But everyday research is not about the things that are of direct or immediate concern to mankind. Who would bother about whether magnetic monopoles can exist or not or whether there can be a grand unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism?

One of the problems with scientists is that they are (mostly) introverted (no offence meant, for even I am such a person), thus they do not reach out to the general populace and explain the direct relevance of such research to our everyday concerns. This results in the common man stereotyping the scientist as, well, we know how they are stereotyped. The common man ends up thinking that he has no connection with science, and thinks that scientists are acting according to their whims and fancies. This is a dangerous situation.

All of us must try to find ways of solving this conundrum, this enigma that is called science. I hope other people think over this and bring forth their views.

Is this rational?

The Honourable Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Y.S. Rajashekhara Reddy, passed away in an accident only recently. Whatever we may say about life and death, this is no doubt a sad demise and it will be a trying and testing period for his family and those to whom he was dear. But this is not the point of my post.

I was surprised at the news that more than a hundred people had committed suicide or died of shock on hearing the news of his death. While this may not be hundred percent true (the media have a tendency to exaggerate facts), there is no doubt that many people succumb to grief when a person, whom they cherish as their ideal, passes away. This has happened many times in Tamil Nadu, esp. when our former Chief Minister M.G.R. passed away.

It is not only the fact that people simply grieve like this. They also give all kinds of justification for this kind of behaviour. Some of these sound like plausible, indeed, credible explanations for their behaviour. They say that the deceased person has benefited us, and has brought us our present prosperity. To the naive and inane anthropologist, such behaviour might look like a justified reaction.

It appears that such unfounded stupidity was rampant even in our ancient times, and among the best of men. Indeed, before the Mahabharata War begins, Arjuna is afflicted by a similar grief; he says that his elders have showered affection on him in the past, and therefore he cannot bear them being killed. Lord Krishna, in response, expounds the true meaning of Dharma in his Gita.

In the Gita, there are verses that are very relevant to our topic. They are:

श्री भगवानुवाच
अशोच्यानन्वशोचस्त्वं प्रज्ञावादांश्च भाषसे |
गतासूनगतासूंश्च नानुशोचन्ति पण्डिता:||
(Bhagavat-Gita, Verse 2.11)

Bhagavaan[Lord Krishna] said: While speaking learned words, you are lamenting for what is not worthy of lamentation. Those who are wise lament neither for the lives that have gone[the dead] nor for the lives that have not gone[the living]. (Verse 2.11, Srimad Bhagavat-Gita)

Clearly, our scriptures are lost to our present world. We are willing to do all kinds of things in the name of our scriptures except following them in letter and spirit. People may not agree with what I say; however, they cannot deny the fact that such grieving is of no use to anyone, either for the living or for the dead.

People may ask: When someone dear to you dies, will you not grieve like this? I may not be able to say "No". But whether I say "Yes" or "No", that is not going to change the truth.

So much for my opinion on the recent event. I hope atleast one person understands what I say.