The Second Chapter: The Gita in Brief - Part I

After a brief hiatus, I resume my interpretations and summarization of "Talks on the Gita" by Acharya Vinoba Bhave. What follows is a discussion on the second chapter of the book, which coincides with the second chapter of the Gita.

The Second Chapter of the Gita is said to lay the foundations for the teachings in the rest of the chapters. It establishes three principles which are expounded in different ways later:

• The spirit ("Brahman") is deathless and indivisble - and you are that spirit
• The body is transient
• One's svadharma cannot and should not be thrust aside

I have often heard from my IIT-ian friends that most stuff they learnt during JEE could be built from First Principles. Similarly, these three aspects form the First Principles of Vedantic philosophy, reflected in the Bhagavad Gita. Let us go into each of these in greater detail.

Note: the following paragraphs can get quite boring for the non-philosophical variety of reader. Don't say I didn't warn ya! :)

Vedanta philosophy talks about the Eternal Spirit or "Brahman" or "The Self" that pervades all creation. The spirit is referred to as "That" - formless, timeless, genderless and perfect. One of the most famous quotes from the Vedanta period is one from the Chhandogya Upanishad, viz: "Tat tvam asi" or "That you are". Each form of creation is Brahman and it is said that every one's journey through the cycle of birth and rebirth is to understand this truth.

Brahman cannot be perceived by the five senses, but by pure intellect alone. To perceive Brahman requires the utmost control of one's body and mind. To the economists, Brahman is the 'invisible hand'; To the devout, Brahman is God; To the disbelievers, Brahman is disbelief and to the farmer, Brahman is the daily bread.

Vinoba says:

"The self is impatient to pervade the world. It wants to gobble up all creation. But we shut it up in a cell (our body). We have made a prisoner of it. We do not even remember that it exists. From morning till evening, we are busy minding the body. Day and night we worry about how fat or how thin our bodies have become. One would think that there was no other joy in the world...Even when a man draws a small circle and calls it "his own", the unconsious aim is to taste the joy of growth in the self; for thereby the self bound in the body comes out for a little while.... But it is like the prisoner coming out of his cell into the couryard"

The Gita refers to various ways of seeking perfection, or Brahman, described above. The person who seeks is referred to as the sadhaka. The sadhaka is however, bound by his/her attachment to the body and to preserving it. The Gita seeks to destroy this illusion by laying down the fact that the body is ceaselessly changing. Cells get created and destroyed at every given moment - so much so that the entire body is supposed to get a complete overhaul (in terms of blood, skeletal structure etc.) once every 12 years [I believe the figure is around 10 years for the skeleton itself, and 7 years for the blood in one's body].

In addition, it says that the body is like the cloth that the spirit wears. Once it wears off, the cloth is discarded and a new cloth is put in its place. Understanding this, the sadhaka is supposed to dedicate all action in the pursuit of his/her svadharma. I had already referred to one's svadharma in my earlier post. But the author makes a beautiful comparision which is appropriate to mention here:

"This svadharma comes to one naturally. One does not have to go out in search of one's own dharma... I would compare svadharma to one's mother. It was not left to me to choose my mother in this birth. it had already been determined for me. No matter what sort of person she is , there is no pushing her away. that is precisely the case with svadharma - it is inescapable. Besides, svadharma, we have nothing else in all this world to rely on, to rest in."

Therefore, understanding that the body perishes every moment, and understanding that the Spirit pervades everything everywhere, the author urges the sadhaka to leave the crooked ways of adharma (what is not one's dharma) and paradharma (someone else's dharma) and follow the natural, easy path of svadharma. He should never let go of the motherly security of one's svadharma.

When I re-read what I had written above, I was left thinking "Yeah, yeah, fine - all this preaching is great, but this just addresses the "What should I do" part of it, without ever touching the "How should I do it?" bit.

[Other readers, of course, might be left thinking "Oh boy, what a bore! Who really cares!" - but then, due to my significant interest in the above, topic, I can't help getting a bit detailed :) - which is also why I put the plot summaries in first :)]

The "How to go about it" is going to be part of my next post. So till then, cheers and Happy reading!

The Yoga of Despondency

To put it concisely, the plot outline for the context for the Gita (and the rest of this post) is as follows:

Villains and Heroes ready for battle - hero commander goes to see who all he's going to fight - hero sees his relatives on the villains' side - hero gets the heeby-jeebies - hero questions why he has to fight

To put it as I have just done above is the equivalent of saying a Beethoven MP3 is just a series of 0's and 1's - true, but not quite true enough !

So, in slightly greater detail

7 armies on one side (for the Pandavas) , 11 armies on the other (for the Kauravas) stand armed and ready in Kurukshetra ready to annihilate each other. Arjuna, one of the greatest warriors in the Mahabharata is in the middle of no-man's land, facing the Kaurava army, ready to raze his opponents to the ground...and he raises his eyes to look at the 'enemy'.

There he sees his kinsmen - uncles, cousins, brothers, sons , lined up in row after unending row, ready to do death unto each other. His mind wavers, his body trembles and despondency takes over... "Is the end that I am fighting for (namely, kingdom) , worth killing my kinsmen?"

Following this question is a series of rants against war:

• Those for whose sake we desire kingdom are themselves here, waiting to kill each other - why should I fight?
• How can we kill our own people? They might be overpowered by greed and might be willing to kill us, but we can't do the same because we know that it is wrong to destroy a family like this
• If we kill entire families, their traditions, customs etc. are lost forever. What greater sin could I commit?
• If they should destroy me in battle when I am unresisting and unarmed, that would be better for me, rather than my taking up arms against them

It is worthwhile to note here that Arjuna would not have had any qualms killing the opponents had they NOT been his relatives. He was a warrior and it was in his blood to fight. As much as it is in a businessman's blood to trade or in a good student's blood to learn. He was trapped by the attachment to his relatives, and that prevented him from doing his duty.

The author makes a beautiful point : Arjuna was at odds with his svadharma. If he had really been converted to Non-violence, a la King Ashoka, he would not have been satisfied by Lord Krishna until his real objective was met. He was trying to talk his way out of his dilemma , out of doing his duty. His path to doing his duty was clouded by attachment, by illusion.

This 'attachment' is a common issue faced by people all over the world. And many in the corporate world can especially identify with this:

• Should I dump stocks on a distributor in order to meet the current sales target or should I find ways of creating demand?
• Should I sell this medicine even if the side effects have not been fully tested?
• Should I report higher quarterly earnings by valuing stocks higher and adjust them in time for the annual report?
• Should I recommend the client against what he/she feels is the right course of action, even if it means I won't get future work from them if I disagree with them?

All the above situations arise from an 'attachment' to the results of one's action rather than doing the right action. The right action in this case is set in the context of one's conscience. The purpose of the Gita is to rid us of our illusions and attachment in the pursuit of our svadharma. What is svadharma? Literally, it is "one's own way", determined by our unique DNA! It is what makes us tick, what makes us who we are.

Each person's svadharma is his/her own and holds the greatest attraction to him/her. However attractive/easy another person's dharma seems, you should never follow it. You should follow your true vocation. The path might be strewn with thorns but that path is yours and yours alone. By treading your own path, you never have regrets and grow as a person.

By treading your chosen path with a sense of devotion to duty, you also demonstrate a willingness to live by the consequences of your choice, as it is yours and yours alone. Nobody forced you into it, and nobody can force you out of it. So if it means a change in career paths, do so by all means. But once you have changed, be prepared to live with the consequences.

I chose consulting as a career because I felt it represented the right balance between learning, business and interpersonal interactions. The path I have taken has been tough, yes, but I am proud at sticking to my choice. I have taken the rough with the smooth, and a year and a half after I joined consulting, I am completely at peace with myself. The paths are never easy, but it is your willingness to fight it out and stick to the choices that counts.

That's all fine, the reader might say. "You have got a job that you like. Great! But that is not the same for me... I was forced into a banking job because there was more money there. All I really wanted to do was marketing. I was forced into a job because of the money - I have a family to support". People often say they are 'forced' into doing certain jobs/tasks. Such short term aberrations do occur and are quite common in fact. But then, they are the outcomes of their own desires.

If I desire something and expect it to fall in my lap, it is not going to happen. I have to work to get it. If the path is tough, then I live with it. I work hard at whatever life throws at me, even if it is something that I dislike.

At the same time, if I am forced into something that I 'dislike', I have to ensure that I am always on the lookout for something that my heart lies in, so that, if the opportunity presents itself I am not found napping.

When you do something with your heart and soul, you often end up creating a competitive advantage that none can replicate. Given that 'competitive advantage' is what businesses are endlessly in search of, finding where your heart lies and working that to your employer's advantage is something that will be mutually beneficial in the long run! This feeling of dedication of one's heart and soul is what is called vikarma elsewhere in the Gita. But then, that is the subject matter for another post :) - enough for now!

Talks on the Gita - a precursor

My current project is quite hectic... long nights, high stress and all that. And expectedly, when you come close to 'killing yourself for a living' (as a colleague of mine aptly put it), that is when your interest in philosophy really kicks in! :) - Shubhang Shankar, another of my colleagues at A.T.Kearney, can vouch for this as well!

And what better way to re-visit philosophy than to take up a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita?

"Talks on the Gita" by Acharya Vinoba Bhave is one of the simplest and most beautiful expositions on the Gita that one can ever come across. It is a life changing book in every sense of the word. Just reading it makes one's wandering mind feel at rest. This is going to be the first of a series of nuggets from the wonderful fountainhead of the philosophy of life that is the Gita. I shall start with a small selection of quotes from the book and as time passes, augment it with more experiences/observations.

So here goes:
The Gita is set in the context of the Mahabharata, a truly outstanding work of a 100,000 verses that gives new meaning to the word "epic".

On the Mahabharata, the author says:

"The Mahabharata tells us clearly that none but God is wholly free from blemish ... The Mahabharata describes human life as a fabric woven out of both black and white threads. Himself standing aloof, Bhagavan Vyasa projects on the screen of the world a picture made up of both light and shade, of the universal movement"

On the Gita, the author says:

"The Gita is the Upanishad of the Upanishads...Almost every idea necessary for the flowering of a full life occurs in the Gita"

The first chapter of the Gita, where Arjuna's despondency is pictured, is a fantastic context-setter for the rest of the Gita, because it talks about the fundamental human dilemma that everyone faces in the course of daily life, or the pursuit of svadharma as the Gita calls it. When one follows a choice that one makes and the consequences of the choice lead to seemingly unpleasant situations, how does one respond?

• Does one question the very choice that one took up in the first place?
• Does one flinch in the face of unpleasantness and choose to run away or choose to stand and face the consequences?
• In the face of a choice with an unpleasant consequence, issues of "morality" frequently crop up (note that 'morality' normally never interferes with actions when the choices are pleasant! ) - how do we overcome the barriers we put in front of ourselves and pursue the path of action, and detach our minds from the consequences?

The first chapter, titled the Yoga of Despondency, deals with Arjuna's dilemma in terms of the above questions. I shall discuss this in greater detail in the next post

Zen and the Art of Strategy

Ufff! It has been one boring week at work here... All I have had to do is to wait for people to meet me so that I can get my project going once more. Here the people are willing to talk to me, but only when they get time, which is rarer than my getting my full 8 hours of sleep at IIMA. In the meanwhile I keep thinking of ways to pass time.

One common way of doing that is introspection. I have learnt many new things during my summer stint here and the free time I get allows me the opportunity to reflect on my experiences here. I want to put them down, but am unable to assemble a cogent paragraph now. Maybe my philosopher's block will be removed soon in another entry.

Another excellent way of passing time is for me to read books once I get back to the hostel. I am currently reading a book called "Alexander the Great's Art of Strategy" by Partha Bose (formerly of McKinsey and Co.)... a very interesting read...however the author does sort of spoil the excellent historical parallels he draws and the effect he creates by summarising key learnings from each chapter towards its end. Overall, though, It is well researched, well written and offers some memorable and interesting insights into the minds of various characters from history and politics. As always, the foundation of a good strategy is a clarity in terms of goals and the key to good execution of a strategy lies in thinking through the pros and cons of the decisions and, like a good chess player, playing out the consequences of each decision under various circumstances in order to achieve the desired effect during execution.

Talking about decisions, if there is one thing that is absolutely critical for arriving at an 'informed' decision, it is the avaiability of relevant and reliable information. Often we are faced with either an overload or a sickening lack of information. But in today's world, the former case is more common. This is where a clarity of goals helps bring clarity of thought, which is so crucial to separate the chaff of data from the wheat of useful information. I have mentioned clarity of thought in some earlier posts as well, I guess, but probably this context is different. There are interesting parallels between the strategies of Alexander and Lord Hanuman in the Ramayana-Sundara Kanda. Both people had admirable clarity of thought. Both had amazing presence of mind and the ability to convert thought into action and the enviable ability to foresee what exactly the enemy would do/feel. A difference, however, lies in the fact that Alexander had to communicate his ideas to his army and commanders whereas Lord Hanuman had no such requirement. hmmm...this has set in train an interesting line of thought. Maybe there can be more on this topic soon.

Another thing with the information that floats around so freely is that very few people actually bother to assimiliate it and use it to their advantage. The differing abilities to assimilate leads to what is now famously known as "asymmetry of information". Often, exploiting asymmetry of information is often the very basis of modern commercial existence. Joseph Stiglitz's pioneering work in this area has often led me to ponder on the dynamics of information flows. Not that I have read his works directly (yet), but I have come across his references in so many contexts that I have come to form a deep admiration for his work. Information asymmetry crops up in the oddest of places and converts life into one eternal search for more information. More importantly, the communication process of humans is often so inefficient that it is one hell of a fight to extract information through conversation/questioning.

Take the role of a consultant, for instance. He has to approach the client with an open mind and needs to figure out what the client wants purely through skilful questioning. The problem arises when the client is not able to assess the extent of knowledge possessed by the client and vice versa. Each party sets out with a set of assumptions about the other's state of knowledge. Often, overcoming the barrier created by the initial assumptions is the key to a successful engagement. There are probably millions of instances of such assumptions caused due to asymmetry of information, but I can think of only one now... be sure that I will blog my next interesting instance of information asymmetry faithfully :-).

Enough for now, rest in next

Ranga