"The Difficulty of Being Good": Is it really that bad?

My Dear Gurcharan Das,

            Sometime back I laid my hands on your book ‘The Difficulty of Being Good’. It was with great interest that I was looking forward to read this book. From pre-release previews and from your own campaign over TV Channels I understood this was a book with your views on the relevance of the great epic ‘Mahabharat’. I bought it at first opportunity and then read it too.

            How do I feel now? It is a mixed feeling. Least I can say is I wanted to read it and have read it, might not read it a second time and will not recommend it to anyone. Yeah, good or bad but this is my feeling today. And yes I will try my best to explain to you as to why I will not recommend this book to others.

            I have felt that somewhere you are apologetic about this great book ‘Mahabharat’. Call it book, call it epic or history –whatever, but you somehow leave an impression that you do not agree with the ideals and concepts espoused in ‘Mahabharat’. At every stage, I feel, you have tried to dissociate yourself from the epic and its central values. I feel you could not comment on it as a critique rather you have only tried to criticize it. There is a difference between critical analysis and criticism and I feel you have got drifted towards the latter.

            Reading through first three chapters I had started getting a feel of the things to come. And then I went back to the prelude and read first couple of para’s again. In the second para you had made an innocuous confession that you had never read this classic of your country earlier. You read this classic for the first time, a little-late in the day and then wrote a book on that a little too early, after just one reading. During the short period between your first reading and your script for this book you really did not have much time to actually ‘study’ these scriptures. And this thing became very clear in the Chapter 4 when you mentioned to Srimad Bhagwadgeeta as ‘700 fratricidal verses’. I am not asking for any forced respect for Srimad Bhagwadgeeta from you but at least I expected some restraint in dismissing it as mere ‘fratricidal verses’. I accept these are not your words and you have picked these words from the book of Sh. D.D.Kosambi, but your selection of these adjectives for Srimad Bhagwadgeeta has betrayed your own depth of understanding of the ‘Song Celestial’, as described by another author Gerald Larson, or the ‘Perennial Philosophy’ (as described by Aldous Huxley) or the ‘Song of God’ as called by Christopher Isherwood.

            I do not put the entire blame for that on you. This only shows the vast knowledge contained in those 700 verses which needs time and a good effort to be fully understood. A single reading is just not enough. Those who have neither read it properly nor believe in it like Sh D. D. Kosambi call it ‘700 fratricidal verses’. His total reading is perhaps limited to counting the verses and his understanding is limited to the fact that it was rendered by Shri Krishna to ‘persuade Arjuna to fight’. I would call it sheer unfortunate that due to your own lack of understanding of these ‘700 verses’, you have chosen those words of Sh Kosambi to describe Shrimad Bhagwadgeeta. It has done your book no good.

            Sir, my next reason for not recommending this book is your analysis of the events of Mahabharat. You have written a full chapter on ‘Krishna’s Guile’, as you have liked to name the chapter. The chapter starts with Duryodhana’s address to Shri Krishna, “Aren’t you ashamed… of striking me down so unfairly?”. You have further gone on to say that Krishna, instead of safeguarding dharma, instructs the Pandavas to do precisely the opposite in the name of ‘strategy’. Again, you seem to be apologetic and critical of the way Duryodhana, Bhishma, Drona, Karna etc were eliminated one by one by Pandavs and Shri Krishna. You have tried to imply that they, all those Kaurav Warriors, were fighting ‘fairly and valiantly’ and that they were killed by ‘crooked means’. Well, first thing first, it is not my intention, nor my capability, to justify or criticize actions of Shri Krishna, the Pandav’s or the Kaurav’s. I have only tried to give my reasons for my disillusionment from your book. You have made it amply clear that you have not fully understood the concept of ‘dharma’ otherwise you would not have commented that Shri Krishna instructs the Pandavs to go against dharma. I sure would have appreciated if you had considered the UNFAIR advantages of those FAIR and VALIANT Kaurav’s before commenting on this issue. I have tried to list out some of the ‘advantages’ of those FAIR and VALIANT Kaurav’s over your adharmik Pandavs and their forces:

            -Bhishma Pitamah could chose the manner and time of his death, he was ‘invincible’ till he ‘laid down his bow and weapons’. With this UNFAIR advantage he was causing devastation on Pandav armies without himself getting killed. You have two options: to keep fighting him with his advantages and lose your entire army to him or neutralize his advantage of being invincible and being able to choose the time of his death. How do you do that?
            -Duaryodhana has chosen to fight Bhim in a Mace-fight with an UNFAIR advantage of having a body of ‘Vajra’, not affected by blows of Maces. How do you neutralize that?
            -Drona is their guru and most accomplished and powerful master of the martial art. How do you neutralize his advantages?
            -Karna’s death in the hands of Arjuna is one of the most misinterpreted episodes of Mahabharat. Not only you, a number of people feel apologetic about that. But did Karna not die fighting in the battlefield? Did he surrender or put-up his arms? Was he seriously injured and lying on the ground when Arjuna shot at him? Did he ask for a time-out in the midst of the battle when his Chariot got stuck in the mud? These are a few questions about that episode. And it would be right to comment on the manner of his death only after we consider all these aspects.

            Sir, these are the main reasons why I feel that I will not recommend your book to anyone. There are a few more reasons which further strengthen my resolve. On more than a couple of occasions you have said that the ‘Character of Yudhisthir’ is influenced by Ashoka and the Mouryan Empire. Then at the end of Chapter 4 you have commented, and I quote: “Had the Buddha been Arjun’s Charioteer rather than Krishna, the Mahabharat would have gone in a different direction”. Again, though you have quoted it from Romila Thapar’s work, you have not mentioned the context in which she had made this statement. It seems to be true yet hypothetical to comment like that. Why only Buddha, the outcome would sure have been different had there been anyone else in place of Shri Krishna. Mahatma Gandhi would have reacted differently and so would have Sardar Patel, Pandit Nehru or George Bush of America, for that matter. The outcome would have been different in each case. But if you are trying to imply that Mahatma Buddha would have handled the issue in a better manner than how Shri Krishna handled it, then the least I can say is that you know of Shri Krishna nothing.

            It is generally said that Lord Rama was an ideal king and Lord Krishna is more pragmatic and that to know Krishna fully you need to know Rama first. And Sir, you have not yet given any proof of your having known Lord Rama. I wish you read, study and understand the Character of Lord Rama first and then re-read Mahabharat and study the Character of Sri Krishna again. And then if you write a sequel to this book, I am sure, that will be a better book and even you would see the difference.

            And then maybe I would consider recommending that book to others.

Sincerely,

Raj

God did not create the universe: Says Stephen Hawking

Dear Mr. Stephen Hawking,

Recently I came across this news report on the net where they have referred to your latest book and quoted you having said that God did not create the universe.

By Michael Holden – Thu Sep 2, 9:08 am ET

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

Sir years ago I read your book  "A Brief History of Time," and then followed your articles and statements on black holes, big bang, gravity etc etc.

Though at times I did not fully understand your statements yet I always accepted those statements as authority having come from you. The underlying presumption was that you ARE an ‘authority’ on the subjects you write and you are making the statement after due research.

However Sir, I must confess, as I read this report on your latest book I have had a change of opinion and now for the first time I have felt a need to cross check your statements and search for corroborations from other writers or physicists. For the first time today I have felt that No… I don’t have to accept everything only because you have said it, I must evaluate it myself and then only should I decide whether to accept it or not. Your this statement has really affected your credibility. And that too adversely.

Your statement has given rise to a number of queries in my mind. Leaving apart the fact whether god did or did not create the universe, or even the basic question whether god exists or does NOT exist, the question on top of my mind is whether you believe in god or not ….? In your book if you had said that you do not believe in god it would have been a different thing altogether. God is a matter of faith and spiritual research more than it is a matter of ‘scientific’ research as we understand it today. You are well within your rights when you say you don’t believe in god. But when you say God did not do this… you create a doubt whether you are questioning the existence of God or that though you believe in god you are only questioning HIS capabilities. These are two different situations. One is about his being or not being and second is a position where you accept his presence but have doubts about his powers and capabilities.

For this query lets first see what if you really do not believe in existence of God. In that case I don’t think there is much to discuss. You have written so much about Big Bang. Its all fine. But what if I say I don’t believe in Big Bang, that it is all BIG BUNKUM and that nothing like Big Bang ever happened… what do you do? Nothing. The matter ends. So in case you don’t believe in god there’s nothing one can do. But in that case my only request would be that considering your position it would be better for all of us, and you as well, if you concentrate on your field of physics and refrain from making such abstract remarks on other fields. No one expects and will appreciate a lecture from you on matters of faith or spiritualism as you have not so far established yourself in those fields. Thus if you don’t have faith and understanding about god your this particular statement in your book becomes irrelevant and might even be considered a publicity gimmick by you like many other authors have done in the past.

On the contrary if we consider that though you believe in god but all you want to convey is that god has his limitations and has not  done all the things generally attributed to him, then it is entirely different situation. Then it becomes a matter of one’s personal understanding and interpretation of the things spiritual. You have stated that, and I quote, “the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics”. Very fine. Who can deny it. It is as much true as the fact that all evolution is an inevitable consequence of the laws of biology. All births and deaths and health and disease and happiness and sadness et al follow one law or the other. Either it is physics, biology, chemistry or anything else. It is not a matter of debate at all. But sir, frankly speaking the idea I get from your statement is that by reiterating the importance of the law of physics in Big Bang, you are deliberately trying to deny someone else his due. Unless you had a motive behind it, you would not have made such a statement about something so obvious.

Reading your statement as a whole, ‘God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics’, I get an idea as if you are saying , “Mom did not cook the meal and the dinner on my table was an inevitable consequence of the effect of heat on raw food…..”. How true. How true Mr. Hawking, yet how incomplete and how immature, and how insensitive. Purely from the periscope of your so called science yes, it is physics, chemistry or biology at work. Mom’s preparation of food and to put it in oven was an inevitable consequence of the laws of chemistry working in her brain releasing those chemicals at the right time to make her prepare the meal mechanically for her biological offspring. It is as simple in your view.

However, sir I assure you there is a lot more to it than mere chemistry and physics. We would be well advised not to speak of that unless we understand that fully. If we ignore this basic thing I don’t think we can do our mom or the god any harm but we sure stand to lose our own reputation and credibility.

Please think about it.

Sincerely,

A believer beyond physics, chemistry and biology.