Compassionate Capitalism : How to raise the game on 'Selling'?

In a blog last year, one aspect of compassionate capitalism was covered, namely, the idea of ethical executive compensation levels (the link is http://karmasutratkos.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/contours-of-compassionate-capitalism.html). That post generated some heat and dust. Some people felt that business should not be mixed with spirituality. Others felt that extraordinarily high compensation levels for executives are ‘earned’ and we should not grudge them their ‘just reward’.

As Gandhi said, there is enough on this planet for our needs but not for our greed. In today’s world, bringing spirituality and ethics into our model of unbridled capitalism has become essential, for the survival of our planet. The paradigm of greed and consumption on steroids, as often seen in countries like US where many families have more than 3 or 4 cars and dozens of high end electrical gadgets  spells doom for our planet, especially if copied by striving billions in populous countries such as China and India. If supercars, high end electrical gadgets and  gargantuan houses with swimming pools remain the much-extolled goals of capitalism, it will also continue to widen the gap between the haves and have nots.  According to this Fortune article published in 2017, the present wealth inequality between haves and have nots in US is worse than Iran or Russia¹. Other developing countries like India, which are copying the capitalism model of the US without strong checks and balances are destined to go the same route. Like in US, we are going to see more and more superrich and abysmally poor in many of these ‘fast developing’ countries.  While the numbers in the superrich club tend to grow moderately, the numbers in the abysmally poor club grow at an exponential, much faster rate. For these reasons it is imperative that we develop and implement this paradigm for compassionate capitalism quickly. 

In this blog,  we will talk of what could be more ethical selling practices in a compassionate capitalism practising firm. Readers are also requested to add their own thoughts to this bullet point list.As we probably know, selling is personalised persuasive communication used by salespeople for promoting purchases of their goods or services. Recruitment professionals and talent head-hunters also use these skills to entice human resources into their companies. The thumb rules proposed in the following paragraphs could be used, with minor adaptations, to all persuasive communication situations. 

We all know that most people want to avoid salespersons, just as talented skilled people avoid cold-calling recruiters. Sometimes, people put up notices specifying that salespeople are unwelcome in their premises. Sales people are often perceived as aggressive, liars, unpleasant, pestilential, poor listeners, pushy and so on.  There are instances when people buy something from a door to door salesperson just to be able to get rid of him/her.

These days, the more progressive companies train their sales people to be good listeners and to be empathetic, polite and keep their promises, all the while speaking highly of their product (strong defence of their product). Salespeople are also trained these days to avoid attacking competitors directly by name although they are often encouraged to sneak in an indirect comment putting down competitor’s product or its features.  Undoubtedly, if these rules are followed by salespeople, it makes their interaction with prospects more pleasant. However, since this training does not come out of conviction from the companies to practice a more ethical or compassionate selling approach, it is merely tactical window dressing. The pressure on sales people to meet their targets remains high and the management does not really care whether their top salesperson really has been polite and empathetic all the time. Success is worshipped. Companies have awards for top performer in sales and no awards for the most empathetic or most serving salesperson. (If queried, companies might answer that only the most polite, sincere and empathetic salesperson would anyway get the most sales.  This would not be true, especially in the short-term).  This blog builds up further to what the progressive companies might have already achieved in terms of making selling process more pleasant.  (There are of course many companies which are still at the first stage where their sales people are aggressive, pushy, half-liars or deceptive. We are assuming that most reputed and progressive business firms with some level of integrity have crossed that bridge and come out of that selling mind-set…)

In order to understand a more radical, compassionate capitalism approach to selling, let us look at the selling style of greatest spiritual leaders (although they were not marketers in the very conventional sense). For example, Lord Krishna, when asked by Arjun whether it is useful to have the war and to fight his relatives, could have easily suggested the easier, more pleasant path and advised everyone concerned not to have the war. But he suggested the harder path of battle for duty for Arjuna. Jesus Christ did not invite his disciples by stating that he will give them money, palatial mansions or riches, but in fact stated quite the opposite. He tells those who want to join him ‘anyone who loves their father and mother more than me is not worthy of me’.  Not a very enticing message, is it?  No recruiter would ever dream of telling a potential candidate that if you join this company you will have to forget your family or love them less. Similarly, he advised his disciples to ‘take their cross and follow me’. Again, not a rosy picture here. In some stories of Prophet Muhammad I came across recently, it was mentioned that he often told his followers that they would face difficult situations and potential loss of life and gave them an option to leave him. 

There are other things we can glean from these leaders for our model of compassionate capitalism. Jesus never go around asking people to become his disciples. Jesus simply did what he wanted to do -  his preaching, his miracles etc. backed by his personal style of living. People who wanted to be his disciples flocked to him. Mirabehn, the disciple of Gandhi, was not sought out by Gandhi. She wrote to him asking to join him. In fact, while he invited her, he also warned her about the ascetic lifestyle and discipline of his ashram.

Based on these we can come to some principles of salesmanship for an ethically driven, spiritual model of compassionate capitalism. Business firms which seek to ethically reform their sales department to conform to this model of compassionate capitalism must follow these rules (needless to say, those organisations which call themselves charities must have been following these rules in some form, one would hope):

• Sales people must not seek to persuade prospects or ‘convince’ them to buy our products. Make information available about the products to prospective customers. Visits if any, must be made by sales people to only inform about the product and serve the customer. If they (the prospects) want the product or service they will let the company know. In fact sales people must be encouraged not to ask any questions to ‘get the sale’. Just leave the information about the products.
• In fact, visits must be made by sales people only if they want to give something to a prospect. Every sales visit must have a clear bottom line – what are we giving the customer? (For example, companies could give away knowledge/information, free participation opportunity in seminars, some free solutions or useful products). Products which are given away must not advertise anything about the company. If our company is giving away a diary it must not mention anything about the product or your company. It should be just an excellent diary that our prospect can use. It will not have any advertisements about our company or products. Only then is it a genuine give away.
• If a prospect asks about the attributes of a competing product, the salesperson must genuinely praise the real advantages of a competitor product, without trying to put it down in some indirect way.  For example, when our prospect points out that our brand of vacuum cleaner is much heavier, replying ‘our vacuum cleaner is much heavier, but we provide more colour options’ is not right. (It is also insulting to the intelligence of our prospect). Our salespeople should simply and calmly acknowledge that the competitor’s vacuum cleaner is light weight.
• After elaborating on the strengths of our product, our salesperson must also tell the real disadvantages of our product and the areas where our competitor’s product is better. If the prospect says at the end of our balanced presentation, ‘your competitor’s product seems better because of so and so…… why should I not go for that product?’, instead of defending our product endlessly,  our salespersons must say, ‘Yes, indeed in those areas our competitor’s product is better. Please go for them if you feel so. However, even if you go for our competitor’s products, if you need any support or help or information or any other service from me, please do not hesitate to contact me’.
• Those salespersons who use the competitor’s product for their personal use must disclose this to the customer and honestly state why they have themselves chosen to go for a competitor’s product.
• If the customer wants a product in 3 days and our absolute minimum delivery time is 3.5 days we must honestly tell them that our delivery time is 3.5 days (even a half day), even if that leads to customer walking away. Salesmen who make commitments knowing they cannot deliver exactly as desired by the customer, must be punished.
• If our firm's product is not necessary, the salesperson must discourage the customer from buying the product. For example, if a customer feels that a replacement room heater is necessary whereas in reality the existing heater with slight change in settings can improve the performance (something the customer was unaware about), the sales person should make the customer aware about this and discourage them from buying their company’s product. Sales people who actually save a customer’s money by this gesture should be rewarded. Similarly, recruiters who feel there is not much for a prospective employee to gain by leaving his/her present job must discourage them from resigning from their present jobs.
• Recruiters who are talking to potential employees must not merely tell the company’s stated values, mission or vision, but tell potential employees about the actual implementation steps taken by management to instil those values in the company. For example, instead of telling ‘our company values diversity’ the recruiter must tell the actual numbers/percentage of diverse racial mix, genders, disabled people in the company and its different departments etc.  Instead of saying ‘our top management has an open door policy’, the prospective employees must be told about situations where a lower level employee has actually walked into the Managing Director’s office and spoken about some issue, based on which some action was actually taken by the top management.
• Every recruiter must have a slide in their presentation which must tell the unpleasant things that the company did or was accused of doing in the past 5 years. If the company was in the news for money laundering, involved in any sort of cases of corruption, fined for wrong doing by any regulators, sued by any customers or taken to employment tribunals for unfair dismissals, bullying or sexual harassment, this must be mentioned without the recruiter going into a lengthy defence of the company.  If there were no such negative facts, the recruiter of the company must still depict sincerely, the disadvantages of joining the firm.
• Sellers and recruiters must remove aggressive terms from the selling activity lingo. The language which we use often defines our mind set about that activity. Right now, the language we use is the more aggressive type -  ‘capture customers’, ‘get them in your bag’, ‘get the business’,  ‘don’t let them escape’, ‘keep them under your watch’, ‘nail them’ etc.  If we look at the terminology often used by sales managers, recruiters etc. the metaphor is often that of a hunter (sales people) and prey (the customer).  There is no place in a compassionate capitalism paradigm for this mind-set. More positive, empathetic language could be ‘helping the customer’, ‘serving the customer’, ‘making customer happy’ and so on.

Companies which are committed to creating a global capitalistic business environment of compassion, ethics and sustainability can have a system of ‘naming and shaming’ (or any other suitable punishment) for those who violate these rules.

Some readers might say, the above rules are not practical. Company’s sales might go down drastically if one follows these rules, especially in an unscrupulous marketplace where other players in the market are trying to put us down. Well, no one said that running a business on the lines of compassionate capitalism is going to be an easy cakewalk (perhaps even if I had my own business firm and a team of salespeople, I might not have the courage to put all of these in practice). However it is not impossible. 

Ideals always seem impossible to achieve or implement. Those businesses which took the first steps towards sustainability, recycling or environmental friendliness must have all faced initial costs of new plant/machinery, people etc.

Ideals are something we can strive towards and with some efforts, able to achieve. Buddha never said that non-violence against animals is impractical and hence we should dilute that ideal itself. He laid down the ideal and while some of us are striving to achieve it, others have already reached there.  In terms of compassionate capitalism too, we will strive to get there some day (hopefully not too far away).

Besides, we also owe it to our planet.

 ©Staju Jacob, 2018.

Staju Jacob is the author of path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on various Amazon sites in Paperback , Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone Ibook etc.  He can be contacted on Twitter through @KaRmasutraTKOS

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1      Reference quoted in the article :  1.Fortune, 2017.  http://fortune.com/2017/08/01/wealth-gap-america/

The relevance of 7. The rainbow of different religions.

Sometimes we come across websites which rant against a particular religion or faith. We also tend to be drawn to some religions and not others. Of course, in many parts of the world religion is something thrust upon us at the time of birth by our parents who initiate us into the rituals of a particular religion right from birth. Some of us continue the path of our ancestors and stick to it. Others dare to give up these forced religious choices and adopt their own. Still others become atheists, ‘rejecting’ all religions.  Whatever our choice, this blog might be useful in our understanding using the VIBGYOR rainbow model.

Seven is an interesting number which helps us enhance our spiritual understanding. The week has 7 days. According to Yoga, there are 7 chakras in human body. In Hinduism, there are 7 ancient rishis (holy seers) popularly called ‘saptarishis’. In many religions, they think there are 7 astral worlds (lokas).  Hindu couples take 7 rounds around the fire to sanctify and complete their marriage ritual.  Recent books also state that there are 7 senses in the human body - besides sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, there is also vestibular sense (balance and movement) and proprioception  (perception of body organs in relation to each other).

Let me start with the most important one, which helps us understand religions – the rainbow or VIBGYOR, which is nothing but white light. When white light passes through any prism it gets separated into its seven constituent colours which are Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange and Red.  If we talk scientifically each band of light is a different wavelength.

This is the most interesting understanding of religions too. Different religions and different energy bands vibrate at different wavelengths. I am summarising here,  in the form of a picture the different colours of the rainbow and different religious energy bands  all coming from white light (the one cosmic divine source). 

Some interesting notes on the various colour and religion bands.

•         Is it a coincidence that Krishna is often depicted as a god in Indigo colour?
•       When Shiva drank the poison from the churning of oceans, it turned his throat blue. This allegory is not a coincidence.
•          Green is the colour of fertility and also that of Islam. Is it a coincidence that growth of population (fertility) among Muslim communities are among the highest?
•         Is it a coincidence that, red is the colour of bindi (centre dot) worn by Hindu women? Married women also wear vermillion (sindoor) in India. Is it a coincidence that it is bright red (feminine spiritual energy colour)?         
•    Most of pictures of Christ and Christian saints often have a yellow halo around their heads. Is this a coincidence? Yellow is the colour of Christ energy. In Judaism too, Moses saw god in the form of a fire which did not burn up the bush. Gold and Yellow.

{Besides the above light bands, which are constituents of the white (divine) light these, of course, there are darker forces which could be used for getting energy. But these darker forces operate outside the realm of white light (divine sources). Satanism, worship of certain rakshasas etc. would come under this.  (More about this can be read in the blog ‘The nature of evil’ http://karmasutratkos.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-nature-of-evil.html)}

Some of those who are spiritually accomplished like to access this white light directly. Others seek to immerse themselves in particular colours for their spiritual advancement. Some like to be Buddhists, others find spiritual progress through Christ while still others progress through Islamic energies etc.  (To each their own way, based on their personality, emotional make-up, karma, physical make-up and tendencies).

These same religious energies can be also looked at from a chakra perspective. According to many books on yoga etc. there are seven main chakras. Their link to religious energies can be summarised thus,  as seen in this picture. 

Different weekdays can also be assigned based on different religious energies.  The list is as follows. Buddhism and Buddhist energies do not strongly identify with one particular day, but many Buddhists visit their temples on Sundays.

Most people are attracted or inclined to some religious path due to their personality, emotions, nature etc. Some are drawn to it due to their karma or the need of the overself  to learn more about a particular path. Different energy bands help us differently because the charism of that energy band is different. If we seek the help from that energy band and meditate, we will receive help. Some tips are as follows:

•        If we are in a mental dilemma in a situation, feeling confused, not knowing what to do and need more rational discrimination to see clearly, then Krishna energy is very useful. 
•       If we are seeking healing from hatred and struggle to forgive some friend or relative who has hurt us, then Christ energy is very useful for healing.  We do not have to get baptised or ‘convert’ to Christianity to access that energy.
•        Similarly, if we are looking for fertility and rejuvenation, the energy of Islam is very useful. 
•       If we are looking to get spiritual advancement with no selfish motives, the Buddha energy helps us. 
•      When we seek to immerse ourselves in our family, share love, friendship and affection with friends/relatives and touch their hearts with empathy – the feminine energy band is the one we should seek.  Feminine energy is also drawn in a situation of righteous anger, when we are fighting those who are far more powerful than us.
•       Massive energy to destroy the old and re-build can be drawn from the Shiva energy band. Shiva energy band also helps us to bear and neutralise the toxic aspects of our situation without getting demoralised or hurt.

If we follow one energy band and if someone is telling us to hate another energy band, that is not coming from the divine, because white light is the same for all.  Hence this understanding of religious charisms and energies should free us from hate of other religious paths, if we suffer from it.

Those who know a bit of physics also know that when white light breaks into constituent lights, each light is a range of frequencies. Therefore it is a continuous spectrum of light. For example, between 600 to 640 nm (nanometer) wavelength would be saffron/orange light.  But within this broad spectrum of 600 to 640 nm, each unit will have its own subtle unique energy personality. For example the 610 nm. wavelength will be the energy of a particular deity. Within the broad spectrum wavelength brackets of Hinduism energy (orange), there would be so many different Hindu saints and rishis which operate within that wavelength bracket. Similarly, there would be so many Christian saints and mystics which operate within the brackets of yellow wavelength of between 570 to 600 nm., but with their individual energies. Several Sufi saints and mystics etc. will vibrate within the green (Islamic) energy wavelength bracket.

Again, for the purpose of this blog and to avoid the ‘we are better than you’ controversy, please note that all the chakras and colours are treated as equal and merely having diverse energies.

Now, for some other interesting bits. Before we condemn all those who wear stones or certain metallic rings as superstitious, let us remember that metals also have particular affinity to colours. When certain elements or their salts are used to burn as fuel in a flame test, they will emit certain colours. Each metal also has an emission spectrum. Similarly, those who have affinity to certain deities also wear certain type of stones which emit certain colours.  

I leave it for my other readers to research and put down the relations between various metals or stones and their respective spiritual energies. Similarly, I leave it for my other readers to decipher the link between various saptarishis and their relationship to certain energy bands. Similarly since planets also emit various colours, they also have significance on our inclinations, which I leave for my readers.  

Before I finish, let me remind that only when white light passes through the pyramid it transforms into seven colours. In other words, the other side of our coloured light is white light. Hence, it is not a coincidence that the real pyramid is a unique structure for spiritual transformation well-known to those in the occult.  Again, it will be the pyramidal framework in our mind and perceptions which will help us get from our narrow religious inclinations to pure white light (divinity).

On this note, without complicating things further, wishing all my readers a wonderful happy, harmonious new year 2018.  

©Staju Jacob, 2017.

Staju Jacob is the author of path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on various Amazon sites in Paperback , Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone Ibook etc.  He can be contacted on Twitter through @KaRmasutraTKOS

Why I don’t like Bonsai…. And other thoughts on vegetarianism

Recently, an avid meat eater asked me about the ethics of vegetarianism, which I seemed to have advocated implicitly through my ideas on karmic reality of cells and organs (in the chapter on ‘Idiosyncrasies’) in my book Karmasutra.  The question was this: if vegetarians claim that killing of life is unethical, are they themselves not guilty of killing plants?

Before I go further and answer this question, I felt a disclaimer is warranted: I am not a vegetarian. I do eat meat, but increasingly try to avoid meats of higher animals, or, if unavoidable in social milieu, try to limit the quantity I take.  Perhaps some people might accuse me of stark hypocrisy, which is a label I am happy to embrace.  Having said this, I also believe that scientists who proclaim, based on their own research, that cigarette smoking is highly injurious do not necessarily negate the truthfulness of their statements merely because they themselves might be occasional smokers.  

Now that the disclaimer has been made and the label of hypocrisy embraced, I can state that ethically, in terms of karma, there are no two ways about it. Killing of animals, especially higher animals with a well-developed sense of intelligence, emotions, pain etc. merely for food or protein, when there are other viable alternatives present, is ethically untenable.

Here is where my friend’s question fits in. After all, as my meat-eating friend asked me, if killing of life is unacceptable on ethical grounds, why is it okay to ‘kill’ plants but not fish or chicken? I recently watched an Asian TV channel debate on cow slaughter and found the same argument being repeated by one of the panellists. 

It is worthwhile going into this argument - but in my typical style, touching digressions here and there.

The cornerstone of living a karmically higher quality ethical life is to ascertain the wish of any living or non-living creature before we do anything with it. This applies to every form of ‘intelligence’ and consciousness – from the lowest (what we in common parlance refer to as ‘non-living’) to higher forms such as humans.  Anything done against the will of the being is a negative karma. Of course, as I have mentioned in Karmasutra, all molecules have some form of life, even those which we today consider to be ‘non-living’ objects. Just because our present limits of science do not permit us to communicate with a stone idol or an ancient statue or a car does not mean that there is no vibration flowing through them. There is indeed some subtle vibration flowing through them and each complex machine or so-called ‘non-living’ object has a wish and an intelligence of its own. ‘Non-living objects’ also proceed through life sticking to their dharma (put in a simplistic way, dharma means ‘duty’). For example, an average car has the dharma to be driven.   It is happy to be driven because that is the purpose of its creation. But the car is not happy to be abused, driven so terribly that its engine or some of its parts get worn out much before time.  If the car could speak in our language, it would tell us that ‘look, what you are doing is causing my tyres to get worn out faster’ or ‘please do not drive at this speed at this high speed, because I am not designed for it’.  Anyway, we can have an elaborate separate blog on the subject of the will of ‘non-living’ objects. In this blog,  let me stick to the issue to the consent and will of plants and animals.

Now, when the ancient rishis (spiritually accomplished seers) of the East wanted to make advances into spiritual areas they started avoiding meat. There were several reasons but one major one was the ethics of not killing any life.  Unfortunately and sadly, as of now, because our system of Western science has not yet designed the appropriate mechanism to communicate clearly with forms of consciousness which are substantially different from humans, the Western thinking is that the focus should be on the welfare of human being. Needless to say,  this is selfish and one cause of the rising environmental damage to our planet is caused by this thinking that everything exists in our planet for the benefit of humans, to be used or abused by us.  On an unrelated front, this focus on welfare of humans globally, has given rise to the whole paradigm and industry of Human Rights.  Even in democratic societies, human will is considered the one which is to be respected, especially if the human will does not harm another human’s life or property. If a person abuses a liver by consuming excess alcohol in the ‘freedom-loving’ West, there is no NGO which is ready to take up that cause, because the abused livers in humans cannot get together and stand in front of Parliament and shout slogans.  Similarly the skins cannot get together and put their case against those who abuse their skins for purposes of beauty by piercings, too much artificial tanning etc.

Coming back to this whole idea of ascertaining wish of beings, the rishis (ancient seers) were able to communicate or feel the wishes of organisms.  Therefore they would not kill plants to eat them. The leaves would be taken after asking the permission of the plants. Most of the plants would not mind giving up some of their leaves. Plants are selfless and always enjoy giving. They are not egoistic. They do not keep an account of how much they have given and expect proportionately in return, like many of us humans do. They are not transactional. For example, trees provide shade even to the woodcutter who is resting for a while before cutting them from their roots. Besides this altruistic nature, plants are also happy to provide us some proportion of their leaves because it is good for their overall health (just like periodic blood donation does humans some good). Plants are also happy to give their fruits because discarded seeds would help their procreation.

Having said this, like all beings, plants are not happy to annihilate their own existence. The great rishis understood this. That is also one reason why rishis would not eat vegetables which consisted almost entirely of the main root of the plant.  They would avoid main root vegetables and stick to leaves. They might also use the fruits given willingly by plants.  (Here, when we refer to fruits we are talking botanically.  What is considered a fruit botanically is often treated by those who eat and cook as vegetables simply because these ‘fruits’ lack sugar and are more savoury. For example, Bell pepper or mild chillies should be considered a fruit rather than a vegetable in the strict sense.  Interestingly many ‘vegetables’ such as spinach are leaves.) 

The rishis (seers) would often eat these fruits etc. uncooked, because cooking often destroys what the fruits/vegetables have to give us. If plants could speak to us loudly in words, they would have said that they will donate their leaves and fruits to us, only if we agree to eat it uncooked (in most cases). After all, cooking by strong heat also often destroys the seeds of plants and thus destroys their intended purpose of procreation. 

Hence, the pinnacle in terms of ethical living would be to stick to leaves, fruits (including vegetable ‘fruits’) and any other plant kingdom product which does not kill the plant itself. When we eat root vegetables like potatoes, onions, radishes, carrots, we could keep this in mind. Killing a plant, of course, in most cases, is still far less worse than killing a cow or a goat for food, but in my humble opinion, it is possible for us humans in today’s world (at least in the Western world) to be nourished without killing a plant by its root.

Now let us dwell a tad deeper into nuances. If we are very much used to eating central roots, what do we do? Perhaps a slightly ameliorating way would be - in a field, if we have to pluck a plant from its main roots, to make sure some plants are killed while others are left standing.  Of course, it is still against the will of the individual plant which is plucked from its roots and killed, but we are also telling the plant that we are not destroying their whole clan.  I know, this is clutching at straws, but small nuances of mercy and love always help.

We are able to live in this world while sticking to what plants give to us willingly and joyfully.  Many great rishis and munis (great seers and meditators) lived like this, based on this abiding principle of not taking anything by force and coercion, but only accepting gifts given with love. (There are other reasons also why many rishis and great spiritual masters avoided eating onion and garlic, but let that remain for another blog.)

Today many vegans also avoid drinking milk, while true vegetarians in India love having milk-based products and do not see any conflict in calling themselves vegetarians. [In my humble opinion, those ‘vegetarians’ who eat egg, prawns or fish are certainly not ‘vegetarians’,  although in some parts of the world these people find it fashionable to call themselves ‘vegetarians’. ] 

I would say that those who drank milk and used dairy products in ancient India included many rishis and seers.  Some people would argue that if the rishis were ethical, how could they drink milk? After all, does the cow not produce milk for its calves? How can drinking milk be ethical? As I mentioned earlier, the rishis could communicate with or at least understand the wishes of the animals through the vibrations and movements. They could communicate with the cows easily. The special aspect of cows and many similar higher mammals is that they often produce milk in excess of the requirements of the calf.  A good cow is most happy to give away several litres of milk to its owners with love and affection, knowing well that a few litres given to its owners will not starve its calf. Moreover, the cow often wanted to express its gratitude to the owner for providing it with lush green grass and protection from the elements. Due to this, the cow would happily gift some of its milk to its owner. Hence, it is ethically consistent to obtain milk from the cow. The cow is also relieved to remove the excess milk from its system.  But the important thing to note is that the great seers had the ability to understand the will of the cow. It is now easier to see why devout adherents of the Hindu lifestyle often treat the cow as holy. Just because this argument is not always very well articulated does not mean there is no underlying truth here.

Since Brahmins (priestly class) in India have descended from ancient rishis and linked to these seers by gotra, they also are generally expected to follow the ethical footprints of these seers. (For readers who are not familiar with Hindu caste hierarchy, to put it simply, Brahmins are the highest in the caste order and are priestly class among Hindus. Upper castes in general and Brahmins in particular are expected to abstain from meat and keep a satvic (spiritually clean) vegetarian diet to maintain their holiness.)  Yet we see Bengali Brahmins and Gaud Saraswats eating fish as part of their mainstream diet. How does it fit in with their ethical paradigm then?  There is an ancient story about Gaud Saraswat Brahmins which I have heard.  There are many types of Brahmins, in India, based on their region of origin etc. Saraswat Brahmins, as the legend goes, lived by the banks of Saraswati river. When this river (some say, mythical river), dried up these Brahmins could not do their farming.  They were allowed to eat fish as per their diet.  

Within the myths inside the legends, as things in India go, there is another story. The story goes that the Brahmins from the South of India met the Saraswat Brahmins and expressed their outrage at the fact that Saraswats were eating fish.  ‘Being a priestly class how can you kill fish for food…?’ fumed the Brahmins from South India.  The Saraswats replied that they did not kill the fish. ‘We ask the permission of the fish… and live on their generosity. The long fish which permit us are caught by us and then we cut off their middles and use that for our food protein requirements. Then we join the heads and tails by chanting curative mantras (chants) and release them back into water and they go back to live and reproduce….’  When the South Indian Brahmins heard this reply, they approved of the conduct of the Saraswat Brahmins and went back chastened.

In fact there are cosmic lessons from this, for those meat eaters who somehow cannot embrace a purely vegetarian diet for various reasons.  Learning from the story of Saraswat Brahmins, some ethical alternatives for the spiritually inclined, to have meat, without killing animals for food could be : 

• Use medical sciences to take small animal cells and create whole tissues separately in the laboratory. For example, use small chicken cells to grow chicken breasts or chicken legs in the laboratory.  (Similar to developments in stem cells technology which can multiply and give rise to certain organs/tissues). Hence, in the future, meat lovers can eat a beef steak without killing a cow for it.  The whole laboratory/factory should be able to produce beef steaks by using a few cells taken from a living and healthy cow.  
• Eating only the meat of animals which have died natural deaths or deaths due to non-infectious diseases.  For example, the meat of chicken, goats or cows which have either died naturally or due to other diseases of a non-infectious nature (which does not make the meat unfit for consumption) could be eaten.

If we are increasingly opting for ethically grown coffee and sustainably fished salmon or tuna, there is no reason why the ethical meat eater cannot use the options given above, in the future, if eating meat is desired.

The whole spiritual philosophy of not doing anything against the wishes of another intelligent system, whether it is a plant life system or an animal life system is the backbone of cosmic harmony. As we humans evolve we must aspire to get to this level of spiritual evolution.  

Before ending this blog, a small note on the topic of Bonsai. Once, a spiritually accomplished person had told me not to keep a Bonsai tree in the house, as it seems, the Bonsai tree releases negative vibrations.  In fact, many Feng Shui and Vaastu (Indian system) experts say that Bonsai is not an auspicious to have in the house.

When I contemplated upon this, the reasons were not far to see. Bonsai is a symbol of sadism and torture. The plant is not allowed to die but its destiny of natural growth is cruelly destroyed, not once, but periodically and systematically. It is like a periodical torture regime.  Can we imagine, how we would feel if we were forced to remain 10 cms. tall (by repeatedly chopping off our growing limbs) merely so that others can view us as an object of amusement, show or entertainment?  We would definitely curse those who treat us so sadistically and also those who participate in our humiliation. The overwhelming sadness of the silent Bonsai tree releases these vibrations of sadness and melancholy into the rooms of the house in which it is kept.  Needless to say, the principle of like attracts like operates in the cosmic world. (Even when people use the phrase ‘opposites attract’ we must always remember that only those opposites which are alike in some fundamental ways get attracted to each other. To give a simple example, the male of the lion is attracted to the female of the lion, not the female of a snake.) Thus, the melancholy of the Bonsai attracts melancholy from the universe into the house.

©Staju Jacob, 2017.

Staju Jacob is the author of the path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on various Amazon sites in Paperback and Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone Ibook etc.  He may be contacted on Twitter @KaRmasutraTKOS 

Solutions for Improving Democracy – Continuous improvement solutions

In a previous blog on ‘Why democracy is not the best form of government’ (the link is http://karmasutratkos.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/why-democracy-is-not-best-form-of.html), I had suggested why democracy in the present form, at least as practised in the West, is becoming increasingly flawed. As promised, I am back with my tentative list of solutions.  Here, I will try to explore some of the continuous improvement solutions – focused mainly on the elections process, which do not completely do away with the democratic system, but strengthen the system further.  I will also propose a detailed paradigm-busting model of governance, substantially different from democracy - as practised today, in my next post. 

For this post, the continuous improvement solutions are as follows:

1. Curtailing the power of rumour mongers and character assassins -  As highlighted in my earlier post on the problems of democracy created by IOP (Information overload paradox), in the present day and age, rumour mongers and character assassins have got a power of their own. Sitting behind an anonymous twitter handle or a fake Facebook account it is possible for people to accuse public leaders of murder, corruption, fraud or any other wrong-doing, without facing little, if any scrutiny, penalties or payback for this character assassination. In this scenario, whichever leader has a bigger army of motivated social media followers willing to attack his political opponent, tends to gain greater visibility. Like the Goebbellian quote says ‘a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth’, a false message propagating on social media and repeated often by others tends to be believed, at least partially. For example, I have seen social media messages or forwards, most of them spewed by anonymous users which make allegations that Obama is a secret Muslim or that Michelle is a transgender or that Hillary has paid money to all the moderators in debates etc.  Not one of them offer any credible evidence.

Hence, it is essential to have a mechanism to identify and hold those who start rumours to face a system where they must share their reasonable supporting evidence or face stringent punishment including huge fines or imprisonment. It is time for the internet to come together and finally come down universally on this scourge of abuse using anonymous identities. Actual print newspapers have made it compulsory for contributors – even those who write letters to editors, to provide real addresses and telephone numbers. In the online world, to some extent, the requirement for registration has curbed those who just shoot and scoot. But there is still a long way to go. It must be made possible to identify and hold those who assassinate characters on Twitter, Whatsapp or Facebook to account.

Needless to say, mainstream media also plays an important role in improving the quality of debate and discussions. A format for a more ethical and respectful debate has already been proposed here (the link is http://karmasutratkos.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/televised-political-debates-my.html).

2.Vetting process of candidates in political parties – In most democracies, even main political parties look at the prospect of ‘winnability’ and ‘potential for funds generation’ as the two important criteria for choosing their candidates.  If we look closely we will find that these two variables are themselves interlinked. Assuming other factors are the same, potential for huge funds (either personal money or capacity to raise money) itself makes a candidate ‘winnable’ because more money automatically means more advertising capacity, more PR, more big media presence etc. In fact, with more money, it is also becoming increasingly possible to manipulate social media with increased followers, Facebook page and other paid viral sensations.   In simple words, very rich people with an itch for power and status are almost able to buy their candidature from political parties. It is little surprise therefore that a person like Donald Trump faced little difficulty in reaching the top of Republican party presidential race. 

A possible solution to this is a clear vetting process. Within mainstream political parties a committee of people with impeccable honesty and integrity must look at each candidate application carefully without being influenced by their money power. Toxic candidates must be weeded out at the initial stage itself.

3. State support for Independent thinkers/professionals – In the present democratic system there is little scope for honest technocrats and thinkers to be in leadership positions. For example, an exemplary scientist who understands nuclear technology has little chance of being a minister for nuclear energy, unless he is connected to or ingratiates himself with some big political party. Similarly a great scholar and thinker in agriculture has little chance of being able to shape the agricultural policy of the country unless he/she is politically connected. This must change. In order to make it possible for honest thinkers, scientists, academics to contest elections and influence policies of countries, democracies must have a public funding system so that these thinkers and specialists have the access to minimum funds, required to credibly compete independently,  against other candidates put up by parties, in elections . Just like most democratic countries provide a state lawyer to an accused if unable to afford a lawyer of their own, the democratic countries must find a way to fund elections of deserving candidates without political clout or organisation. This list of exemplary candidates for which sizeable funding must be provided must be decided again by a committee and independent election commission. These scientists or experts must also be given access to a consultancy which provides services of marketing and other measures to improve their visibility.

4. Further transparency in election expenditures and methods of election propaganda – there must be further transparency in election expenditures, cap on election expenditures and a close audit of methods of election propaganda, so that even scientists or experts (the category listed above) are able to compete. Once the loose ends of the social media are tied up and it is possible to hold accountable those who assassinate characters without any evidence, both the methods of campaigning, funds spent on media, funds gathered should be further transparent. The whole funds- generation process, expenditure and utilisation of election campaign funds of all political parties should be carefully audited by a big forensic accounting specialist organisation working for an independent election commission. Those found guilty of large violations should be removed from elected posts

This list of the above measures need not be the comprehensive or the proverbial final word. Criticisms and additions are most welcome.  

©Staju Jacob, 2017.

Staju Jacob is the author of the path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on various Amazon sites in Paperback and Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone Ibook etc.  He may be contacted on Twitter @KaRmasutraTKOS 

Televised political debates: My suggestion for a ‘respectful debate’ format

We see debates all the time on television. Television channels love debates because aggressive debates, like action movies, increase their TRPs. Increasingly, the debate has moved from being a source of entertainment on television to an important - almost unavoidable part of election campaigns in many entrenched democracies such as US, UK, France and so on. European politics was a bit slow to adopt this American debate prescription, but as we saw recently in case of Macron and Le Pen in France, political leaders facing elections are finding it increasingly difficult to avoid appearing in a widely televised debate.

Before going further, I remember an old friend and my former manager, a great thinker, Prof. Subhash Sharma in Bangalore who had come out with the idea of 3D – Discourse, Dialogue and Discussion to build harmony. This was more than a decade back and at that time I had wondered why he did not come out with the idea of 4D – Discourse, Dialogue, Debate and Discussion to build harmony. I felt at that time that instead of Dialogue or Discussion, a fierce Debate more sharply brings out the intellectual flaws of an argument.

But since 2007, I have revised my views. Presently I am of the opinion that the current format of debates are not desirable as a means of showcasing the ability or competence of top political leaders. Let me quickly outline the reasons. I feel that since modern democracies and our pretensions of being ‘civilised ‘do not permit us to have gory and bloody sword fights, boxing contests, or shooting duels between leaders and challengers like in the ancient world, we have sublimed this ‘civilised’ aggression into what we call ‘debate’.

In a nice, friendly discussion, we are often willing to listen to people who make more sense than us. We are willing to learn and share knowledge. On the other hand, in debates, especially televised debates, there are often winners and losers. These winners and losers are either decided by the organisers of the debate or by public and media who are watching these high-profile debates. Since no one loves to be a loser, there is a higher likelihood that an opponent faced with a stronger argument would resort to insults and insinuations to put down the opponent, in another words, to give out (or believe themselves) the perception of ‘victory’.  

Increasingly, as seen by the debating style of Trump or La Pen, we see political candidates using aggressive name calling, vicious sarcasm or personal attacks to score winning points, get applause from their supporters or win acclaim on the social media. This use of heavy sarcasm for which there are no easy replies, personal insults and insinuations, creates anger between the debaters themselves. Of course, if the debaters are themselves operating in the realm of ideas sometimes the results of debate are good, but when the candidates want victory at any cost or if one candidate starts the trend of insults, we end up seeing an inferior discussion of ideas and less sensible arguments. The confluence of ideas that a great discussion could have been, degenerates into a feast of insults – liked often by TV audience, but bad for democracies where the public may decide their votes on the basis of the outcome of debates.

The audience, even in the Roman Colosseum, loved two men or animals savagely hurting each other to the point of one person’s death.  Today, in many TV debates, we have become this ruthless Roman audience who love to watch two people brutalise and wound each other through words in the form of a debate.

Secondly, is there any guarantee that a good debater who is sharp-witted will necessarily be a good President or Prime Minister?  If arguing well was the sole or the most important requirement of being a great visionary or leader, why shouldn’t the post of Presidents and Prime Ministers in democracies be reserved for the best lawyers in a country? After all, the best lawyers, by profession, are trained to be experts in arguing. 

In my opinion, the present form of debate seen on television is merely a competitive sport, like chess or tennis. If we do not expect our political leaders to be winners in tennis, chess or football, why should we expect that good visionaries and leaders will be winners in debates, especially the time-bound short format debates that we see nowadays on television?

Of course, some of my friends may argue that even in ancient India, which I often quote in my blogs, there used to be debates. I agree with this. One such legendary debate, the debate between Adi Shankaracharya, the reviver of Hinduism and Mandana Mishra (in around 8^th century AD), can be quoted here, for an understanding of the format of a fair and ethical debate. (The source is given below the text) 

“Mandana Misra was a distinguished practioner of the mimamsa philosophy. In this school of thought, a particular ritual is done, and the results are achieved instantaneously…. Mandana Misra was a perfect and adept ritualist who preached widely. The young and charming advaita vedantin philosopher, Adi Sankara, on his country wide tour was eager to debate with Mandana Misra, who was by then already very old. Mandana Misra reasoned that since he had spent more than half his life learning and preaching mimamsa, it would be unfair to debate with a youngster in his twenties who barely had any experience. Hence, with the intention of being fair on Sankara, Misra allowed Sankara to choose his own judge. Sankara had heard greatly about Misra’s righteousness and appreciated him for his act of fairness. But he was quick to decide that none but Mandana Misra’s wife herself can be the most appropriate judge for this debate. The debate between them commenced, and continued for six months nonstop.

Thousands of scholars gathered every day to watch and learn. Mandana Misra, at a ripe old age, still remained a man with very sharp intellect and a very solid grasp of logic, but he was slowly losing. Despite being such a young man, Sankara’s realization of the ultimate Brahman and his knowledge of Maya, enabled him to win over Misra’s arguments easily. At the end of this 6 month period, Misra was almost ready to accept defeat, when his wife, Bharathi, declared that in order to defeat a man in debate, the opponent should also defeat his wife.

Bharathi was a learned scholar herself and a very clever one at that. Knowing very well that Sankara was a strict celibate, she immediately started discussing conjugal relationships and marital obligations. Sankara confessed that he had absolutely no knowledge in this area, because he was a celibate. However, Bharathi felt that she should give Sankara some time to study about this topic before resuming the debate. Sankara immediately accepted the offer and left to start his studies. Through his yogic powers he came to know of a certain king who was about to die. He instructed his disciples to preserve his body, which he temporarily left to enter the dying king’s body. The king happened to be a very evil man. Yet his wives were loyal to him and were in tears when the king was in his deathbed. Suddenly, when the king’s body woke up, one of the wives noticed that the king had recovered under rather mysterious circumstances and appeared to have become a changed man. Sankara learnt from that woman, all that he needed to know about conjugal experiences and on his way out of the body, he blessed that lady who had taught him so much. Empowered with this new knowledge, Sankara returned to resume the debate with Bharathi. This time, he was clearly unbeatable. Bharathi and Mandana Misra bowed their heads in humility and accepted defeat and became followers of Adi Sankara and staunch vedantins.”

Excerpt from source : https://ourdharma.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/the-mandana-misra-vs-adi-sankara-debate/

Without delving deep into the contents of the debate, there are key learnings for us, from this format of debate.

1. The debate takes place in an environment of respect and fairness. Mandana Mishra, shows his fairness when he asks Shankara to choose his own judge. Shankara,  on his part, instead of taking advantage of this offer and choosing a biased judge, decides to further excel in this fairness by choosing Mandana Mishra’s own wife as the judge.

2. The debate is not concluded within 1 or 2 hours like our present day TV debates, but within six months, which gives time to the debaters to rest, reflect on their arguments, concede various flaws in their logical positions etc. In short, in today’s TV debates the person with the quick acerbic tongue often wins. However, in long debates, conducted over several days and weeks, there is time for each opponent to evaluate the arguments and calm their minds enough to focus on ideas rather than persons or insults.

3.  Shankara, despite being a great thinker and philosopher had the amazing humility to confess about his lack of practical knowledge in the area of sexuality because he was celibate. He did not pretend to know about an area just in order to win the debate.

 4. Bharathi, the wife of Mandana Mishra again showed fairness, when she allowed Shankara time to study sexuality in depth, rather than using Shankara’s lack of knowledge of sex as a point to declare victory. She allowed Shankara to gain sufficient expertise in that area and then come back to resume the debate. This clearly tells us that the purpose of both opponents through this debate was to ensure the emergence of higher knowledge and ideas and not to be declared ‘winner’, as we see in the bitterly fought television debates conducted so often nowadays.

5.  Bharati and Mandana Mishra, when overwhelmed by superior ideas and logic, showed their greatness and humility by becoming the followers of Shankara’s ideas. They did not resort to sarcasm or violent personal attacks to massage their own egos or to pretend that they did not lose the debate.

Of course, in today’s busy world, it is not possible to have this kind of a quality debate spread over weeks, between opponents like Trump/Hillary or Macron/ Le Pen. Hence, my prescription for a compassionate model of debate, tweaked for the present age is as follows. To begin with, in this respectful model of debate, in a televised discussion/debate, it must be clearly mentioned that there are no winners or losers. It should take the form of a discussion in every way. The two political candidates must start with spending ten minutes in silence. This ten minutes of silence, should be telecast live. This time for silence, would be meant for only for meditation, introspection and calming the mind. During the introspection/meditation breaks it must be compulsory for the debating candidates to close their eyes and spend time with their own minds and not distract themselves with any activities such as peering through their notes or engaging in conversations. 

After this ten minutes silence, the candidates would discuss the issues in a spirit of love, compassion and sharing ideas. They should give credit to each other for good ideas and be willing to revise their own ideas. They should be encouraged to ask questions to each other in a spirit of camaraderie. If one candidate becomes aggressive, sounds angry or highly sarcastic, the moderator must immediately pause the debate and further provide a five-minute introspection/meditation break to calm the agitated minds. After the break, the candidates must shake hands or hug each other again and start afresh with a spirit of compassion and affection. If required, the debater who first made the aggressive remark must apologise to the other debater and withdraw the remark. If the apology and withdrawal is not forthcoming, then the whole debate must be terminated. 

Some people may laugh out loud at this prescription by me. After all, there are still some parts of the world where it is considered to execute law-breakers by stoning them to death, and here I am, talking about respectful debate. I am sure, when the first human fight-to-kills were proscribed in various parts of the world, those who were used to these sadist games of gore and blood must have laughed at those who stopped it or ridiculed them as faint-hearted idiots.

The point I make is that as we evolve in our humanity, our approach to every issue must also evolve and become spiritually and ethically refined. Gently, but firmly, we must remove the violence and aggression which are in human minds. Seeds of aggression and violence exist first in our minds, then they come into our words and finally translate into actual physical violence. Hoping that our judiciary and legal systems will prevent physical violence, when we callously allow violence, anger and aggression to seep into our minds at every step of public interaction - that is not a long-term remedy. When we incentivise the use of sublimated aggression like we see in televised debates and give our implicit approval of nastiness in televised debates, as sources of entertainment, we are sending the message that verbal aggression, without use of explicit 4-letter abuse, is ‘okay’.  

Western civilisation is unnecessarily obsessed with the macho image culture which glorifies aggression as something desirable. Since aggression in the form of physical violence is increasingly becoming unacceptable in our lives, we have sublimated this aggression to our workplaces to some extent (in our use of power as the tool for getting work done) and in our debates. In my opinion, the earlier we get rid of this sublimated aggression from various areas of life, the easier it will be to build a compassionate, harmonious world.  The choice of political leaders is the first area from which the practice of aggressive television debates as a means to campaign and win votes, must be removed. I am happy to hear the news that Theresa May, Prime Minister of Britain will not have a head to head debate with Corbyn before the elections. 

©Staju Jacob, 2017.

Staju Jacob is the author of the path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on various Amazon sites in Paperback and Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone Ibook etc.  He may be contacted on Twitter @KaRmasutraTKOS