Dissecting a Joke (weekly feature)

Here is the joke of the week:

A newspaperman was interviewing Mulla Nasrudin on his 105th birthday. He noticed that the Mulla was wearing a rabbit's foot on his key chain. "You don't mean to tell me," said the newspaperman, "that a man of your experience still believes in that old and childish superstition? " "CERTAINLY NOT," said Nasrudin, "BUT MY WIFE TELLS ME IT IS SUPPOSED TO BRING YOU LUCK WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IN IT OR NOT."

...

So why is the joke funny? Because most of us know that it is the act of belief itself, and not the object of belief, that is the important factor in catalyzing an event. The object of faith is usually untrue (otherwise it wouldn't require faith in it), but the act of faith provides a feeling which is important.

Affective beings that we are, we are forever fighting against our dark sides. The vast amount of self-help literature, the umpteen guides for "positive" thinking, the plethora of therapeutic techniques almost always aim at strengthening our "good" sides against our perverse or damaging tendencies.

Positive energy or good vibes definitely help us in feeling better and in becoming more efficient. Most religious or spiritual communities bank on this to market their dubious metaphysics. It is very hard for a normal human to separate the grain from the chaff - to separate the positive effects of a calming technique from its metaphysics. And it is dangerous to even attempt this investigation, for what if in the process, one discovers that one is just blindly believing and loses all the benefits that accrue from that belief system? What if one loses the "motivation" of doing a meditation without a supportive belief system, e.g. one which promises heaven or a favorable next birth?

A belief system may make one humane, vegetarian, non-violent, charitable, generous, faithful, devout, honest, "god-fearing" and so on. Is a "good belief" better than cynicism? Is it reasonable to expect a normal human being to give up both believing and cynicism?

These are important questions, at the heart of the current debates between atheism and the various religious systems. Atheists rightly point out that belief, and its passionate defense, can lead to hatred and unspeakable violence. But in day-to-day living, isn't belief and its positive energy a good thing?

The joke is quite insightful and funny if you think about it. It is not just about belief, but also about relationships.

Mulla believes his wife, but not the effects of the rabbit-foot. Maybe his acceptance of his wife's views (which he knows are false, because he says: "CERTAINLY NOT" when asked about them) have led to his long-standing marriage, eh? One can criticize him for being a hypocrite, for doing something without believing in it. But isn't that the bedrock of most human relationships? To do something even if one doesn't like it or believe in it? Can a relationship survive if one is completely true to oneself?

An example of a man who was generally quite true to his principles was M K Gandhi, and his relationships were singularly disastrous. People close to him (his friends, colleagues, his immediate family) suffered a lot for his (at times stubborn) insistence on being true to himself.

But what is being "true to onseself" anyway? I think, in the real world, it is being true to one's own beliefs, rather than those of others (including one's loved ones). In the light of this definition, Gandhi was being true (or trying to be true) to his own (at times foolish) beliefs, to the detriment of others around him. He was not an enquirer or a seeker, he was a practitioner.

Mulla, in the joke above, is treading a middle path of doing what others ask, but not believing in what they say. What if he were to create an issue out of wearing the rabbit-foot? Who would benefit from that debate? His wife? This is where one must, again, ask: is it reasonable to expect a normal human being to give up his/her beliefs based on a reasoned argument.

As far as I understand, it doesn't work like that. Beliefs are shed through one's intention to seek the truth and live by it. If Mulla's wife doesn't have that intention, then Mulla's arguments and reasoning will only further agitate her.

Most of our relationships are affective and emotional, and they will be destroyed if we question the passionate beliefs and assumptions lying at their foundations. A well-adjusted human (one who accepts and follows the conventions and beliefs of his community) will have better relationships than a seeker, who will offend, repulse and hurt people around him. Even if the seeker doesn't interfere with others' lives, his act of disbelief will be considered a provocation.

And it is simplistic to say that beliefs and communities exist only in primitive societies and the third world. When I was holding a senior position in a multi-national corporation, some of us went for a company outing. The event-manager/team-building-expert at that outing asked us all to divide ourselves into two groups: team players and lone rangers. I was, quite appropriately, the only person in the "lone ranger" group. Being a team-player in a corporate setting is to, first and foremost, accept the various belief systems (the company's vision statement, faith in the various leaders and their utterances, etc.). Cooperation can only happen if there is a common ground of vision, the path, and the goals. People might pay lip-service to being authentic and skeptical in a corporate setting, but being human, they are fearful of dissent and rejection.

Not a few disliked me for not publicly affirming my team spirit.

The responsibility of hurt due to a belief being attacked certainly lies with the one who is hurt. But a vast proportion of the human drama is about hurt, and the management of this hurt. To disavow the management of others' feelings is to be an outcast.

To do something collectively, one has to play along with others' beliefs.

Some, like the Mulla, are able to do it, surive as part of a family and live to be 105.

Those who are uncompromising, fight too many battles.

Whose life is more "meaningful"?