Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev

A friend sent me this Q&A anthology between seekers and a self-proclaimed Messiah (Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev). Some of the contents of this anthology deserve comment in order to show the pernicious nature of modern spiritual discourse.

As the first example, let me take the following question and answer:

"Q: Sadhguru, how can one overcome fear? - Rajshri, Chennai

A: Fear is always about what will happen in the next moment. Its never about the present. When the future is not yet manifested, and not an existed reality why be afraid? You are actually suffering for that which does not exist-and so you cannot overcome that which does not exist."

This is a shining example of silliness which passes for spiritual wisdom these days. The question is eminently sensible. Fear troubles all humans at some stage in their lives.

Fear, in its most common form, is an agitated state of mind related to an apprehension of danger or pain. It is an instinctual reactive pattern in the brain present in all sufficiently evolved species and one which is seen in animals (including humans) to manifest in the freeze-fight-flight responses. In humans, fear can also be based on thinking (e.g. after one has committed a crime, one is afraid to be caught by the police) or on imagination (e.g. after one has not done one's daily prayer, one is afraid to be punished by the Gods).

Since fearful apprehension is always about an unfavorable future course of events, the "Sadhguru", instead of commenting upon the unproductive nature of a fearful state of mind, its place in evolution and the various ways of getting rid of these agitations (temporarily or permanently), gives the wise advice that since future is not yet here, there is no reason to be afraid.

I hope the advice will prove useful to a person who is afraid that he might stop breathing while in his sleep due to chronic apnea. (Since the death has not yet occured, there is no reason for him to worry about that now, correct?)

The "Sadhguru" ends his timeless wisdom by saying "You cannot overcome that which does not exist." May one comment that the original question was about how to overcome the state of mind known as fear, and not overcome the future course of events about which one is afraid. And needless to say, changing unfavorable future courses of events by timely preventive acts in the present would not find much favor with the "Sadhguru" since he is of the opinion that "you cannot overcome that which does not exist."

...

Fear prevents judgment. Some future events are definitely to be avoided if possible, not by getting afraid, but by judging their seriousness and preventing them from happening by planning and thought.

(to be continued)

Ta'm e guilass (Taste of Cherry) by Abbas Kiarostami

In the words of Akira Kurosawa, "Words cannot describe my feelings about them ... When Satyajit Ray passed on, I was very depressed. But after seeing Kiarostami’s films, I thanked God for giving us just the right person to take his place."

This is the first film I have seen by Kiarostami, and a film which gives you the opportunity of reflection without forcing something down your throat, is eminently re-watchable. But people who prefer "barrel-down cinema" might get sleepy in the middle.

...

A few comments about the controversial ending, however:

Firstly, I was disappointed by the ending because it disrupted my emotional state where I was ruminating on Mr Badii's fate.

But on further thought, putting words in the director's mouth:

1. This is the post-modern way of saying "The End". "This was a film, and don't worry about Mr Badii, he is hale and hearty, think of your own life."

2. "The world is more beautiful, and green than what I have shown you with all the drab shades and dust and depression in this film." (and hence also the almost comically cheerful music)

3. "The taste of cherry wasn't just a narrative device. Look at the soldiers, they are not required by the film to do so, but they are enjoying the beauty of nature. It isn't all fiction."

Recommendation: Very Good.

Omkara by Vishal Bhardwaj

Vishal Bhardwaj's second movie on a Shakespeare play is named Omkara (after Othello), the first one was Maqbool (after Macbeth). Many movie critics in India have praised the movie for its excellent adaptation and for the outstanding performances.

I beg to differ.

I think despite the hard work put in by the director and the actors, the movie is still a mediocre production by global standards.

Acting: In Indian movies, intense facial expressions and tightening of muscles is considered great acting. Most Indian film critics have no exposure to great cinema and they contrast and compare movies within the realm of Bollywood. Saif Ali Khan's acting is above average but it is not outstanding. Ajay Devgan always has a scowl on his face, as if he is perenially constipated. Kareena Kapoor looks too angelic to be believable. Naseerudin Shah and Konkana Sen Sharma act naturally but their screen time is very limited.

Casting: Casting is a disaster. Kareena Kapoor and Vivek Oberoi are just not suited for a movie in an Indian village setting. Kareena Kapoor's skin tone and facial features are anything but those of a typical UP woman. Vivek Oberoi looks foppish with his hairstyle and college-graduate modernity. Bipasha Basu, the less said, the better. Manoj Bajpai would have been a great choice. Naseerudin Shah and Konkana Sen are cast well.

Direction: There is no need to show so many scenes of pistol-whipped violence. The first fight involving a bet seems to glorify Omkara's brutality with chants of his name in the background when his opponents have been killed. Most of these scenes just contain a lot of loud gun-shots with pistols in outstretched arms and clumsy running around. There is not one, but two gratuitous item numbers which are in no way connected to the storyline. There are way too many obscenities being mouthed by everybody (just to show that the director is being radical, but expletives do not make a movie radical). Needless to say, understatement and subtlety is not the forte of Vishal Bhardwaj.

Actors seem bent upon showing their sculputed muscles (can you believe anyone in rural Uttar Pradesh having shaved chests and chiseled biceps? In a Salman Khan-esque touch, both Saif Khan and Vivek Oberoi perenially keep their sleeves rolled at least 6 inches above the elbow to show off their work-outs. The concept of making one's body look like one's character is not a very acceptable notion in Indian movies, it seems). The real musclemen of UP are well-built, tall, with oiled muscles and just in case you missed, they don't wear Timberland shoes. I would have been pleasantly surprised with the director had Kareena Kapoor's face after her death been shown as contorted (as is to be expected after a death by asphyxation) but I guess that was too much to ask. She is as angelic as ever.

Storyline and Treatment: The story is implausible. The reason given as to why Kesu is chosen as the new commander (that he has more rapport with the college crowd) is flimsy, especially since we don't see any urbanity or college kids in the movie. The character of Omkara seems to be oblivious to the grievance of Langda and doesn't see anything wrong in his simplistic conspiracy. There are not a few implausible coincidences. A very valuable piece of jewelery is easily stolen by someone and not noticed, the thief doesn't ask her husband/lover why he needs it, Kesu loses his mobile phone very conveniently on the day where it would be handy to his opponents, and worst of all, there is an extremely misinterpretation-friendly conversation between Kesu and his beloved on the D-day.

Many characters are caricatures. The effeminate sidekick, the old woman wearing a denture, etc. are there to amuse the audience, and their dialogue delivery is calculated to achieve comic relief. There are many scenes where the government machinery is shown to be impotent (the police being strip-searched, the train TTE, the jail staff having a rowdy time) and the applause of the audience at such scenes only goes to show their bitterness towards the system.

Songs and music: Song and dance sequences are overly long and it is evident they are to attract the average movie goer.

Recommendation: Average.

Trois couleurs: Bleu by Krzysztof Kieslowski

"Blue", the first movie in the Three Colors Trilogy by the Polish director Kieslowski, is, in the words of the director, about the liberty of "life itself". The three colors, Blue, White and Red, are the colors in the French flag, symbolizing respectively Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

The motion picture "Blue" is a subtle masterpiece of cinematography and is, in essence, an enquiry into freedom from one's past, so that life again has a chance to function without being repressed. Social, cultural and economic freedom is not the subject of this movie and those freedoms are assumed to be present.

The film begins with a car speeding down a highway, through tunnels and through nights, and is a metaphor for life itself. The landscape is merely a blur, which is an apt commentary on the self-immersion of the modern human being. This emphasizes that this will be a personal story, that the story will not have a big canvas.

The car stops by the side of the road, and we see something dripping on a pipe in the innards of the car. Not all is well inwardly, even though the car is outwardly shiny and modern. No matter what seeming perfection is achieved by technology and civilization, the possibility of faultlines always exists, and that is why even in the most advanced societies, human tragedies continue to happen. No system can take away the inherent fallibility of the natural world. It is also an apt metaphor for troubles which exist in our unconscious, which are not visible to us, which we have no way to examine, which exist unknown to us.

..

It is an extremely modern motion picture. Almost everybody is economically free and secure, even a streetside flute player who sleeps on the pavement has no fear of his flute getting stolen when he takes off for a night, leaving his flute behind.

In this milieu of freedom and aloneness and security and anonymity, where affairs can go on without anyone noticing, where nobody knows where you live, and nobody asks, where you have no real friends, and violence, birth and death are seen coldly, with detachment, there is a certain aseptic sterility to life. This is a very "cold" movie, accentuated by the proliferation of the colour blue throughout.

A woman who works as an erotic dancer and as a prostitute is free to do what she pleases in life. There is a threat to her freedom, but in a very modern statement, the threat, unless it is unanimous and endorsed by all, is not valid. This is the freedom to be unpopular, and not the democratic freedom of the twentieth century. But her freedom is deceptive. She can't sleep alone, by herself, and is tormented by the sight of her father at the erotic dance bar.

The unrelatedness of the inmates of the apartment complex is striking. Nobody really knows anybody there. The self-immersion is brought into sharp focus when a helpless man, being kicked by thugs, knocks on many doors but none opens. Like Julie, everybody must have been awake, but nobody chooses to open their door. When in trouble, we have nowhere to turn to. We expect the system to take care of sorrow and loneliness, but that never works. The mother of Julie is probably living in some retirement community, and she spends her time watching adventure sports on TV. The sterility and dispassion of the world makes people indulge in bungee jumping and drag racing just to get their blood to flow, for their blood to turn red from its bluish lack of life.

There is a boy who is spending his time playing with a balancing toy, and just as he manages to balance it, something much bigger crashes nearby. He is alone, and he also searches for Julie, to return her necklace. But Julie doesn't take it, it is worthless to her now. And he , in love of her, wears that feminine necklace on his neck. We live with our memories and the symbols of past or imagined happiness when we are alone. Julie has a lover, who keeps a discarded mattress on which he first made love with her. As long as we have a symbol of a relationship, the relationship is alive, if only in our hearts. That is why Julie, to start a new life, sells or throws away everything she owns, except a blue hanging lamp. She tries to destroy it first, by pulling on one of the strings. But keeps it in the end. It is this last remnant of her old life which keeps her alive, it is as if her life is in those blue crystals. Why does she keep that memento? What does it signify?

We are always afraid to completely let go of something, and there is a part of us which can never completely get over any experience in our lives, we never seem to die in our lives, we are shaped by what we have been. Julie is alone, she is determined, but she keeps a vestige of her past with her. As the Zen koan says: "A bull crashes through a window. Its head, body and legs come crashing through, but not its tail. Why?"

(to be continued)

Recommendation: Must see.

Dead Man Walking by Tim Robbins

Death penalty is a debatable topic in the modern age. Certainly the penalty does not help the guilty. The rationale seems to be that it acts as a strong deterrent for others. It also acts as an outlet for the affected parties to have their revenge in a legal manner.

This motion picture deals not just with a man knowing that he will die in a couple of days and how he responds to this knowledge, it also deals with the themese of compassion, institutionalized redemption, the "cold equations" of the inevitability of a planned death, of the relationship between parents and their children, and the themes of guilt, denial, and dignity.

In many movies, an emotional reaction in an audience is through the identification and transference of characters' emotions. The tears and intensity of a character in the movie often has the effect of inducing tears and emotions in the audience. The more realistic a movie, the more it deals with the normal human relationships that everybody is familiar with (parent-child, man-woman, fear-death), and the better the acting, the greater the intensity of the emotional response of the audience. Frequently, an ovation within the movie effects an ovation in the audience itself (example: Al Pacino's speech in the Scent of a Woman).

That said, this movie has two great performances. Susan Sarandon typifies compassion and a motherly-womanly love, and Sean Penn typifies an adult still in essence, naive and innocent, a precocious child (not really evil, we never really come to hate him. He has his faults, but we see his faults through a mother's eyes, and hence we see the essential humanity of his character. He has faults which each one of us has, to a greater or lesser degree.).

The vocal and Indian instrumental music lend the movie a spiritual, alternate-world, non-establishment feel. The music might be alien to many ears, and that serves the context: A life of full-time service and compassion is alien to us, as most of us are caught up in our own ambitions and hedonism.

The love felt by Poncelot (Sean Penn's character) is a motherly love, the love of being accepted unconditionally, despite one's faults, the love which makes one want to be a better person. The love felt by Sister Helen (Susan Sarandon) is a little more complex. It is compassion mixed with a longing to be united with the object of one's compassion. It is a divine as well as a human love. The urge to whisper and comfort, the urge to touch and kiss, the tears in one's eyes knowing that the other person loves oneself, all point to a love that is of a more personal nature. It does involve the feelings of incompleteness felt by all of us, which we seek to fulfill by uniting with our complement. Sister Helen does feel a womanly love for Poncelot (especially poignant when in one of her dreams, she sees Poncelot sitting at her dinner table waiting for her).

Is it true that the capacity for love is more in a woman? Is it true the women feel identified with men who can admit their weaknesses? Women want their men to be men in the world, but to them, they should be bare, vulnerable chidren. The theme of a man who is in need of reform, and who responds to the love of a woman, brings out the mother in his beloved.

(to be continued)

Recommendation: Very Good.