What Is My Dharma?
And What Is Yours?
A conversation between a wondering young Nepali and the eternal voice of Lord Krishna — across five thousand years of the same question, now seen through the lens of science, scripture, and the noise of 2026.
The Battlefield Has Moved Inward
Kurukshetra was a field of dust and chariots. The armies were visible, the enemy had faces, and the stakes were announced by the sound of conches. Arjuna could see exactly what he was afraid of. His grief was specific — these were his grandfather's eyes across the field, his teacher's hands on a bow aimed at him.
The battlefields of the 21st century are quieter and harder to name. They are the three-second gap between waking up and reaching for the phone. They are the slow erosion of attention across a morning that began with intention and ended with a screen. They are the comparison that arrives uninvited at 11 PM when someone else's success appears on a timeline and suddenly your own feels smaller than it did five minutes ago.
I want to understand this war — its biology, its ancient roots, and what Lord Krishna would make of it now.
Lord Krishna, I come to you not on a battlefield with weapons drawn, but from a small room in Nepal, with a phone in one hand and the weight of a generation's confusion in the other. We live in 2026 — a world of extraordinary abundance and, strangely, extraordinary restlessness. We have access to more knowledge than any human civilization in history, and yet many of us feel more lost than guided by it.
My mind is genuinely what I would call a Kurukshetra — not of armies, but of desires, distractions, and competing pulls. Social media has engineered a kind of permanent comparison culture. Dopamine loops keep us reaching for the next notification. The modern world is immensely stimulating and, for many of us, quietly exhausting.
I want to ask you plainly: What is dharma? And how does a person in this age — surrounded by so much noise — actually find it?
Puran. The question you ask is not new — and yet it has never been more urgently needed. Arjuna asked it too. He stood between two armies, knowing what duty required and feeling everything in him resist. His paralysis was not weakness. It was the completely human experience of standing at the intersection of what is easy and what is right.
The terrain has changed. But the fundamental architecture of the problem has not.
स्वधर्मे निधनं श्रेयः परधर्मो भयावहः || Better is one's own dharma, though imperfectly performed, than the dharma of another well performed. Better is death in one's own dharma — the dharma of another is full of fear.
— Bhagavad Gita 3.35
Dharma is not a rule handed down from outside. It is the direction your deepest nature points when you strip away fear, imitation, and the hunger for approval. The tree's dharma is to grow toward light, to exchange carbon for oxygen, to shelter what needs shelter — not because it was instructed to, but because that is what a tree is. Your dharma is the truth of what you are, expressed as action in the world.
But here is the difficulty your generation faces, Puran, that no previous generation faced quite this acutely: you have been given a device — a small glass rectangle — that has been deliberately engineered to make you chase the dharma of everyone else and forget your own. This is not metaphor. It is architecture.
The Neuroscience of Distraction: Every human brain contains a dopamine reward system centered in the mesolimbic pathway — a circuit that evolved over millions of years to reward survival behaviors: finding food, forming bonds, recognizing novelty. Dopamine is not a "pleasure chemical." It is an anticipation chemical. It fires not when you get the reward, but when you expect it.
Social media platforms are built on this mechanism. The variable reward schedule — sometimes a like appears, sometimes it doesn't — is the same structure used in slot machines. It is the most addictive reward pattern known to behavioral science. Neuroscientist Anna Lembke of Stanford describes this as a "dopamine flood" that gradually raises our baseline, making ordinary life feel grey by comparison. This is not a character flaw. It is a biological vulnerability being systematically exploited.
The Gita's warning about the "roaming senses" is not poetic metaphor. The senses that Lord Krishna describes as sweeping wisdom away "like wind sweeps a boat on water" correspond precisely to what modern neuroscience calls attentional hijacking — the capture of executive prefrontal function by lower limbic drives. The ancient observation and the modern measurement are describing the same phenomenon, five thousand years apart.
That realization is both clarifying and somewhat humbling. What I experience as personal weakness — the pull toward distraction, the difficulty of sustained focus — is partly a biological response to an environment designed to produce exactly that response. I wonder sometimes if we are the first generation to face something the ancient wisdom traditions simply could not have anticipated at this scale.
But then I read the Gita and find this:
तदस्य हरति प्रज्ञां वायुर्नावमिवाम्भसि || When the mind pursues the roaming senses, it sweeps away wisdom as wind sweeps a boat on water.
— Bhagavad Gita 2.67
I spoke this to Arjuna not as a warning about a future problem, but because the roaming of the senses was already the central human difficulty. In his age, the temptations were desire for comfort, for pleasure, for security, for pride. In your age, the mechanism is the same — only the engineers have become more precise. They have studied the exact latency of anticipation, the optimal notification interval, the precise shade of red that makes a badge impossible to ignore.
The Mahabharata was set in motion by a dice game, Puran. One moment of temptation — Yudhishthira's inability to refuse the challenge — led to thirteen years of exile and a war that consumed a civilization. Your age has created a dice game that never ends. The stakes are not armies. They are your attention, your hours, your accumulated capacity for deep work. And unlike Yudhishthira, you were never even asked if you wanted to play.
This is not your fault. But it is now your responsibility.
"The Mahabharata was caused by a dice game. Your age has created a dice game that never ends. And unlike Yudhishthira, you were never even asked if you wanted to play."Lord Krishna, to Puran — 2026
The Wise Men Who Chose the Wrong Side
The question that has disturbed me most since I first seriously read the Mahabharata is not about the war itself. It is about the men who knew — who possessed full knowledge of dharma, who had lived righteously, who could see clearly what was right — and still stood in the Kaurava formation on the morning of battle.
Bhishma Pitamah. The greatest warrior of his age. A man who had renounced every personal desire with his famous vow. He lay on that bed of arrows for fifty-eight days after the war, imparting the Shanti Parva — entire volumes of wisdom on statecraft, ethics, and dharma — to Yudhishthira. He had that wisdom the whole time. And he used his bow against the Pandavas.
Drona Acharya. The preceptor. He taught Arjuna everything — every technique, every weapon. He knew his student's heart. And he formed the Chakravyuha that trapped and killed the sixteen-year-old Abhimanyu, Arjuna's son, when no adult warrior should have struck the boy. He knew. And he did it anyway.
How does this happen? And more urgently: is it happening all around us, right now?
Lord Krishna, the question that returns to me most often about the Mahabharata is this one. Bhishma knew the Pandavas' cause was just. Drona privately acknowledged it. Kripacharya, Shalya — these were not ignorant or malicious men. They were scholars, warriors, teachers of extraordinary caliber. And they all fought for Duryodhana.
Could the Mahabharata have been stopped? And what made men of such wisdom choose the wrong side — then, and what does that pattern look like in our time?
Yes. It could have been stopped. Multiple times. When Yudhishthira first accepted the dice game. When Draupadi was dragged into the assembly and not one of those great men stood and walked out. When I came to Hastinapura as peace envoy and asked for five villages — just five, enough for the Pandavas to live with dignity — and Duryodhana refused. At each of those moments, a different choice was available.
Bhishma's failure was not of courage. It was of attachment. Not to pleasure, not to power — but to the form of his dharma rather than its living content. His vow was to protect the throne of Hastinapura. The throne had become adharma. He knew it. But the vow was his identity. To break it would have meant losing the only self he had maintained across decades of renunciation. He chose his identity over righteousness. This is the subtlest and most human form of adharma.
Drona's failure was different. Duryodhana had given him position, resources, the means to educate his son Ashwatthama. Drona felt he owed a debt. Gratitude had been weaponized into servitude. He separated his inner knowing from his outward actions — a splitting of self that produced the same result as dishonesty, without any single dishonest moment you could point to.
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम् || Whenever righteousness declines and unrighteousness rises, O Bharata, I manifest myself — age after age — to protect the virtuous, destroy the wicked, and re-establish dharma.
— Bhagavad Gita 4.7
I come not when dharma is perfect. I come when it is breaking. The Mahabharata's victory was not joyful. Yudhishthira wept for years. The lesson was not "dharma triumphed" — it was "do not wait until Kurukshetra to act on what you already know."
In your world, Puran: the brilliant people who remain silent in corrupt institutions, who serve systems they know are wrong because the salary is good and the alternative is uncertain — these are Dronas. The people whose institutional loyalty has outlasted their moral clarity — these are Bhishmas. The pattern has not disappeared. It has professionalized.
The Psychology of Moral Disengagement: Psychologist Albert Bandura identified a mechanism he called "moral disengagement" — the cognitive process by which ordinarily moral people participate in harmful actions without experiencing guilt. Mechanisms include: diffusion of responsibility ("everyone else is doing it"), displacement of responsibility ("I'm just following orders / institutional requirements"), and moral justification ("the greater good requires this"). Bhishma and Drona are textbook illustrations of these mechanisms, operating without the vocabulary of modern psychology but with identical internal architecture.
Philosopher Hannah Arendt, writing about Nazi Germany's bureaucratic evil, coined the phrase "the banality of evil" — the observation that history's greatest atrocities are rarely committed by monsters. They are committed by competent, even admirable people who have separated their professional function from their moral awareness. The Kaurava army was full of exactly such people. So, observed honestly, are most modern institutions.
Karma, Yajna, and the Instinct to Act
Every morning, without announcement or need for applause, the sun performs its dharma. Rivers flow. Trees grow toward light, draw water upward against gravity, convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, shelter insects and birds, drop leaves that become soil. None of this requires a decision. None of it requires motivation. It simply happens, because acting according to one's nature is not effort — it is being.
The Gita calls this yajna — sacrifice, offering, the cycle of giving and receiving that sustains all life. Lord Krishna describes it as the original law of existence. The sun gives heat. The rain gives water. The earth gives food. Each gives according to its nature, and in that giving the whole is sustained. We are not separate from this web. We are participants in it — the only participants, perhaps, who have learned to ask whether we should participate at all.
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि || You have the right to perform your actions, but you are not entitled to the fruits of those actions. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to inaction. Bhagavad Gita 2.47 — The most quoted verse in the Gita, and still the most misunderstood.
Lord Krishna, this verse — I have heard it my entire life. Do the work, don't worry about the fruit. And I find myself genuinely trying to understand it beyond the surface. Because in a world driven by metrics, likes, career outcomes, and instant feedback, how do we truly practice nishkam karma — selfless action — without it becoming a kind of spiritual bypass for not caring whether our work actually accomplishes anything?
I also want to ask something deeper: science tells us that humans are fundamentally wired to seek rewards. Our dopamine systems evolved precisely to motivate action by anticipating outcomes. Is the Gita asking us to act against our own biology? Or is there something subtler here?
This is exactly the right question — and almost everyone who quotes that verse gets its meaning backwards.
Nishkam karma does not mean indifference to outcomes. I did not say: act without caring whether your work is effective, or whether justice is served, or whether the person you are trying to help is actually helped. What I said is: do not let attachment to a specific outcome corrupt the quality of your action. Do not let the fear of a particular result prevent you from acting at all.
शरीरयात्रापि च ते न प्रसिद्ध्येदकर्मणः || Perform your prescribed duty, for action is better than inaction. Even the maintenance of your body would not be possible through inaction.
— Bhagavad Gita 3.8
Action is better than inaction. Not perfect, guaranteed, applauded action. Simply: action. The sun does not rise only on days when it knows the crops need light. It rises because rising is its nature.
Now, your question about biology: you are correct that dopamine evolved to reward anticipation. But notice — what does it reward? The anticipation of something meaningful: food when hungry, connection when lonely, discovery when curious. The problem is not the reward system itself. The problem is when artificial stimuli — designed by engineers specifically to hijack that system — replace the genuine rewards of real work, real connection, real contribution. The biological machinery is not the enemy. The misdirection of it is.
When you do genuine work — write something true, teach something well, help someone navigate a problem — the brain's reward system responds. Not with the sharp spike of a notification, but with the deeper, more sustaining dopamine of competence and contribution. This is what the ancient texts called ananda — not pleasure, but the joy of being fully what you are. The Upanishads say: Anandaad eva khalvimani bhutani jayante — from joy, all beings are born. Your biology was designed for this deeper reward. The modern environment has offered it a cheaper substitute.
The Biology of Purpose: Evolutionary biologist Robert Sapolsky distinguishes between dopamine release triggered by expected rewards (which declines over time) and dopamine release triggered by goal-directed behavior aligned with deep values (which sustains motivation across long timescales). The difference maps onto what psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi described as "flow" — a state of deep engagement characterized by the precise match between challenge and skill, where self-consciousness disappears and time distorts.
Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis argues that decisions are not made by pure rational calculation — they are guided by the body's accumulated emotional memory of past actions and their consequences. When a person acts in alignment with their deepest values, the somatic markers register as coherent and settled. When acting against them, the body registers as discordant. The ancient concept of dharma describes, in different language, what the somatic marker hypothesis predicts biologically: that violations of dharma are not merely moral failures. They are felt in the body, as wrongness, before the mind has finished reasoning about them.
On instincts and their origin: Human instincts — aggression, tribalism, hierarchy-seeking, the pull toward immediate reward over delayed benefit — are not design flaws. They are adaptations from environments very different from the modern one. The craving for calorie-dense food made sense when calories were scarce. The environment has changed faster than evolution can follow. Many of what we experience as moral struggles are, at their root, ancient biological programs running in a context for which they were not designed. This is not an excuse. It is a clarification of the battlefield.
The Restless Mind, and the Tools to Still It
There is a verse in the Gita that Arjuna speaks — not Lord Krishna — that I have returned to more than almost any other. He says, in essence: the mind is impossible to control. It is like trying to control the wind. And Lord Krishna does not dismiss this. He agrees. He says: yes, you are right. And here is what you do anyway.
I find this exchange more honest than almost anything in the literature of self-improvement. It does not promise that discipline will become easy. It does not say the restless mind can be conquered. It says: here are the tools. Use them. Imperfectly. Persistently. This is enough.
Lord Krishna, Arjuna says to you — and I feel this completely when I read it:
In an age of smartphones and social media, this difficulty has been multiplied by engineering. We are not just fighting our own restless minds — we are fighting teams of neuroscientists and behavioral psychologists who have studied exactly how to make the mind more restless, and have deployed those findings at global scale. How do we practice abhyasa and vairagya — practice and detachment — in an environment specifically designed to defeat both?
अभ्यासेन तु कौन्तेय वैराग्येण च गृह्यते || Undoubtedly, O mighty-armed one, the mind is difficult to control and restless. But by practice and by detachment, it can be controlled.
— Bhagavad Gita 6.35
I did not promise Arjuna that controlling the mind would become easy. I promised only that it was possible, and that these two tools — abhyasa and vairagya, consistent practice and the development of genuine detachment — were sufficient for the work.
Abhyasa is not willpower. Willpower is a finite resource — your neuroscientists have confirmed this, what they call "ego depletion." Abhyasa is something older and more durable: the slow, patient construction of new grooves in the mind. Every time you resist the pull of distraction and return to your work, you are not just making a choice. You are literally reshaping neural pathways — what modern neuroscience calls neuroplasticity. The brain that practices attention becomes, over time, more capable of attention. This is not metaphor. It is the mechanism.
Vairagya is not indifference. It is the ability to see clearly what a thing actually gives you, versus what it promises to give you. The notification promises connection; it delivers comparison. The scroll promises information; it delivers anxiety. Vairagya is the discernment that grows when you have watched your own mind long enough to know the difference between the promise and the reality. It is not suppression. It is clarity.
And here is the practical instruction I would give your generation, Puran — spoken plainly: protect your first hour. The first hour of your day, before the phone, before the feed, before the demands of others, is when your prefrontal cortex is freshest and the limbic system's grip is loosest. That hour is the most dharmic hour you have. Use it for your real work — for writing, for reading what builds you, for the one thing that most closely expresses your svadharma. Guard it as you would guard water in a desert.
Neuroplasticity and the Practice of Attention: Neuroscientist Richard Davidson's research at the University of Wisconsin demonstrated that trained meditators show measurably different patterns of brain activation compared to controls — specifically, increased activity in the left prefrontal cortex (associated with positive affect and equanimity) and reduced amygdala reactivity. These changes were not innate traits. They were produced by sustained practice. The ancient claim that the mind can be trained is not philosophical optimism. It is confirmed neurobiology.
Research on "attentional blink" shows that meditation practice reduces this phenomenon, effectively expanding the window of conscious perception. The practitioner literally sees more of what is happening, both externally and internally. This is what the Gita means by viveka — discrimination, the capacity to perceive clearly without the distortion of craving or aversion.
On Ego Depletion: Roy Baumeister's research showed that willpower draws on a limited cognitive resource that depletes with use. This explains why good intentions fail consistently in the evening — after a day of decisions, the capacity for self-regulation is genuinely exhausted. The Gita's instruction to practice dharma as a natural inclination rather than constant willpower is, biologically, the correct strategy: build the habit so that the action no longer requires depletion of the willpower reservoir.
Ego, Anger, Comparison — Have They Grown Worse?
Lord Krishna, I want to ask you something that I observe genuinely — not to complain, but to understand. Ego, anger, greed for power, the hunger for status and recognition — have these actually increased in the modern world? It seems to me that comparison, which has always existed, has been algorithmically amplified. That anonymity has made cruelty easier. That the speed of information has made anger more contagious. Was Arjuna's world less afflicted by these tendencies than ours? Or am I romanticizing the past?
You are not romanticizing. You are observing accurately. And the answer requires a distinction.
The fundamental tendencies — ego, anger, greed, envy — are not new. The three gunas I described: tamas (inertia, darkness), rajas (passion, restlessness), and sattva (clarity, harmony) — these are the basic architecture of all material nature. They have always been present in human beings in varying proportions. Arjuna's world had its Duryodhanas, its dice games, its wars born of ego and wounded pride. The Mahabharata itself is the record of what happens when rajas and tamas go unchecked at the level of an entire civilization.
कामः क्रोधस्तथा लोभस्तस्मादेतत्त्रयं त्यजेत् || There are three gates to self-destruction and hell: lust, anger, and greed. Therefore, one must abandon all three.
— Bhagavad Gita 16.21
What has changed is not the nature of these tendencies. It is their reach, their speed, and their social amplification. In Arjuna's time, a man's anger could harm his village. A king's greed could harm his kingdom. In your time, anger expressed online can reach millions in seconds. Comparative envy — which once required physically seeing your neighbor's possessions — now operates continuously, globally, and with curated images specifically selected to maximize the sense of inadequacy in the viewer.
The ancient fires are the same. The oxygen supply has been increased beyond anything the original design anticipated. Your generation is not more flawed than Arjuna's. You are navigating the same human weaknesses in an environment that has made them far more consequential and far harder to resist.
This is why the Gita's instruction about svadharma — your own path, measured against your own nature, not against others' achievements — is more essential now than it has ever been. The comparison trap is not a new human failure. It is an ancient vulnerability in a new and ruthlessly optimized attack surface.
"The ancient fires are the same. The oxygen supply has been increased beyond anything the original design anticipated."Lord Krishna
Maya, Impermanence, and Why None of This Excuses Inaction
There is a philosophical trap that I have watched swallow otherwise thoughtful people. It comes dressed as wisdom. It sounds like the Upanishads. And it leads, consistently, to the comfortable conclusion that nothing needs to be done.
The argument goes: this world is maya, illusion, temporary. In the largest view, all of history is a breath. Therefore, the argument concludes, individual effort is ultimately meaningless. Relax. Let go. All is one.
I want to ask Lord Krishna directly whether this is what He meant. Because if it is, the entire Gita — spoken on a battlefield, to a man who needed to act — is a very strange vehicle for that message.
Lord Krishna, here is the reading of maya I have heard used to justify passivity: all is temporary, all is illusion, so ultimately nothing matters. I have heard it used to excuse indifference to corruption. I have heard it applied to Nepal's problems as a reason not to struggle against them. If the rich and the poor are both temporary, if even this civilization will be forgotten — does individual dharmic action actually matter?
And I want to be honest: I have sometimes felt the pull of this reasoning myself. It is compelling. It sounds profound. But it also suspiciously produces the same outcome as simply not caring.
You have identified the most sophisticated form of adharma: the philosophical justification for inaction. And you are right to be suspicious of it, because it does exactly what you have noticed — it produces the same outcome as apathy while wearing the costume of enlightenment.
Maya does not mean "not real." It means "not ultimately real." These are fundamentally different claims. A dream is maya. But the pain in a dream is real while it is happening. The hunger of a person in this world is real while they are hungry. The corruption that drives young people out of their own country is real while it is occurring. The temporary nature of all things does not make the present moment's suffering less actual, or less worthy of response.
मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते || This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who surrender unto Me can easily cross beyond it.
— Bhagavad Gita 7.14
I told Arjuna that the soul is eternal — not so that the body's suffering would become irrelevant, but so that fear of the body's destruction would not distort his action. The teaching of the eternal liberates action. It does not replace it.
The tree does not ask whether its individual oxygen output is cosmically decisive. It grows because growing is what it is. Remove the justification for each tree's action and you have no forest. Remove the justification for each person's dharma and you have no civilization, no justice, no continuity of anything worth preserving.
The impermanence of the world is not permission to abandon it. It is instruction to love it and act within it — fully, freely, without clinging.
Lord Krishna, I want to ask you the question I have been circling since the beginning. What is my dharma — not as an abstract category, but as a specific person living in a specific place and time? A young Nepali in 2026, at the intersection of economics and philosophy, of technology and tradition, of a country I love and a world that keeps asking me to leave it behind. What does a person like this owe to the time they inhabit?
I will not give you your dharma as a handed-down instruction, Puran. The moment it arrives from outside, it becomes someone else's path, not yours. And a path that is not yours — however perfectly walked — leads to the wrong destination.
But I will tell you what I observe. You live at an intersection that not many people occupy: between economic rigor and philosophical depth, between institutional analysis and human empathy, between the vocabulary of data and the vocabulary of meaning. You are rooted in Nepal, frustrated by Nepal, and still here — when leaving would be easier. You ask questions that are genuinely your questions, not questions you have borrowed because they seemed impressive. And when you write — truly write, without performing — something arrives on the page that would not exist without you.
अहं त्वां सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः || Abandon all varieties of dharma and simply surrender unto Me alone. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.
— Bhagavad Gita 18.66 — The final instruction
This — my final verse — is the most misread instruction in the Gita. It does not mean: give up doing. It means: give up doing for the wrong reasons. Give up the performance of dharma for image or approval or comparison. Act from the center of what you actually are, not from the margin of what others expect. Write not to be known, but because the knowing you carry deserves to outlast you. Teach not to be admired, but because someone in front of you needs what you understand.
The Mahabharata within you — the war between your deepest impulses and your conditioned responses, between your genuine work and your performed productivity — that war will not be won in a single morning. It is won, and must be won again, each day. Arjuna did not win Kurukshetra by resolving all doubt. He won it by picking up the bow anyway.
That is your dharma, Puran. And you have always known it. The only question is whether you will begin.
What I Am Left With
I began this conversation wanting answers. I am ending it with something more clarifying than answers: recognition. Lord Krishna did not tell me anything I did not, somewhere beneath the noise, already know. He never does that for anyone — not for Arjuna either. The Gita is not a revelation of new information. It is the experience of having your own knowing spoken back to you at the precise moment you are most tempted to ignore it.
The neuroscience confirms what the scripture describes, and the scripture illuminates what the neuroscience measures. The dopamine loop is real. The attentional hijacking is engineered. The comparison culture is not personal failure — it is a designed environment exploiting ancient biological vulnerabilities. Knowing this does not free us from it. But it does change our relationship to the struggle. We are not broken. We are human, in a world that has become very good at exploiting what it means to be human.
Bhishma died on his bed of arrows carrying the weight of what he had known and not acted on. Drona commanded the formation that killed a child, and his private knowing did not stop his hands. I do not want to arrive at the end of my life having been faithful to every institutional expectation and unfaithful to the direction my deepest nature was always pointing.
The inner Mahabharata is real. Every day, there is a Kurukshetra — the choice between the version of me that does the actual work and the version that prepares to do it. I do not know if I will always choose correctly. But I know, with more clarity than I had before this conversation, that the choice is available. That the bow is in my hands. That the first sentence, written badly today, is worth more than the perfect essay I have been imagining for a year.
The sun does not ask whether its rising is cosmically significant. It rises because it is the sun. I am a Nepali, an economist, a reader, a writer, a curious and imperfect person standing in 2026, wondering what to do with this brief and unrepeatable fact of being alive.
As best I can tell — and Lord Krishna seems to agree — that wondering is not a problem to be solved. It is the beginning of dharma.
Bhagavad Gita shlokas drawn from Adi Shankaracharya's Bhashya, Sri Aurobindo's Essays on the Gita, and Swami Vivekananda's lectures. Mahabharata analysis informed by Vyasa's original, Irawati Karve's Yuganta, and Devdutt Pattanaik's mythological commentaries. Neuroscience references: Robert Sapolsky, Behave; Anna Lembke, Dopamine Nation; Richard Davidson, The Emotional Life of Your Brain; Antonio Damasio, Descartes' Error; Roy Baumeister on ego depletion; Albert Bandura on moral disengagement; Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem. All errors of synthesis are the author's own.
Comments
Post a Comment