####October 4, 2014 ###Participants

###Discussion ####As Sam points out, he could have chosen many other religions to begin his revolution. Why Buddhism? * Jenny: It is closer to Hinduism in root, so perhaps it was easier for people to adapt and convert? * Jacky: Jainism and many other religions also came out of Hinduism, but for some reason they weren’t chosen. Also, why did he pick a pacifist religion to start a revolution? * Jenny: Well I don’t think Sam is very violent by nature, so perhaps he thought a pacifist religion would make a point? * Jacky: Yeah you could tell by the way he acted in the last chapter that he preferred to make deals with the other groups * Jamie: Buddhism is a humanistic religion and one where everyone can share the knowledge. It makes strategic sense for Sam’s goal because if he picked Islam, the people would be fighting instead of uniting. * Kathy: I agree - egalitarian is a big aspect. Nonviolence and divorce - that indifference is valuable in terms of launching resistance * Jamie: But lots of other religions also preach this? * Kathy: I guess all religions is very similar in some aspects… * Jamie: Buddhism does not preach obedience, what would happen in this book if Sam chose Daoism instead? * Jacky: …I don’t know anything would happen because Daoism is very non-action… * Kathy: So Jacky, why you think he chose Buddhism? Is there even an answer to this question? * Jacky: I think Sam didn’t really know the reason behind a lot of the choices he made in the book. How do you think Sam’s journey through his revolution is similar to the Buddha’s historical journey of achieving enlightenment? * Jenny: Explains Siddhartha’s life story. He basically realized that all of life is suffering, tried many extreme ways to “fix” this, but finally chose the “middle path”. He concludes that suffering stems from the human condition. I guess in this book, the spreading of technology for Sam would be the spreading Buddhism for Siddartha. * Jamie, Jacky: I agree. * Kathy: Also, Sam’s figure being part of this dominant movement, and then detaching himself from the world of the gods is similar to Siddhartha departing from his princely life. * Jamie: If technology is an analogy to Buddhist knowledge, then isn’t this more like Siddhartha leaving the tree rather than leaving princehood? This begs the question: does Sam begin the book as the Buddha, or does he become the Buddha through these events and experiences? * Jacky: Very good question - does Sam experience his personal enlightenment in his campaign against the gods? * Jamie: First subquestion - does he experience character growth? * Jenny: Well the book begins in present time, flashback into his past, and returns to present time at the end. Are you talking about comparison between beginning of book and the end, or over the flashback period? So to be honest, I didn’t see any character growth from Ch. 2-6 when he was trying to do all these things in a pacifist sense. Something that annoyed me throughout the novel was that he kept on engaging in these battles, and every time he loses, he somehow gets his way out of it. Anyway, I do think that when he first came back from nirvana, he had to cement his purpose again. * Austin: I think he did change in some aspects: his early life was very power-orientented, but he behaved differently before vs. after achieving “enlightenment”. I always thought he was more of a mixed protagonist. * Jenny: I agree, I also think that reincarnation has an effect on how people behave in society. Before Siddhartha was prince, he had his princely roles. When he reincarnated to someone else, he adapted. When you’re in a society where who you are keeps on changing, you need to take on a different role even though your “soul” is the same. * Jamie: What about when the demon possesses him? That might be something similar to hedonism? * Austin: Didn’t he start enjoying the pleasures of earthly/peacely desires more? But then Takara starts feeling guilty… * Jenny: I think what happened was after he got possessed, Takara and other demons had a party at the place because they took over. They were engaging in these “activities” that Siddhartha wouldn’t normally engage in, but because he had no control over his body, he was forced to participate. At first, he could differentiate between when the demon is controlling him and when he was doing things of his own accord, but after a while, he realized that it wasn’t always the demon, and that there’s a “personal demon” within him as well. Taraka started to absorb Sam’s disgust of his own depravity while controlling him, so he grew to have guilt and stopped enjoying the things he was doing.

####How is the role of sex and gender presented in the novel? * Kathy: I thought the book was sexist because of Kali’s portrayal. The love triangle was just bad gender stereotype overall. * Jacky: It was sexist but has compromises, historically speaking. * Kathy: Both of the guys saw Kali as this chaos…later on she just decided to divorce because she wanted to become the Brahma. I thought her character was very one dimensional. * Jacky: Does that remind you of women in corporate life? * Kathy: YES! And also the way women are generally portrayed in society. For example, when a woman gets a position of power, people tend to judge her more harshly than they would if a man had gotten the same position. * Jacky: Yeah, more examples: Brahma was a woman originally but was very self conscious of her body image, so she reincarnated into a man with a very masculine and fit body. Kali reincarnates into this mentally challenged girl at the end. * Jacky: Why did Yama choose this decision to incarnate her? Was it to get back at her or to finally possess her? * Austin: I think he did it so that he could save her, but her brain was already partially dead so it didn’t fully transfer properly. * Jenny: I think Yama was actually in love with her, but this love was unrequited since she was just attracted to death. The love triangle was weird… I have a question: every time they reincarnate, do they just take on different roles as the same people, or are they so different with each change? * Kathy: We can take that beyond the context of reincarnation. We are different than who we were 10 years ago. In that sense, we haven’t really changed too much because we have the same soul. * Austin: Despite changing bodies all the time, I think people still have insecurities, same characteristics of previous life, same “attribute,” etc. Redefining your new life and doing all of the outside things don’t necessarily make a difference in your “inner life”. * Jacky: The first Brahma felt that she had these inferior characteristics, but no matter what she did with her new body, she still felt this way. Some things are just immutable. * Kathy: Is there a central quality that defines who you are? If you parse out all of the traits that define a person and then switch out all of them, can you still be the same person? I mean in the book, when you change body, your powers still stay the same. * Jamie: There’s a passage on how Yama defines gods. The question of what makes someone a god is a very interesting one too.

“…Godhood is more than a name. It is a condition of being. One does not achieve it merely by being immortal, for even the lowliest laborer in the fields may achieve continuity of existence. Is it then the conditioning of an Aspect? No. Any competent hypnotist can play games with the self-image. Is it the raising up of an Attribute? Of course not. I can design machines more powerful and more accurate than any faculty a man may cultivate. Being a god is the quality of being able to be yourself to such an extent that your passions correspond with the forces of the universe, so that those who look upon you know this without hearing your name spoken. Some ancient poet said that the world is full of echoes and correspondences. Another wrote a long poem of an inferno, wherein each man suffered a torture which coincided in nature with those forces which had ruled his life. Being a god is being able to recognize within one’s self these things that are important, and then to strike the single note that brings them into alignment with everything else that exists. Then, beyond morals or logic or esthetics, one is wind or fire, the sea, the mountains, rain, the sun or the stars, the flight of an arrow, the end of a day, the clasp of love. One rules through one’s ruling passions. Those who look upon gods then say, without even knowing their names, ‘He is Fire. She is Dance. He is Destruction. She is Love.’ So, to reply to your statement, they do not call themselves gods. Everyone else does, though, everyone who beholds them.”

• Jamie: So I guess Sam is electromagnetism because he wants to bring light.
• Jacky: What do you think about Sam’s godhood and the form he took in the mortal realm as the Buddha. Is that the same caliber in terms of how we define god? He didn’t display any supernatural powers but was just a preacher.
• Austin: Buddhism came from a similar geographical area as Hinduism, yet you can achieve the same liberation without holding yourself accountable to some deity; it comes from more of an internal source. To me, being a god is very fragile, and instead of being a god and trying to achieve superpowers, why not try to find enlightenment in yourself?
• Kathy: I felt that god was extrinsically defined, a title conferred by others. Our desire to have gods comes from a need to assign certain forces of the universe to someone. What do you think the message of this book is?
• Austin: I thought this book was just a cool and different way way to think about certain things.
• Jacky: The existence of godhood is in the minds of the people who believe, and in that sense, anyone can be a god if you have a group of people who believe you are.
• Jamie: Maybe Yama’s description of godhood isn’t really what the book is trying to convey, it might be accurate and desirable, but it’s more of achieving enlightenment vs. godhood.
• Jacky: Buddhism is trying to say that being a god is still a temporary condition, there is still suffering. Godhood in the vedic religion is not immortal - they live for a couple million years, but after you run out of good karma, you’re still just temporary. Instead of achieving that godhood status, you should just strive for enlightenment. Anyways back to the sexism question, Buddhism is suppose to more genderless.
• Kathy: Which is why I prefer Buddhism more. :P

####What do you think about the way in which the gods use karma? * Austin: It’s very institutionalized with a points-like system. * Jacky: This portrayal of karma is not unique to this book. * Jenny: I’ve read old Chinese literature that literally describe karma like bank accounts. In this book, karma is the equivalent of an ATM in that if you pray enough times per week, you’ll get enough karma points. * Austin: What I thought of karma while reading the book was that every other religious institution has its own system of karma, whether they explicitly call it “karma” or not, and after some period of time it becomes abused. For example, sometime near the middle ages or dark ages, people would pay priests to pray for them. Perhaps this book is warning us to be wary of false religious systems, and that if you believe in those systems, you’re not trying to game the system. * Jenny: I agree, and I feel like in the book, it wasn’t just the people who were taking advantage of the system, the priests were involved as well. * Jamie: Karma is “real” in this book, and you can see the results immediately. Obviously the book doesn’t show this positively, but it’s real. * Austin: Yeah, I think it’s purposely misinterpreted. * Kathy: This reminds me of Catholic Church. Is the book’s portrayal of karma that much misconstrued? Things just happen in life sometimes, but karma gives a certain structure to things that happen, and makes people feel like what happens to them is deserved. This is a problematic system/concept. * Jacky: This is a topic that has been discussed in Buddhism, and is the status quo for justification of everything, i.e. everyone is in the right place because of their past actions. But sometimes, people say that maybe poor people just seriously have’t done enough to get themselves into a better financial situation. There’s a book from Ming dynasty China that details how many points you get for what actions (e.g. release animals from captivity +3, kill someone -300), so you can keep track of your points and do more good things. * Kathy: Wow, Ming dynasty gamification of being a person…

####Characters in the novel achieve immortality by body transfers. Would you consider this way of life immortality? Would you be interested in extending life in this manner? * Jamie: What they’re transferring is the way your brain is structured, and they just imprint that to the new brain. I would be for it, I guess it’s better than dying. I’m surprised that the gods also use the same technology as everyone else… * Austin: It’s not really immortality since you could still die, but I think it’s cool. I think if people get to that phase where they can do that, they would. * Jamie: What would be metaphysically wrong with it? * Austin: Some people believe that you should honor the time you have here on earth, and shouldn’t expect more. * Kathy: I think it would be a nice backup… * Jenny: It would be cool but kind of weird…where do these bodies come from? * Austin: They’re grown in tanks.

####Religious struggle, class struggle, and conflict of science vs. religion. How do you think this novel mirrors the problems that our society have? * Jenny: One parallel is censorship of information with Snowden drama, censorship in China, HK protests, etc. This reminds me of how gods try to suppress technology. * Austin: There’s a shallow hippie concept in here where people are working really hard to become an elite class person (prince, demigod, etc.) - working, praying, doing your due diligence, and that’s how you achieve your greatest position. There’s a conflict with that and just being yourself and being happy with where you are, finding the greatest in life through your own situation. That’s in the book but very inherent in the world as well. * Jamie: But Sam is not choosing between achieving his goals and being himself. From the beginning, he said he’d rather do what he thinks is right than to be part of this ruling class. * Jenny: I think his struggle in the novel has more to do with the fact that he wants technology to be shared rather than withheld. He was willing to make a bargain with the gods to make this happen in the end, whereas Yama just had a personal problem with the gods, especially with Kali. Sam’s mission was purely the Accelerationist movement. * Jamie: Do you guys think the gods are being immoral? * Austin: Part of me thinks that you don’t want to give people the nuclear bomb right away, but they are being immoral in that they’re using technology for selfish reasons. * Kathy: It’s the justification for any kind of government withholding information and powers to the people. It’s easy to put this into the bucket of “the masses wouldn’t be able to handle it,” so it’s hard to judge the morality behind these systems.

####Discuss the role of Nirriti. What role does he play in the outcome of this novel? * Jenny: I thought he popped out of nowhere… * Jacky: Well, radicals do pop out of nowhere. Why do you think he needed to be there in the novel? * Austin: Because he had power. The reason why he wanted to help out was to make Christianity its own thing in the planet as well. It’s similar to when the US asked Russia to destroy Germany in WW2. * Jamie: I wonder why the author included him instead of having Sam beat the authors himself? * Jacky: There’s a parallels to colonialism - I’m thinking about China. The Communist Revolution partly attributed to the invasion of the western powers in the preceding centuries. Sam’s revolution is the Communist Revolution, the establishment is the KMT, Christians are the westerners? * Jamie: Sam is Mao! The gods made it so that everyone had trouble communicating, which I guess is not necessarily inherently evil. * Jacky: There’s internal conflicts within the makeup of Nirriti’s character. He is trying to bring Christianity to the planet, but also has an army of zombies and has a nickname that’s not very holy. In the end, he loses to Sam, who is not really the Buddha. There are lots of ironies going on that are potentially meaningful. * Jamie: Nirriti stirring the revolution against the gods motivated by Christianity vs. Sam’s motivated by humanism is a very interesting contrast. Sam is the hero because he opposes the gods for a particular set of reasons, not necessarily the action itself. * Jacky: It is interesting that Nirriti is there to allow Sam to achieve his goals.

####Conclusion * Austin: I love scifi books, especially technological ones and stories that change archetypes to make them unique.
* Jenny: I thought the western/eastern culture infusion was cool, e.g. Sam vs. Mahasamatman * Kathy: It’s definitely one of the most distinctive books I’ve read, because of the religious theme fused with scifi and politics