The Bhagavad Gītā as an Antidote to Duality: A Challenge to the Orthodoxy of Current Decisions Theory

  • K. SankaranEmail author
  • C. K. Manjunath
Part of the Management, Change, Strategy and Positive Leadership book series (MACHSTPOLE)


This chapter revisits decision-making theory and challenges four major premises. These premises have been identified by James March as the bedrock of decision sciences. Currently these four premises are elucidated as dialectics in the extant literature. This chapter suggests that according to the Bhagavad Gītā the current “closure” to the four premises achieved in the literature would be inadequate to satisfy the dharmic calling of all the parties involved in decision making situations. Drawing from the Bhagavad Gītā we challenge the four divisive dialectics and provide a unitive closure to them. This is achievable by decision makers through a process of transcendence while not rejecting the importance of rooting decisions in the phenomenal plane.


Bhagavad Gītā and decision making Bhagavad Gītā and decisions sciences Bhagavad Gītā and Aristotelian logic Two-valued logic Catuskoti Tetralemma Bhagavad Gītā and dialectic 


  1. Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. (2007). Heuristics and biases in retirement savings behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 81–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blos, P. (1979). The adolescent passage. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  3. Buber, M. (1971). I and Thou. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  4. Easwaran, E. (1985). The Bhagavad Gita (Ed. & Trans.). Tomales, CA: The Blue Mountain Center of Meditation, Nilgiri Press.Google Scholar
  5. Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Ferrari, E., Sparrer, I., & von Kibed, V. (2016). Simply more complex: A SySt® approach to VUCA. In O. Mack, A. Khare, A. Krämer, & T. Burgartz (Eds.), Managing in a VUCA world (pp. 21–38). London: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2011). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. In G. Gigerenzer, R. Hertwig, & T. Pachur (Eds.), Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gunaratne, R. (1986). Understanding Nāgārjuna’s Catuṣkoṭi. Philosophy East and West, 36(3), 213–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartmann, H. (1964). Essays on ego psychology: Selected problems in psychoanalytic theory. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Karpel, M. (1976). Individuation: From fusion to dialogue. Family Process, 15(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456–460. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kodish, B. I. (2003). Dare to inquire: Sanity and survival for the 21st century and beyond. Pasadena, CA: Extensional Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Lenny Koh, S. C. (2008). Dynamic handling of uncertainty for decision making. In H. Qudrat-Ullah, J. M. Spector, & P. I. Davidsen (Eds.), Complex decision making theory and practice (1st ed., pp. 41–58). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Mahler, M., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant. Symbiosis and individuation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  17. Meissner, W. W. (2000). Freud and psychoanalysis. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  18. Morse. (1945). Methods of operations research. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Pearl, J. (1995). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. Synthese-Dordrecht, 104(1), 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peterson, R. L. (2007). Affect and financial decision-making: How neuroscience can inform market participants. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 8(2), 70–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pollock, J. L. (2006). Thinking about acting: logical foundations for rational decision making. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rapaport, D. (1960). The structure of psychoanalytic theory. Psychological Issues, 2(2), 1–158.Google Scholar
  23. Reyna, V. F., & Zayas, V. (2014). The neuroscience of risky decision making. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schumacher, E. F. (1977). A guide for the perplexed. NY: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  25. Shiller, R. (1999). Human behavior and the efficiency of the financial system. In J. B. Taylor & M. Woodford (Eds.), Handbook of macroeconomics (Vol. 1, pp. 1305–1340). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. In C. B. McGuire & R. Radner (Eds.), Decision and organization (pp. 161–176). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Spector, J. M. (2008). Expertise and dynamic tasks. In H. Qudrat-Ullah, J. M. Spector, & P. I. Davidsen (Eds.), Complex decision making theory and practice (1st ed., pp. 25–37). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Targ, R., & Hurtak, J. J. (2006). The end of suffering fearless living in troubled times or, how to get out of hell free. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Pub.Google Scholar
  29. Woodworth, S., & Cunningham, J. (2008). Facilitation of supply chain decision processes in SMEs, using information systems. In F. Adam & P. Humphreys (Eds.), Encyclopedia of decision making and decision support technologies (Vol. 1, pp. 356–367). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Justice KS Hegde Institute of ManagementNitteIndia

Personalised recommendations