The title of this piece suggests that mind has the ability to do some works – works in this case refer to the thought processes, speeches or talks, actions and reactions. People talk about peace of mind, greedy mind, angry mind, caring mind, loving mind, etc. In all these cases mind is understood to represent the person with his or her state of mind. Despite such common references, mind has no easily understandable definition. While I was drafting this piece, my elder daughter sent me a Youtube link called The Scientific Power of Meditation. The video helped clarifying some of my thoughts. As one often hears, in biological search neuroscientists try to see mind as the working of brain waves of different frequencies. But in some instances, mind was found to be active in clinically brain-dead people. Further testimony to such findings is evident in the functions of brainless plants – raising questions on how mind functions really – whether or not it is dependent on brain. . . . Since the discovery of JC Bose (1858 – 1937) about plant life – scientists believe that brainless plant life functions like any other life form – in its way of cognitive processes. It is more obvious in the behavior of Mimosa Pudica – the leaves of which sleep when touched – but when repeated with harmless touch – it recognizes the touch as such, without seeing the necessity to go to sleep. It has been observed that brainless organisms like Slime Mold learn and make intelligent decisions – to figure out, for example the optimum network of pathways to find food sources. Bio-electricity is one of the factors attributed to the cognitive processes of plants. Japanese researchers studied such slime behaviors – and the findings have been used, as one of the factors to define the Tokyo traffic network. The 2022 NAP document Physics of Life throws some light on the interlinked processes encompassing the physics and biology of life system. All these indicate that there are many unanswered questions and perhaps the inquiry shows the limitation of and inadequacy in the biological search for understanding the mind. Mind may be powered by brain, but perhaps its mystery is above and beyond the biological and materialistic scrutiny. Or perhaps there is a need for materialistic and philosophical approaches to converge in some fashion. Or, perhaps the papers presented in The National Academy of Sciences publication, In the Light of Evolution Volume VII: the Human Mental Machinery 2014 represent one such approach. Let us attempt to delve further into the issue of combining the ‘Res Cogitans’ or mind, described as an entity separate from, but in mutual nourishment with ‘Res Extensa’ or matter – the two identified by R Descartes (1596 – 1650) philosophy. The pioneering works of the 20th century modern science – is perhaps the right beginning in that direction (see more in The Quantum World). Max KEL Planck (1858 – 1947), the father of Quantum Mechanics who ushered in – the dawn of modern science – enlightens us by saying that any perception of matter – is the result of a force or energy that exists and originates from consciousness and mind: All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. Thus mind and matter are not two separate entities – rather, they are part of one whole – that defines everything. In other words - they are the constructs of mind - as in the Gautama Buddha’s (624 – 544 BCE) - The Tathagata saying (Dhammapada, Verses 1 & 2): Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought . . . . . . It is necessary to delve into the mind phenomenon further. What is mind - the universe of mind? Perhaps any attempt to answer it directly and simply will amount to no-understanding at all. While talking about mind one can hardly afford to escape the rationality of the teachings of the Buddha more than 2 millennia ago. His teachings – very elaborate and systematic, take one to a very deep level of secular analysis of the mind phenomena. The teachings were compiled (compiled at the First Buddhist Council in 543 BCE at Rajgir) in the Abhidharma Pitaka (collection of higher teachings or philosophical texts) – one of the three Pitakas of the Buddhist Canon. It devotes three elaborate chapters on the mind (or Mano) phenomena. In scientific details they present the processes of mind: the Citta (consciousness); the Cetasikas (the consciousness concomitants or companions of consciousness); and the Vithi (the cognitive processes). This elaboration points to the fact that - while mind is a function of consciousness or the Citta, and the cognitive processes - as described further later, consciousness itself is born out of mind (as the sixth sense; this sense also taps on one's moral compass and memories - the 7th and the 8th levels of consciousness, respectively), independent of, or together with the five other body senses (the active ones). Knowledge is complete - and reach the level of wisdom when all the senses in the state of calmness - support and complement one another in the processes of developing consciousness. Buddhist method of meditation practices to train and calm one’s mind, to attain the clarity of one’s understanding of things, and to achieve transformation through enlightenment is primarily based on mind analysis. I am neither a Buddhist scholar nor an expert on other religions, yet sometimes answers to difficult questions arising from the complexities of the modern world can be found in ancient wisdoms. Buddhism says that our thought processes, speech or talks, actions and reactions happen through a very systematic process – the Dependent-Origination process of the Five Aggregates. This process explains the ever changing fluxes of mind and matter – all having different life cycles and strengths. The enumeration of the Five Aggregates is like this: (1) the matter – the elements of solidity (the body skeleton), fluidity (the body liquid and blood), fire or heat (digestive processes), wind (the air one breathes) and the five body or material sense organs – eye, ear, nose, taste and touch; (2) the feeling – collection of information by the five body sense organs and mind; (3) the perception – recognition, identification and filtration of the collected information; (4) the volition – conditioning of the filtered information into opinionated or action mode and; (5) the consciousness – awareness of the object with attributes afforded by perception and volition. Depending on the origin of consciousness, the Abhidamma Pitaka distinguishes four classes: (1) Kama-Loka, those originating in the sense sphere (originating primarily in unwholesomeness); (2) Rupa-Loka, those originating in the fine material sphere (originating primarily in wholesomeness); (3) Arupa-Loka, those originating in the immaterial sphere (originating primarily in the sixth-sense); and (4) Lokuttara, those originating in the supramundane level (originating primarily in the sixth-sense sublime, spiritual and intellectual sphere). The consciousness thus acquires the characteristic of fluidity, constantly arising due to different information collected by mind and matter – and depending on the intensity of information, and the processes of perception, volition and consciousness – some die out quickly while others linger on. The survived consciousness is transformed according to the law of Dependent Origination or the universal knot of cause-and-effect – the karmic cycle. Perhaps this is like the multiplicity in Natural waves where the low energy components are dissipated rather quickly while the high energy ones continue to function and get transformed. How does the awareness or Vithi developed out of one's consciousness turn into actions? The Buddha said, one's karmic cycle begins when the awareness is translated into three types of action: (1) thought processes; (2) speech (including other forms of communication such as writing); and (3) bodily actions. Therefore, one must be vigilant and measured to modulate these three agents of action to the Right direction to generate good karma - the cause-effect interdependence. If the choices are veered towards the wrong direction - bad, but inevitable karmic consequences follow. The inclusion of thought processes as an agent of actions - is unique in Buddhism, and is attributed to the teaching that all our actions originate in the processes of mind. So in Buddhism mind is seen as part of the consciousness with the boundless capacity to sense objects far and wide in space and time. Aggregation, transformation and consolidation of the individual consciousnesses in time lead to something else. The accumulation and absorption of good something – the conscience or the righteous and compassionate intuition – perhaps lying in our heart – is equivalent to soul in different religions. In most religions except Buddhism, the soul is understood born with the person as an indestructible part of God or gods. In line with the law of Dependent Origination, Buddhism sees the soul – often referred to as Bodhi, Bodhicitta or Buddha-nature – as cumulative and transformative (defined and characterized by the Six: Tranquility, Brightness or Wisdom, Softness or Malleability, Wieldiness, Proficiency and Integrity). Dogen Zenji (1200 – 1253), founder of the Soto School of Zen Buddhism in Japan, the Zazen writes: Therefore, the very impermanency . . . is Buddha nature . . . of men and things, body and mind, is the Buddha nature . . . supreme and complete enlightenment, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature. It entails, therefore, that in Buddhism there cannot be any existence of soul – independent of the universal presence of Impermanency and Dependent-origination of things. Perhaps the concept of permanent (in other religions) or transient soul subjected to the laws of Impermanency and Dependent Origination acquires elements that have evolved into the concept of reincarnation in most religions in one form or another, giving rise to the popular myth of ghosts. In the Buddhist definition of rebirth, the transient soul or Bodhi can be reborn in a new person if the karmic seeds happen to sprout into the newborn. . . . The immaterial faculty of consciousness, but that modulates matter, exists not only in human being, but also in other creatures belonging to the advanced hierarchy of evolution. This was observed by none other than Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882). In the Descent of Man (1971), he wrote: Man possesses some of the general instincts, & moral feelings as animals . . . but Man has reasoning powers in excess . . . We know that certain creatures realize long in advance about an incoming Natural disaster such as an earthquake and a volcano, perhaps with their senses responding to certain frequencies. Perhaps our ancient ancestors had attributes of mind and matter sharper than what we have today. It can be argued that simply because of urbanization and dependence on numerous gadgets, human being is susceptible to lose sharpness of some senses in time to come. . . . How best to describe mind as the sixth sense? Mind like the other body sense organs is powered by brain – yet none of these is entirely the function of brain. One of the simple ways to recognize mind as the sense organ is to realize that the mind objects can be anywhere in space and time – from our past experience to imagination – instantly roaming here and there, although we are not bodily present in those mind objects. Or that our experience of sadness, happiness, or anger etc., all originates in mind. Those senses from the mind objects become part of the feeling to perception to volition and then ultimately to our consciousness. Because of the freedom, mind precedes, and is the most influential ingredient to modulate the processes in the Five Aggregates. This is one of the reasons why Buddhism lays so much emphasis on the mind phenomena. The role of mind becomes clearer if one thinks of having a grasp of it through meditation practices. In the context of training and concentrating mind during meditation, the Buddha said our mind, the Mano – the likeness of clear water is agitated by five hindrances: (1) the romantic and sensuous desire – the likeness of water mixed with manifold colors, (2) the evil will – the likeness of boiling water, (3) the sloth and indolence – the likeness of water covered with mosses, (4) the restlessness – the likeness of agitated water whipped by wind, and (5) the skeptical doubt – the likeness of turbid and muddy water. Of course, there are more hindrances like anxiety, frustration, etc. that agitate our mind in day-to-day living. Like in waters of such attributes one cannot see one’s reflection clearly, so in the presence of one or the other, or combinations thereof, one cannot see and understand oneself. The agitation of the hindrances occurs in different degrees responding to different circumstances; and the clue to calming mind lies in our ability to control or eliminate the agitations. One knows too well that when mind is focused or concentrated on something, high performance occurs. Different martial arts techniques are based on controlling mind and matter in order to achieve synchronicity of their functions. Uncontrolled predominance of the hindrances, or one or the other, could lead to an incapacitated mind or mental illness – a person suffering from delusion and paranoia to utter mindlessness. Therefore in the complex modern world, one should be careful to what information one is exposed to – because while calm mental processes produce amazing good results, a disturbed mind influenced by the hindrances could drag one to evil activities or utter hopelessness. Different religions have different methods of calming mind – traditional Eastern therapeutic practices see any illness as the ailment of closely linked mind and matter; therefore focusing on both to diagnose a problem. One cannot keep mind engaged or focused all the time. No matter how one does not want, mind drifts and becomes victim of the five hindrances. Perhaps this reality has risen to the popular proverb: an idle mind is the devil’s workshop. It is only the calm mind – that requires rigorous meditations to develop – to train it for veering into the Right direction - could minimize the unwanted drifting. A drifting agitated mind exhausts the body and spirit, while a calm mind relaxes and energies them. It is rightly pointed out in the 35th verse of the Dhammapada: Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue the mind, so difficult to subdue, ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires. A tamed mind brings happiness. The saying - believe it or not - entails something very interesting. That the Buddha saw and described uncertainty more than 2 millennia ago - because, as described earlier - what is matter is inconceivable without mind. We only came to know the scientific reasoning of uncertainty in the 20th century (WK Heisenberg, 1901 - 1976). It is time to delve into the mind phenomena further. The domain of the mind as an energy field – is something different and beyond the understanding of brain waves - the level of this energy and its frequency depending on the health of mind and matter of an individual. The relevance of this suggestion can be understood from experiences like this: when one sees a person endowed with the positive energy of peace and compassion, one is likely to feel safe and connected. The opposite happens when one sees an angry, malicious or hateful person. In each case, the person’s mental energy field affects the observer’s energy in an interactive reciprocal manner before even they come close. This is one of the reasons why the Buddha taught to take ownership of the mind – to control and steer it in the right direction – to turn an unfriendly encounter into a friendly one without violence. This is the only peaceful and practical way to exert an influence upon the object – because the subject is in no position to take ownership of the object’s mind. Further, this saying is one of the reasons – why the practice of witchcraft, and similar other activities are discouraged in Buddhism. . . . Is this concept of mind as the energy field measurable and definable? Perhaps not yet, but some of the metaphysical phenomena like telepathy seem to occur – as a simple manifestation: many experience sadness or happiness before an impending tragedy or successful outcome. If telepathy does occur, why one cannot communicate through it? The answer is perhaps not difficult to imagine. For telepathy to be successful, the energy field must be strong and in right frequencies of the receptors and transmitters. This sounds like rudimentary electronic communication – perhaps it is, but only much more complicated. What is the speed of this mental energy? Since telepathy occurs almost instantaneously, is it not sensible to suggest that mental energy field propagates with the very high speed of an electromagnetic wave? In fact, this is already implied in the Max Planck's mind-matter oneness assertion. In addition, like all energies the immaterial mind also needs food for healthy sustenance. It is not difficult to understand that progressive social interactions, love and compassion reinforced perhaps by meditation practices and beautiful pieces of art and music energizes one’s mind keeping it healthy and calm. A person can best be thought of as a system – containing the visible physical body (Rupakaya), and the invisible body of the mind (Arupakaya). When Wisdom, Loving kindness, Compassion, Joy and Equanimity define the mental energy of the person – he or she becomes bright and radiant. If such positivities are replaced by the negative energy of Ignorance, Conceit, Envy, Hatred and Greed – the curtain of darkness casts in. The power of mind depends on how well one understands it – to remain calm to channel, control and focus it. Who could be a better person than Einstein (1879-1955) to demonstrate it in modern times? Einstein’s ability to control mind to harness its power has led him to conduct mind experiments for exploration of the very difficult horizons of astrophysics – and his breakthrough in the ground-breaking discovery of the Special and General Theories of Relativity. Whether or not one cares about the metaphysics of the mind phenomena, it is prudent to suggest that the quality of life can be profoundly improved – when one functions with the calmness of mind to do the right thing. This is easier said that done, because sometimes hindrances can be very overwhelming for different reasons – and only those who have the ability to overcome them are the strongest in mind and matter, but are also the rarest. . . . Let me finish this piece by exploring the brilliant mind of Dr BR Ambedkar (1891—1956) . . . The greatest thing the Buddha has done is to tell the world that the world cannot be reformed except by the reformation of the mind of man and the mind of the world . . . The religion of Buddha has the capacity to change according to times, a quality which no other religion can claim to have . . . . . . . . - by Dr. Dilip K. Barua, 30 August 2017
0 Comments
In the Governance blog on this page, we have identified three basic units of a social structure – Family, Business Organization (BO) and Government. Of these, the last two are closely connected in the two-way processes through lobbying, campaign financing, bailing out and consultation. We will try to examine whether, and to what extent the most cherished democratically elected government institutions can function independent of, and without the BO advice and concurrence – but let us do it at some other time. The family, people and small businesses, on the other hand, are virtually isolated from the government starting from the day voting is completed. They become blurry faces with only statistical numbers attached to them. People’s only connection with their government is a one-way impersonal process through media news, and sometimes through government press releases and websites. Media? – Let us talk about it at some other time. For now let us try to examine to what extent people’s choices of political executives can function within the constraints of non-elected bureaucracy that surround and overwhelm them with their inner professional knowledge of state affairs. . . . I would like to start this piece with a BBC news that appeared on 12 July 2016: Larry the Cat escapes Downing Street Eviction. It says, Larry the civil servant (image credit: anon) keeps his job to continue controlling the 10 Downing Street mice. The news came when David Cameron, the then chauvinist British prime minister - an advocate of British supremacy - had to vacate his official residence after being defeated in the Brexit vote. David Cameron vacating the residence after the defeat is democracy – and Larry keeping the job no matter what happens is bureaucracy. In fact, Larrys – the civil servants always keep their jobs, in one position or another, in one place or another. Because that is how their jobs are defined and contracted. Politicians come and go, but Larrys stay. In a constitutional monarchy such as Britain, Larrys represent the continuity and stability of the monarchy within the roster of the changing Political Guard every few years. The privilege of continuity and job description helps Larrys to become the most powerful elites within the inner governing circle. The elected political leaders mostly play the shows that are managed, sometimes even conceived by bureaucrats. . . . Who are these bureaucrats running the government? Well, we know them as government officers or officials. The terms immediately indicate who is the boss and runs the shows. These officers, especially the top ones and the modus operandi of the system belong to the Shepherds Club. They populate every organization – the larger the organization, the larger is their influence and power – be it in government executive offices, legislature or judiciary, corporations, or world bodies. They are integral part of any governing system – the system has no meaning without them. Government bureaucracy is highly hierarchical and the rules of business pass through several layers before decisions are made. This process makes the government bureaucracy very inefficient, and the term bureaucratic red tape is used to describe it. The Red Tape rules of business can even prevent elected political leaders from meddling in administrative affairs in some sectors and cases – people are told that these are political interferences. One may wonder where democracy begins and where it stops. Similar is the case with the bureaucracies of other organizations. Some say, the bureaucracies of world bodies such as UN, IMF, World Bank, world sport controlling bodies are even worse. These bureaucrat-run organizations - including the EU can easily veer towards the lines of thinking - that are likely to contain dictatorial undertones in their decision making. In for-profit corporations, bureaucratic decisions are made rather quickly and arbitrarily, but often within shaky intricacies of unaccountability. . . . We can go on and on discussing all different bureaucracies. Let us focus, for simplicity and convenience, on civil administration in the rest of this piece. But before doing so it may help spending a little time on the evolution of the bureaucratic system. Traditionally European monarchies used to select members from aristocratic families and nobility to fill in key government positions. Competence and merit were considered irrelevant, afraid that such requirements would encourage commons entering into the ruling circle. The other reason is that some top positions hardly need very high skills – apart from having the attitude and power of a boss in control, and playing the role of a post-box, communicating up and down. Even in modern times, some top key positions are filled with people from aristocratic background. How do the aristocratic bureaucrats supposed to behave? Well, many are set things that one often hears from the leadership gurus – that you let others feel small and unworthy: To talk about work rather than doing the work, to be in control of things, to have assistants following you to take orders, to wear fancy clothes, to talk about fancy food and drink, to sit at the head of the table, and to be the last to arrive and the first to leave in meetings. Surrounded by servants – arrogance and snobbery are supposed to be their mantra to make them feel entitlement to the best of everything. One may wonder how things could get done with such an attitude. Well . . . that is why the system is very wasteful. In modern times, others are smart enough to understand that some are getting credit for doing hardly anything – and the process of contagious behaviors proliferate, spiraling down the real productivity. . . . Let us get back to have some more glimpses of the bureaucratic evolution. It was the Chinese monarchies that saw the value of merits in governing. They developed an elaborate system of public examinations to select civil servants. Thus Chinese rule were based on meritocracy rather than European system of aristocracy. The Chinese system is like opening the door of aristocracy to the subjects selected on the basis of merit and competence, thus inducting them into the shepherds club. British monarchy came to learn about the Chinese system in the 18th century and began introducing the system in its colonies. But the British Government was unwilling to apply the same system in its own country. The colonial bureaucrats were trained to behave as Her Majesty’s loyal servant: Think like British, act like British and behave like aliens and superiors to the people of your own country. They were isolated from the general masses with hill slope (hill tops reserved for British) quarters that came with servants, chauffeurs and memberships into the elitist exclusive clubs where strategies were conceived and formulated within closed circles. The colonies saw the rise of arrogant corrupt hypocrites controlling every business of the government. The system still dominates the psyche of civil servants of many former colonies inhibiting social progress and uplift. There had been many efforts in several countries to rein in bureaucratic power, but none of them saw the doors to success – instead bureaucrats started pleading for more power. In a traditional bureaucratic career, it was assumed that the new recruits would learn on the job to become a seasoned professional. But a new thinking started with the first opening of the business school in 1819 in Paris. The purpose was to train people to serve administrative and management needs, not only for the government but also for all businesses. About a century later, the real thrust came in 1908 with the opening of the Harvard School of Business offering Master of Business Administration degree. With this and subsequent developments, administrative and management services took a complete new turn by overtaking all other professions in controlling and managing things. In recent times, the bureaucratic system of managing things – from policy formulation and intellectual backup to chalking out the management directions of implementation checklists – have taken the shape of government and corporate funded strategies – entrusted to the works of so-called private Think-Tank entities. These entities functioning with the blessing of funding agencies – are basically tasked to provide legitimacy to the govt and corporate agenda by giving them a cover of independent-neutrality, and intellectual competence. The advantages for promoting and supporting such an approach is that – their actions can be dictated by the funding agencies – and their products can be easily sold to the members of the public through published reports, and via media outlets as an accomplice. It gives the political parties (whose members by-and-large are not knowledgeable of governing practices - some even lack skills and competency as per the modern democratic system of choosing political candidates) the right tool to spearhead their confidential agenda by avoiding bureaucratic resistance, intransigence and dilly-dallying. Some implementation checklists produced by such entities are often entrusted – to the office of so-called non-governmental NGOs. Here again, the functions of NGOs are controlled by govt and corporate funding – but in the guise of public welfare, environmental protection, Nature conservation, etc. NGOs also ask for, and get public donations – but the donating public cannot and do not have any say in those NGO policies and actual works. . . . How does the power play look like between the elected politicians and the seasoned bureaucrats? Let us have a glimpse of it through the eyes of a comedy series. In the British satirical sitcom, Yes Minister (1980 – 1984) and Yes Prime Minister (1986 – 1988) produced by BBC Television, the power play between the political executives and top bureaucrats was skillfully portrayed. This highly popular sitcom made satirical fun of democratically elected leader’s powers – which in most cases, amounted to nothing more than listening to, and acting according to what the bureaucrats had to say. Bureaucrats even played the role of kingmakers through their skills of manipulating and twisting things in their favor. In fact, political leaders have very little option of handling bureaucrats because they cannot be fired, but can only be transferred to a less import post or position – often known as punishment posting. In the sitcom, the bureaucrat argues very humbly why the key administrative and managerial functions should be left to them . . . the traditional allocation of executive responsibilities has always been so determined as to liberate the ministerial incumbent from the administrative minutiae by devolving the managerial functions to those experience and qualifications have better formed them for the performance of such humble offices, thereby releasing their political overlords for the more onerous duties and profound deliberations which are the inevitable concomitant of their exalted positions . . . What are the onerous duties and profound deliberations? Well, you must have guessed. These are to quarrel and fight with each other, to cut ribbons and take credit, to be in history books, and to keep the journalists busy with rhetoric and insinuations to convince people that democracy really works – and that, it is the people who are in power. . . . The media and journalists? Well, they dance up and down, analyze and reanalyze every lies and rhetoric they have heard to increase their rating. . . . most of our journalists are so incompetent that they have the gravest difficulty in finding that today is Wednesday . . . That is how making fun of the journalists goes within the bureaucratic circle. But could they avoid it? Well, they probably cannot. Because they are the ones who know the truth, and they cannot help but enjoy the attempts of journalists to thread the puzzles to derive conclusions which may appear utterly nonsense to them. But don’t think that is where things stop, because if the journalist’s story goes against their interests, they will arrange with the editors that the journalist gets punished in one way or another. In fact, Larrys have the luxury of making fun of everybody – because they are the elites close to money and power at its source, and in dissemination – in both upstream and downstream phases. They can take advantage by using the privilege of having access to people’s personal and private information. The privilege of long tenured services makes them and their families stable and rich to think of themselves as god given blessing of aristocracy. . . . How do the bureaucratic structures differ among the countries? In one-party communist countries, party officials themselves are part of the bureaucracy. Among the democracies, perhaps former British colonies have more doses of bureaucracy than others. In terms of development, developed societies seemed to have more streamlined and efficient bureaucracy than the rest. What I have discussed so far, should not give the impression that Larrys are bad and that the elected people are just pawns. It is nothing like that. Some bureaucrats just play their role in an abusing system while others could abuse the systems no matter how reasonable they are. Elected people, for that matter any member of the public could also play a role in an abusive system, or could be the abuser themselves individually. Elected leaders have the difficult job of keeping their commitment to people, but at the same time deal with bureaucratic and other hurdles. Ultimately it is the individual capacities, commitment and competence that determine who fires the shot in the end. Unlike the past aristocratic system, in the modern world power is shared in many layers. . . . I am tempted here to explore some relevant materials from Buddhist scriptures that have listed some 20 difficulties that a person faces in life. In one of them, Gautama Buddha (624 – 544 BCE) - The Tathagata said: It is difficult not to abuse one’s authority. The Buddha did not say it was impossible – but only that it was difficult. Authority accompanies power – and it is easy to get into the temptation of abusing it rather than rising above it. It is difficult also because, as we have tried to see in the Wheel of Life blog on this page, people of authority see the world through the lens of power. Therefore, for them abuse is like entitlement to govern – the suffering of the abused victim hardly cross their mind. The Buddha’s wisdom implies that people entrusted with authority should need to be extra careful not to fall into the temptation of abusing their power. Because of the different colors of lenses, the views of people, bureaucrats, political and industrial leaders are not always likely to converge – interests are different, pursuits are different and choices are different. In the end there must be a convergence however, because it is possible and necessary – but it is possible only when those in authority stand on solid foundations of integrity and commitment to people’s causes. . . . Here is an anecdote to ponder: As the disciple came, the master exploded, “You idiot, why are you here? Go away. Never ever show up here again.” The disciple could not believe what he heard. What did he do to deserve such an angry insult? Had his master gone crazy? He gathered courage, “Sir, are you fine?” The master was trembling with anger, “What are you? You stupid! You have heard me. Don’t show your ugly face again.” The disciple thought for a while and said, “Okay, Sir. I will come back later.” The disciple returned back next day, “Sir?” He waited to see how his master would react. The master smiled, “My dear, I am sorry. I have been deliberately behaving weird to test you. I have wanted to provoke you with violent anger. You have passed with honor. You see, it is only the deaf, dumb and the blind, who would be unable to react to insults and angry outbursts. As I have watched you, on the first insult your face has shown the signs of utter disbelief. On the second insult your face has turned from reactive anger to sadness.” “Oh my gosh! I am so relieved. Thank you Sir.” “It is only human that we act and react with strong emotions like anger, hatred, fear, sadness, joy and love when facing a situation. I am amazed that, like a person of true wisdom, you have reacted but with the ability of controlling yourself. You deserve a reward.” So saying, the master hugged his dear disciple. . . . . . - by Dr. Dilip K. Barua, 25 August 2016 In the Duality and Multiplicity in Nature piece on the NATURE page, I have tried to indicate how the principle of duality and multiplicity works in Nature – and why the crest and trough of a wave are interlinked in a process to transport energy. We have tried to see it through the duality principle of Nagarjuna (150 – 250 CE). Also we have tried to establish in that piece that multiplicity is the building block of duality – that it is impossible for a Natural phenomenon to remain monochromatic. . . . Why understanding the social duality and multiplicity is important? For one, a proper understanding of things enlightens people to minimize uncertainty and risk in the management of social affairs. The Uncertainty and Risk piece in the SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY page discusses how the darkness of ignorance can affect decision making adversely. We will try to see in this piece how the same principle applies to a society – but perhaps in a complex manner. To keep things simple and for convenience, let us try to describe the social duality in the context of two social energy flows in separate ways, but must complement each other for progressive transformation (in absence of an appropriate one, I have selected an image from a web source, credit: anon). The first is the financial standing on which the duality of rich and poor is visible. The second visible duality is good and evil that stands on the ethics or morality ground. Of these two sets of dualities, rich and poor duality is a measurable reality. The measure of good and evil, on the other hand is based on human perception and is relative or subjective. We have discussed this in the Duality and Multiplicity piece on the NATURE page. But while some attributes of the duality of good and evil could be interpreted differently in different societies, some core values and expectations are common to all humanity. We have touched upon that in the Social Order blog on this page. . . . It is also important to realize from the outset that financial standing has the power, and does trump over the ethics ground – for that matter any other ground. It is not difficult to understand why so. Let us try to see it more through three fictitious examples representing some combinations at the extreme end of the spectrum. The first is the case where an individual or an organization stands on the crest of the financial standing, but happens to lie at the bottom on the ethics ground. On the opposite end, the second is the case of an individual or an organization standing on the crest of ethics but lies at the trough on financial standing. The third is the case where an individual or an organization stands on the crests of both financial standing, and ethics ground. This is the most desirable combination but most often the rarest, partly because the power associated with money has the ability to make people arrogant, inhibiting their capacity to see things from the perspectives of other people’s interests, humanity and ethics. We often hear people saying, money and power do not go hand in hand with honesty and ethics. It is neither a theory nor a desirable social behavior, but rather reflects people’s perception and realization. What is the rationale behind such a perception by people? Let us try to see it through the eyes of the power circles – how they would react to the first two cases. If the individual or the organization in the first case does not break any law, the power circle would likely ignore the failure on the ethics ground. In the second case, the power circle would probably empathize or sympathize with the poor individual or organization standing on the high ethics ground – at least they would do so publicly. In private conversations and decision making, it may be a different story however – most likely they would not hesitate to express anger, and dehumanize the participant as a useless nuisance. Well, how about that? In Charles Darwin’s (1809 – 1882) words: If the misery of the poor be caused not by the law of nature, but by our own institutions, great is our sin. . . . The three cases are only simple examples – in reality social interactions are much more complex to have straight answers. We have talked about the positive and negative social energies in the Social Fluidity blog on this page. Negative energies tend to increase the duality gap – often leading a society to the breaking point and instability when the gap is too wide. Positive energy, on the other hand has the power to decrease inequality and the duality gap by minimizing mistrusts and promoting understanding and tolerance among the multiples. What does the minimization of gaps mean? Let us try to clarify this. For the duality on financial standing, it means moving both the crest and trough close together. On the other hand, minimizing the duality gap on the ethics ground means that the evil at the trough needs to move up in an attempt to reach the level of the good at the crest. Should the duality gap vanish eventually? The reality is that the gap has always existed and will continue to exist to the future. This is how the social energy propagates to transmit and dissipate in the transformation process. Only thing to watch is that there are more positive energies to overwhelm the negatives, and that the inequality is minimized to keep the gap within a manageable level. . . . Does this mean that a uniform society – all belonging to the same level of financial standing, like the communist founder (Karl Marx, 1818 – 1883) has envisioned is not naturally possible? Many wise people engaged their hearts and minds delving into it in the past, because they wanted to see a society of equality with all the people having a meaningful happy life. They thought that communism had the answer, in reality however the practicing communist countries ended up being very inefficient and unproductive state controlled enterprises. While the communist ideology was rather sophisticatedly argued, it seemed to be mired with some flaws. We can think at least four of them. The first is the fact that an authoritarian one party rule is in denial of multiplicity. The social multiplicity should be understood not only in terms of color and creed, but also in differences that define people – in their mental and physical capabilities – in their judgments and opinions – in their customs and lifestyles, and so on. Multiplicity represents converging elements required to sustain a society’s energy to a healthy level. The second is the arrogance and corrupt practices that creep in within the party ranks. This deplorable cancer infuses negative energy into a society. The third is the fact that the concept of a homogeneous society standing on an equal financial standing, has the elements of inhibiting social motivation and inspiration by discouraging competitiveness, and putting a cap on people’s aspirations. The last but not the least is that people’s freedom is curtailed greatly by giving the party bureaucrats the responsibility to control and decide on people’s fates. When people lose freedom of thoughts and expressions, and equitable opportunities, a society loses its spirit. Therefore the ideology was doomed to failure. In most cultures elders used to teach their young children that all fingers in a hand are not of the same length. Therefore an expectation of complete uniformity is unreal, and there must be a reason why the fingers are not of equal length. However what is possible and necessary, is to promote a pluralistic society with attempts to minimize inequalities. Because if the gap is too wide, negative social energy creeps in to destabilize a social system. . . . This does not mean however that a pluralistic society is faultless. The reason is that in such a social framework, unscrupulous and ruthless elements often take advantage of the freedom to infuse negative energy into, and drag a society to instability. Doesn’t modern education help in this regard? Education does help, but perhaps the problem does not lie with education. It is rather the social framework of aggressiveness that drives some people to the extent of unethical and ruthless behaviors. If immediate gains in whatever means, are considered as the sole criteria or as the overriding one, to promote and upgrade a person’s position in an organization, then it is only natural that the person would tend to behave according to the ways expected. One could blame the person, but it is rather the system as a whole that is responsible, and to blame. Where do all these lead us to? Do they indicate that there is no hope? Hopelessness by itself is negative energy, therefore not desirable. Duality and multiplicity must exist to transport energy – it only requires that a society creates enough positive energy to reduce the duality gap for it to be stable and prosperous on its ways to transformation. Ancient religious leaders and philosophers just did that, and we discussed about some other past leaders in the Social Fluidity blog on this page. . . . Here is an anecdote to ponder: The disciple turned to his master and asked, “Sir, how do the dualities look like in time?” The master replied, “Good point! Nothing escapes the arbitration of time. In time, nothing is constant – the natures of the dualities change hand as the social transformation moves from upstream to downstream – power changes hands, money changes hands, and so on – this is the judgment of Nature.” “But unscrupulous and ruthless people may argue that they would ride the crest on a financial standing all the way in their lifetime, therefore why care.” The master looked at his disciple and smiled, “No wonder! What can you expect?” . . . . . - by Dr. Dilip K. Barua, 18 August 2016 Some materials I have included in The Fluidity of Nature blog in the NATURE page have made writing this piece somewhat easier. In addition, the Transformation of Waves blog in the SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY page, written in the context of planning and design of coastal and port infrastructure provides us some insights on the transformation viewpoint of social fluidity. This piece - commemorating the First Nations Day on August 9th - also depends on our understanding of the Social Order posted in this page earlier. In The Fluidity of Nature blog I have identified five important elements that characterize the fluidity we defined – TIME, CONTINUITY, RESILIENCE, ADAPTATION, and BALANCE and DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM. These elements are all the more important in the evolution of a society, perhaps in a more complicated fashion. Social fluidity is all about transformation that results from social actions and reactions in response and adaptation to the imposed forces and circumstances confronting a society. In the process a society attempts to balance itself in time to achieve dynamic equilibrium {I have selected a people image (credit: anon) in a cheerful mood}. The dynamic equilibrium to reach the stability of Unity. In Buddhist thoughts (Gautama Buddha, 563 – 483 BCE), the rolling of the Unity have four faces – the Duality of the opposites (1 & 2), the entanglement (3) and the complementarity (4) of the Dualities. . . . Why not rigidity instead of fluidity to define a society? What is wrong with rigidity? In an ever changing world on an impermanent paradigm, the notion of social rigidity is unrealistic and unnatural. Some elements of the social framework must evolve to accommodate the advances of time. Failure to appreciate the necessity of accommodating the advances delays or halts social progress – to the extent of causing instability in extreme cases. However, fluidity does not connote indiscriminate accommodations of everything; it rather indicates undertaking effective filtration processes for making smart choices. Transformative processes defining social fluidity are visible the way we appear, the way we behave, and the way we act and react in handling the social issues of common interests. Like a fluid, a society takes the shape of its container – the container in this case is the climate and the existing cultural and economic factors. In some cases of close proximity the societal differences are less, while remoteness makes the differences wider. . . . Before going further, perhaps an attempt to find the parallelism between the fluidities of Nature and society will be helpful. The characteristics of a natural fluid depend on its viscosity and density, which in turn depend on pressure and temperature. A highly viscous fluid is more resistant to flow than a fluid of lower viscosity. On a similar footing, it can be argued that a society of tenacious viscosity is defined by the soundness and firmness of its values, and by its stable social framework of unity and peace. A diluted viscosity makes a society vulnerable to change with rather minor and undesirable stimulus. Perhaps a quote from Persian mystic poet Rumi (1207 – 1373) is appropriate in this context: If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished? In a modern interconnected world of information, distraction and misinformation knock the doors of a society every single day. Therefore, it is all the more important why a society needs to stand on a stable framework of unity and peace. As pointed out earlier, the argument should not lead us to believe, however that a society should be impervious to change. Like the fluidity suggests, it is rather important for a society to be receptive to advanced and progressive ideas wherever they come from. It is also important to try to absorb and integrate those advances into the social fabric. . . . Let us try to analyze more of it. As a society faces external forces or internal stresses, it attempts to transform and evolve in time through resilience and adaptation to find the balance and achieve dynamic equilibrium. Why dynamic equilibrium? It requires being dynamic because when a society becomes static, it virtually heads to deathbed. The dynamic transformation processes become robust and progressive only when a society stands on a solid foundation, but at the same time has the capacity to absorb the advances. What are the characteristics of a solid foundation? These are the social framework and principles on which a society stands. For example, a motivational social discipline to work for common good and unity is a solid foundation. On the other hand, a chaotic system promoting malpractice, corruption and divisiveness makes a society fractured and weak standing on a shaky foundation. As we have identified in the Governance blog in this page, solidity of a social foundation is secured when the three basic units of a social structure – FAMILY, BUSINESS ORGANIZATION and GOVERNMENT – work coherently and collectively to adapt to the positive transformation processes for common good. There are also other dimensions to the characteristics. An important one comprises the national monumental achievements by individuals and organizations that make people proud, and add to the strength of a social foundation. . . . From where does a society derive energy to transform? People derive energy from their own motivation, and from families, friends and teachers. These four obvious factors in turn derive energy from the society where they are rooted – even from outside, in this era of the interconnected world. Social energy is derived from the combined motivations and pursuits of individuals, but it is mostly the social framework of values that defines its strength. A social framework evolves through decades and centuries of transformation. The most visible architects of a social framework are the political leaders and rulers. Do all the energies benefit a society? As we all understand, people depend on the positive energy to move forward. Positive energy carries a society toward stability and progress while the negative energy pulls it down toward the breaking point and instability. Instability does not always mean political instability – it is rather the erosion of core values on which a society stands firmly. This erosion occurs silently and incrementally transforming and dragging a society into the wrong direction. There have been many beacons of light in history helping chart the paths to human progress. Examples of some visionary leaders who infused positive social energy in the recent past were: Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865), Mahatma Gandhi (1869 – 1948), Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 – 1968) and Nelson Mandela (1918 – 2013). On the other hand, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) was also able to inspire the German society, but with a distorted ideology, dragging the society and the world with it into instability and war. Lack of motivation and inspiration originating from a shaky social foundation infuse negative energy into the minds of people. . . . How do the cross-cultural exchanges affect the fluidity of a society? Cross-cultural exchanges enriched human societies from time immemorial. At least two revolutionary technological advances that have happened in the 20th century, have been transforming the societies all around the world like no other. With the iron bird started flying in the sky since 1914, the fluidity of nation states received its first jolt of major transformation. While scientists are throwing more light on past human movement and migration through DNA [Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid – genetic code defining individuals] analysis, thousands of years from now the human migration and cohabitation history may indicate a complete different canvas of amalgamation. The second super jolt came in the period between1960s and 1980s with the launching of personal computers and Internet Protocols. This jolt was followed by mobile phones that covered the remotest corners of the world, bringing all walks of people together into the communication network. Within a very short period of time the proliferation and popularity of Internet have revolutionized our lives. Access to resources, instant emailing, texting, audio and video communications have transformed the way we live and do business. Perhaps for the first time in history, its administration and regulation have tested the limits of authority of any particular country. Perhaps with this, the nature of social fluidity has entered into a new phase. These transportation and communication technologies connecting nations together unlike anytime in the past have been shrinking the world at a very fast rate. Proliferation of these technologies is melting distances and cultures. Most of these are good because exchanges help nations to know and understand each other. This in turn is helpful in promoting trade and minimizing mistrust and animosity. The harmful effects are often the cultural shock on traditional values, and the effects can be overwhelming sometime. In addition, Internet has opened the door to malicious activities and cybercrime in unbelievable rapidity adversely impacting all societies around the world. But the good news is that a tenacious society always finds the way to adapt and transform through the filtration processes of discarding the harmful elements. . . . Here is an anecdote to ponder: The disciple asked, “Sir, a question has been bothering me for sometime. It is about the difference between an innovator and a scholar.” The master replied, “Um! Let me see. An innovator is someone who creates Pros and Cons. A scholar, on the other hand, is an intellectual who is embroiled with critical reviews of the Pros and Cons, and finding the differences between them.” “Why Pros and Cons, Sir? I am afraid I do not understand it.” “Well, every major new idea, theory, method or product of value causes social stirs to some extent, because they are new to establishments. Some requires scholarly debates to argue both ways.” “But some innovations also happen in our routine activities.” “Smart star performers in every profession are innovative by nature. However, most of their innovations do not reach the level of causing social stirs; they rather cater to improving and refining the undertakings of the pioneers.” “Although social stirs are caused, innovations hold the keys to social progress.” The master looked pleased and smiled, “There you have it!” . . . . . - by Dr. Dilip K. Barua, 11 August 2016 In one way of looking at it, governance is all about making decisions by the Seats of Power and implementing them – the decisions on how best to lead, manage and run, sometimes in a complex framework of many layers and levels where decision processes are handled. Perhaps it will help if we try to understand the processes by asking, who makes decisions and what governs decision making? To manage the answers properly, let us narrow down our focus on two basic units of the social structure – one at the nucleus of the structure – the FAMILY, and the other at the periphery – the GOVERNMENT. There is a third unit however, which may appear separate from the other two, but in reality closely knitted with them. This important unit is the BUSINESS ORGANIZATION (BO). The importance of this unit can hardly be overemphasized simply because of the fact that people spend most of their adult life working for the BOs – be it commercial, industrial, non-profit or state. However there is a distinct difference in the three units – in a sense how they take initiatives. The commercial and industrial BOs initiate actions by asking what makes money, in contrast to the families and Governments, who start by asking what makes sense. . . . All the three units are integrated together in the collective welfare, stability and growth of a society. Problems start to creep in when mistrusts develop among the units, sometimes because of the differences in the types of stresses on them, and how they are handled. In addition, Governments and BOs maintain what seems like a fighting posture with the help of paid lawyers and security apparatus – a family, on the other hand is mostly focused on the welfare of its members. All the three units should understand these aspects to the fact that the pursuit of the social equilibrium is impossible if the three units do not function coherently. The Government as a tax collector and overseer of things is entrusted by people to do just that. If the Government’s actions hinge toward BOs at the cost of family matters, the nucleus is crumbled jeopardizing the social equilibrium. The relationship between the Government and people is a matter of public scrutiny. But the same between the BO and the Government is mostly conducted and managed behind the scenes in private. Both the parties go to public however, but only through press releases – with materials they want public to know – not what the public want to know. Most of the times the approach works out well, but when people’s interests are sacrificed by such actions then the purpose of democracy envisioned by Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865) is defeated.
On what governs decision making, let us focus our discussion on three important common denominators – finance, stability, and growth. Proper management of these three factors is very important for good governance of family, business and Government. Let us not forget however that at project management levels, decision making is governed by the efforts to balance cost, schedule and quality within a given scope. The first factor, and probably the most important one is finance or cash flow. Lack of, or high fluctuation in cash flow rips a family apart – many tragedies happen everyday across cultures. Technological advances and cost cutting measures across the board are only likely to aggravate the situation even further in times to come. The BOs, on the other hand, are used to the ups and downs in cash flow. Credit lines and cash reserves are some of the options they rely on to temporarily handle the lack of adequate cash flow. Continuous monitoring of the situation, together with the evaluation of growth forecasts propels them to initiate further actions – that could include bailout requests to the Government. Most ruthless and embarrassing cases appear when BOs slash jobs as a cost cutting measure while at the same time reward the executives with bonus packages. Why do they do it? Well, executive pay packages are designed to share profits and resources within a close circle, and they are highly inflated and sealed by lucrative contracts. During the times of crisis, sometimes BOs try to avoid getting rid of the executives to evade paying high severance payments to them. But a measure of slashing jobs affecting mostly the employees in the marginal communities, sadly trickle down to the nucleus of the social structure – the families. For the Government, balancing the budget does not carry the same meaning as the other two. Unlike the other two units, Governments across cultures have the unpopular option of reaching the pockets of its citizens and BOs to raise money, or print money in extreme circumstances. The main problem with such an approach is that people and BOs have to balance their own budgets too; therefore sometimes taxation becomes monsters of repression when the taxpayer pocket is reached deeply. A significant fraction of incomes of a state or a local Government is also generated by consumer taxes – Governments taking a bite from each pie of business transactions. Instead of cutting or reducing expenditures or becoming more efficient, some Governments are very innovative in tax collection and behave irresponsibly to impose taxes in one form or another. When things happen like this, people are led to ask how a democratically elected Government is different from a totalitarian one. . . . Let us now turn our attention to the stability. The stability of each of the units depends on how the stresses or forces are handled individually and collectively. The problems with cash flow, mistrusts and in-fighting between members are the main stresses a family faces. Families also need to watch carefully that money-matters do not harm relationships. This is because money has both healing and disruptive powers. For the BOs, the threatening forces of concerns are competitions, Government regulations or over-regulations, and the last but not the least is the in-fighting between different departments within the organization. For a Government, the forces that threaten stability are inefficiency and corruption within the administration, erosion of people’s confidence in the Government, external aggression, and internal disturbances. Some of these threats could originate from the Government’s own mismanagement of affairs. When a Government handles such threats through the principles of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527), the problems only worsen further. . . . Why growth is also important? As we have discussed in the NATURE page, the characteristic signature of nature is dynamic equilibrium, meaning that stagnation is unnatural. Let us try to think of financial and economic growths. If we consider the nucleus of the social structure, we will find that on a personal level, a person’s education, skill and experience lead him or her to grow in income levels if things are favorable. But a person’s growth has a peak depending on age and capability, after which it declines. The achieved personal growth should translate to growth or as a stimulus to growth of children and family. If this does not happen, a family’s livelihood and future are ruined. Unlike a person or family, a BO or Government cannot afford to reach peak and decline. It must continue to grow by diversification – if peaks are reached in some sectors, it must innovate to initiate growth in others. Growth is also important to stimulate and sustain people’s confidence. But expectation of a constant level of growth is unrealistic. Developing societies have poor infrastructure – therefore, their economy grows fast if planned correctly. Unlike developed countries, their growth is driven by infrastructure development. But once developed in this sector, they will face similar problems like the developed countries to maintain the same growth rate. . . . In global context - the processes of Global Governance - are similarly dependent on the factors discussed. Peace in the spirit of mutual respect, understanding one another, and accommodation of multiple opinions and interests - are paramount to Global Harmony. As global communities are shrinking faster and faster - the requirement of such understandings are becoming increasingly imperative - because in one way or another - we are all related. It implies that if someone or something are left behind - they will pull down others. In conclusion, perhaps it is crucial to point out that the discussed questions can be elaborated and expanded further to include: how the decisions are made? And what are the consequences of decisions coming into actions? Each of these two questions together with the ones discussed earlier needs careful scrutiny. Decision making process is prompted by some perceived realities and necessities. On what basis and how the decision process is initiated – lead one to examine whether or not – the process is ill- or well-informed, well- or callously-analyzed, ill- or well-conceived. As one can imagine – the consequences of following one or the other can have widely differing consequences. Before finishing, I like to touch one more aspect – and this is known as bubble growth. For an enterprise to be successful, it needs to feel confident in the quality of its products and services. This confidence should ideally be based on substance, but sometimes enterprises resort to marketing tactics to substantiate and defend fake claims. The practice is like creating a bubble that is likely to bust at some time. When the bubble busts, it creates ripple effects across boundaries causing substantial damage. We hear about such busts and uncertainty in the financial and stock exchange markets, which mostly rely on speculative forecasts. Because of their extensive damaging effects, Government interventions may often become necessary to oversee and prevent bubble growths. . . . Here is an anecdote to ponder: The disciple said, “Sir, I will work hard to become a powerful person someday.” The master smiled, “Good. No surprise there! Everybody wants to be powerful, some with their own money, others with someone else’s money. Perhaps you could try to join the Government career service to become what the Chinese calls a scholar and the rest of the world call a bureaucrat.” “Why so? If I may ask, Sir.” The master looked at him and said, “Well, think like this. You will be part of an elitist life-time job holder that rightly gets better and better on way to seniority. You will enjoy the privilege, benefit and the power of an aristocrat in control, while your colleagues in the private sector paying your salary, will go through the hellish experience of continuous worries – of uncertainty and instability.” . . . . . - by Dr. Dilip K. Barua, 23 June 2016 We have talked about Natural Order in the NATURE page. Millions of years of evolution have led Nature to appear the way we see it – its diversity – its beauty – the underlying balance and dynamic equilibrium in all things Nature nourishes and sustains by adapting to the ever changing conditions and circumstances. Humans are a natural born entity; therefore inherited the same quests for balance and equilibrium – all occurring as fluxes of change in the Wheel of Time – high and low – long and short. But humankind has evolved into an intelligent and rational creature with the ability to improve upon its livelihood by developing tools and methods to live with and exploit Nature to its advantage. Therefore while Nature provides humans with resources and strengths, we humans are destined to define our own future – we can either make heaven out of hell or hell out of heaven. Responsibility is ours, but things work out well only when social orders are built upon solid foundations. Let us try to understand what all these mean (a metaphorical image credit: anon). . . . A country’s social order depends on many factors most important of which are its economic system, political and administrative framework, law-and-order definition and enforcement, and the progressive socio-cultural values. The prosperity and peace rely on how rational and progressive these factors are in defining a stable inspiring society. Economic and political systems have elements that could lead a society either to disaster or to prosperity based on what are promoted or pursued: mendacity versus honesty – secrecy versus transparency – authoritarianism versus democracy – exclusion versus inclusion – prejudice versus equity – freedom versus restriction – hypocrisy versus sincerity – hatred versus love and respect. In a democratic society, responsibility lies with the leaders who are entrusted by people to be courageous to lead the society in the right direction. However, there is reciprocity of relationship between people and leaders – which means that good leaders are products of a good citizenry, while reciprocally without good leaders a society could go in the wrong direction. Something different also happen. Like Mother Earth wakes up to relieve of its stress through an earthquake, so does a society – it gives birth to a social earthquake to release its stress developed by continued repression and discontent. Courageous and dedicated leaders are born to save a society from such disasters, and they are the ones who change the course of history. Human history across cultures is full of such social earthquakes. Also important are the roles of various media outlets, entertainment programs and advertisements. These outfits have the soft power to slowly transform a society. They can hide behind the Freedom of Expression Acts to cause great damage to the social fabric. Among these, corporate and industrial advertisements - riding on the back of their wealth and power - could and do attempt to veer social order in one way or another - while pretending to promote their products and services. People and social leaders must be aware of that. People rely on news media to know the truth about matters that affect their well-being and livelihood. If the media is biased, or plays the role of a spokesperson or as a pawn of special interest groups then things could get utterly distorted, confused and mismanaged. . . . What about the roles of industry and business leaders? As outlined before, these minority wealthy sections of the society wield enormous hidden power than most people could imagine. They mostly hide behind politicians and lawyers, but are most effective in exerting pressure to frame policies and laws in their favor. Since they control most of the wealth in a society, a peaceful social order is impossible without real commitments from these leaders. How about law-and-order? Is it same as the social order? Social order is much more broad-based, and has deeper effects than law-and-order. Social progress, peace and stability cannot be ensured by law-and-order alone. Perhaps one of the reasons is the difficulty in maintaining a relatively disturbance-free society without compromising civil liberties and privacy. When it comes down to judiciary, the justice is often not defined on actual facts of events, rather on the interpretations of arguments presented by the accuser and the defendant. The complexity of the processes makes it difficult to have a dispute free law-and-order system. If people feel that these processes are flawed and corrupted, society becomes mistrustful and conflict-ridden. . . . Let us get back to stressing the roles of progressive socio-cultural values, because these social moralities are the foundations on which a society could stand tall defining its singularity. The singularity of cultures exists despite the fact that some fundamental human behaviors and values are ubiquitous irrespective of social and cultural differences. We can think of these fundamentals as the human abilities to distinguish between good and bad, the existence of common human emotions of love and kindness, of anger and hatred, or of expectations of a just system. Why are the cultures distinctly different, despite the fact that common human aspirations are the same? Perhaps we can think of the answers like these: one commonality among the visionary Greats who contribute to the evolution of social orders is that they learn materials of social relations by observing and studying natural order, and fundamental human behaviors in actions and reactions. But individual understanding and interpretations lead to the differences we see. The understanding and interpretations themselves are the results of background socio-cultural foundations on which the Greats stand. The second is similar to the arguments I have presented in The Wheel of Life piece. The social order is like a fluid – it takes different shapes in different cultures as does the fluid take shape of the container. It continues to evolve in time in accordance with the advances in ideas, science and technology of that society. While this argument holds in general, in modern times the growing shrinkage of national identities resulting from travel and cyber-world exchange of information is adding to some sorts of social and cultural amalgamation. While the exchange can be good and enriching, a big question looms on every society: how to protect the vulnerable people from the damaging effects of the cyberspace? The answer is not an easy one – but hope that human ingenuity and adaptation-drives will overcome the problem. In the end, those cultures built upon a strong foundation characterized by a cohesive social order of adaptability, motivational discipline, trust and mutual respect are likely to prevail. . . . When a society becomes mistrustful and conflict-ridden, it is not easy to determine whom to trust. There are many who look for opportunities to cheat, to take advantage of, or to harm trusting innocent people. They could come under different pretexts and disguises. When the problem becomes acute, enhanced social instability can prove disastrous. Who are these visionary Greats who have sacrificed their comforts and livelihood to define a society? Apart from ancient religious leaders and some past leaders in history, the Greats in modern times have names like Mahatma Gandhi (1869 – 1948), Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 – 1968) and Nelson Mandela (1918 - 2013). These leaders have transformed their societies and the world beyond by pursuing courageous non-violent methods to get things done. In the process they saved many lives from being drawn into and devoured by conflicts. It is important that a society looks back to them again and again to get inspired during times of conflicts and crises. We have talked about life’s equilibrium pursuits in The Wheel of Life piece. How does it work for a society? Social equilibrium starts with an individual’s peace with himself or herself and with the family. The individual peace translates to the peace and harmony in the human-family to which we all belong. This peace is the most essential ingredient to ensure social stability and progress. It translates to understanding others, to unraveling the veils of mistrust, and treating others with respect. World peace and equilibrium are only possible if individual countries are at peace within themselves. . . . Should Survival of the Fittest define social order? The answer is definitely no - echoing with Leo Tolstoy (1828 – 1910) who once said . . . this way of life is incompatible with the much more natural law of love . . . Further, this answer implies that as a distinct species separate from other creatures, humans need to pursue a rational social policy of survival. The survival of other creatures revolves around food and mating pursuits – once availed of these things, they become satisfied. Humans, on the other hand are hardly satisfied – they want more and more of everything. If Survival of the Fittest principle governs a human society then it will unleash the insatiable human desire to amass wealth and power at any cost. The drive will end up trampling one another, breaking law-and-order and enhancing conflicts and mistrusts to disastrous consequences. Well, what I have discussed may sound somewhat idealistic but pursuance of social equilibrium is much more important than to think otherwise. As a society, we depend on one another, and all of us share the responsibilities in defining the society we live in. However, as I have pointed out in The Wheel of Life piece, those who hold other people’s strings tight and strong share the biggest responsibilities than the rest – it only makes sense that they rise to the occasion to do the right thing. Most often things get blindsided by immediate and short-term gains without the realization that unwholesome activities have disastrous long-term effects. . . . Here is an anecdote to ponder: The disciple asked, “Please sir could you tell me whether the fundamental human social order is founded upon a just system.” The master replied, “Do you remember how your parents took care of you while you were little?” “Yes I do. They took care of me selflessly sacrificing their own comfort.” “Are you doing the same to your children?” “Of course, I am.” “Do you see similar behavior in many other creatures?” “I do.” “How do you expect behaviors from others?” “Nice and just behaviors to feel safe, secure and peace like the days during my childhood.” The master smiled, “Very good my friend! You have understood the fundamental principles on which a human social order must be founded upon. The expectation is universal and is impregnated into human mind since childhood.” . . . . . - by Dr. Dilip K. Barua, 16 June 2016 We live life every single day – working, learning, stumbling, struggling, and enjoying this great miraculous gift our parents were kind enough to give. Sometimes we ride the wheel of time as if we are master of it, but at other times we crawl along, dragged and bent down by the cruelty of time. We carry on with all the ups and downs, like one of my friends often says: Hang in there my friend, hang in there . . . Indeed we hang in there as if life’s reward is waiting for us. Life goes on. Perhaps the writings and paintings on rickshaws, auto-rickshaws and trucks in Bangladesh and India add some flavors to the realization of life’s meaning by average Joe and Jane. Some of them have deep philosophical tones like the one saying: Burning since Birth. Similar feelings and epiphanies of people can be seen in many social media outfits on the cyberspace. Despite the fact that some are tainted with thoughtless spontaneity, these realizations are real – neither fabricated nor polished to profit from them, or to get acceptance. Sometimes words of wisdom come from unexpected sources. They are like what Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642) once rightly pointed out: I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him. . . . One of my friends said: Come on, don’t start like that. It sounds very pessimistic and depressing. Look at life like a war or sport. The friend continued: Don’t you see V-sign or phrases like game-changer across cultures? Yes, I do see them and they are really worrisome. Because the notion of looking at life as if it is war or sport shows how prevalent is the belief that fighting and aggressiveness are the answers for all things we do. What is more worrisome is the fact that the notion is promoted by those who are in power at the helm of things that matter to most of us. Some use this power consciously, while others just follow the cultural trait without much thinking. The problem with such promotions is that the notion permeates into every strata of society dragging all into the vicious modes of conflicts and mistrusts – adding to the complexity of life and the world around us. Yes, I do see them. Frustratingly, the prevalence of war and sport-like attitudes tells us that the society we live in is divisive, intolerant and impatient. We rush to worship winners and resort to hating and bullying losers. Some might say: Why should we care? It is all fair and square, as long as the practices let us make money, and do business. Really, does business require to profit from divisiveness and intolerance? Let us ponder over the question at some other times. . . . For now, let us try to examine what the war and sport-like attitudes mean to life. For both war and sport, the primary motive is to defeat the opponent. In a war the opponent is an enemy – and both the winning and the losing parties resort to applying ruthless methods to destroy each other. Who are the enemies in life – one’s family, one’s neighbors, fellow countrymen, everything that surrounds us, or other countries? Well, if these categories are conceived as enemies then the future of mankind is in big trouble, and perhaps we are digging our own graves. For sport it is fun and entertainment. But sometimes the consequences may appear cruel, something like the moral from a nice little story which says: What is a sport to you is death to us. With whom are we playing games in life? With the same categories we just talked about? Well then we know the answer. But one should not forget to remember that war and sport-like attitudes are contagious that invite and provoke reciprocal reactions. Is everything wrong in the war and sport-like attitudes? Perhaps not. The attitudes also have seeds of competitiveness and assertiveness. These spirits are useful energy sources in life. The only thing is that one should be careful not to get too obsessed with them, because it is difficult to be assertive and competitive without being brash and aggressive. . . . It is encouraging to explore the wisdom of philosophers and religious leaders to find that most thoughtful characterizations of life have been suggested by them. They say life is a journey that has different phases with both gains and losses, and that life’s actions should account for consequences. The spirit, they say is to enjoy life by trying to avoid conflict with the motive of not defeating the other, but rather working together as a team to achieve a common goal and peace. In a life’s journey, there is neither winning nor losing, there is only achievement. Sometimes we do not know what we are achieving – but things are being constantly achieved each time we put our hearts and minds in them. Reflecting on the Tathagata saying – as in the 201st verse on Happiness in the Dhammapada: Victory begets enmity; the defeated dwell in pain. Happily the peaceful live, discarding both victory and defeat. Such leaders explain life analogous to a river – river flow to be specific – beginning the journey in the mountain – narrow in shape but high in energy. As the river enters into the lower valley it matures and broadens giving and sustaining many lives and plants. It gains water by accepting tributaries, it looses water through distributaries, it meets other rivers – but instead of fighting, it mixes with the new encounter to gain more strength. On its way the river faces many obstacles – it faces narrows and raised beds – nothing deters it – it swells and continues the journey with rejuvenated energy until it reaches its ultimate goal of reaching the ocean or lake. But if blocked by dams or interventions the life of a river is shortened. With the atmospheric circulation, the hydrologic processes make sure that the water gets back to its source again. The wheel of a river’s life is complete. Some say, the illustration is even more evident in the life cycle of a Salmon fish. If one looks closely, life’s stories are similar to a river no matter where we live – in Asia, in Europe, in Africa or in the Americas; whether one lives in a developed society or in a developing one. It has similar songs of joy, love, frustration and struggle. One will not find the real stories of life in history books or in geographical and economic characterization of cultures, but in popular myths, folktales and legends or in one’s own experience – they all tell the similar stories. . . . Perhaps there is more to it. Perhaps the Fluidity of Nature, like in a flowing river is another way of characterizing life and social relations. We are fluid in our body, in our thinking, in our emotions, in our social interactions – we constantly change in time and space. Human spirit is universal no matter where we live, yet we take the shape in physical and mental formations and growth in accordance with the country where we are born and raised, and where we live and work much like the fluid that takes the shape of its container. Like the uncertain behavior of fluid, humans are not perfect – either in understanding themselves or in social interactions. We are a biochemical entity endowed with emotions bad and good – and we often act and react in ways that cannot be justified. In analogy with fluid behavior, some of us can be termed as less viscous and dense than others – we call these people light headed and shallow, lacking maturity and depth of understanding. However, within the fluidity of life, flows the energy which is the fundamental driving force behind everything we do. We all perform in accordance with the life’s energy we posses – whether it is physical or mental. But perhaps, in the end we behave like what Bob Dylan (1941 - ) once said: All I can do is to be me whoever that is. However the human quest never stops to find and define the RIGHT ME or more precisely, the fluxes of oneself in the ever changing dynamic world. In another metaphor, life is imagined like a Tree - a seeded plant that thrives on many contributing factors - sunshine, water, soil, air and wind. In gratitude it decarbonizes the air and contributes to the generation of Oxyzen for other lives to thrive - it provides shades and shelter, flowers and nutritious saps and fruits, and lumber or firewood. Human life and social living - it says should be like a tree humbled by the gratitude for its existence conditioned by the harmonious contributions of many. In Buddhism (The Tathagata), tree occupies a special position - it is under the shades of trees that the Buddha was born, enlightened and entered into MahapariNirvana. Tree is also part of Christian celebration. . . . To find the RIGHT ME one needs to equip himself or herself with life’s provisions – education, skill, right understanding of things, and a calm, loving and compassionate attitude. This does not mean however that the RIGHT ME will always have a smooth ride, but doing otherwise is likely to cause a frustrating delay in finding the RIGHT ME. People often ponder over the meaning of life. The quest is very natural. For some, the answer is simple: to live life to the fullest, getting married and raising children. Some do it with some degree of comfort and happiness, many not so much. This is no different than other creatures, except perhaps some amounts of human elements in it. However mundane that may sound; this outlook is a very reasonable meaning of life. Many Greats around the world, however attempted to find the meaning from different perspectives. They took the question as the driving force to study nature and human interactions discovering ideas and spearheading them. Their contributions made scientific and technological innovations and civilizations possible. It is the sacrifice and discovery of these Greats that have made a difference to move us forward in advances and leaps of human progress. Despite having an amputated leg and being a cancer patient, Terry Fox (1858 – 1981) made history by making people aware of cancer by running across Canada. The famous painter Pablo Picasso (1881 – 1973) once said, the meaning of life is to find your gift. The purpose of life is to give it away. Finding the gift of life is not easy however, and is difficult for some than others. Mundane or extraordinary – nothing is lost in life – demise of one reincarnates to another – energy flows from one form to the other – what is born must come to an end in the process of completing the Wheel of Life. Whatever the goal, life’s pursuits should aim at what the Dalai Lama (1935 - ) once said, the purpose of our life is to be happy. As happiness is mutual, individual experience translates to family, to society and to the wider world. Sometimes, as inhuman as it is, one may feel vicious joy by hurting another physically or emotionally – but that deplorable joy is not the meaning of happiness, because the action is ill-motivated to victimize a person. It is needless to overemphasize that all should strive to enjoy life by being a partner to wholesome peaceful activities without getting trapped into the hell of conflicts. Happiness can be elusive but human resilience never stops going after it. . . . We have talked about the principle of dynamic equilibrium in the NATURE section, and have also discussed it in the SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY section to show how scientists and engineers use the principle to find answers, and generate solutions. Similarly it is important to try to achieve the bliss of equilibrium in our thoughts and actions as we journey through the different phases of life. Reaching equilibrium is one of the toughest jobs in a divisive and mistrustful social framework. Nevertheless, it makes sense that we strive to do so without being too aggressive or too passive. We are born poor needing help and care from our parents. We become dependent on others when we become old or disabled and ultimately dying poor – the poverty of not being able to understand what the hard-earned wealth means anymore. In between we try to conquer the world not as a loner but as a social partner. We depend on each other’s company, love, care and friendship to complete the journey. Humans are not loners – we nourish each other with our thoughts and strengths. Like in nature, the seeds of progress germinate and grow strong and vibrant only when there is inspiring positive social energy in a dignified stable framework. But in order for such healthy growths, it is important that a person does not feel strangled or constrained in freedom of thinking, in efforts of doing better in his or her pursuits. Perhaps a line from a famous song of Frank Sinatra (1915 – 1998) is appropriate in understanding this. It says: . . . life is a beautiful thing as long as I hold the string . . . But life’s strings are many, and it is impossible for one to hold them all. Some of us hold the strings of other peoples’ lives tight and strong. Some others do so light and loose. It only makes sense that those who hold other peoples’ strings tight and strong feel responsible, and refrain from playing God. . . . How shall we conclude? Perhaps like this – that life is a precious gift and we should cherish its sanctity in peace, and in social harmony of understanding and helping one another. That we should respect each individual’s right to complete the Wheel of Life (image credit: anon) in a meaningful way without interference and intervention. Do they sound very moralistic and religious? Perhaps yes – but the alternatives will only lead us to mistrusts and conflicts. . . . Here is an anecdote to ponder: The disciple commented, “Sir, we get inspired by philosophers, listening to them opens the door of our mind.” The master smiled, “It comes with a price, my friend! A philosopher is a person who is deeply moved by betrayal. The guy manages by escaping into the wilderness, eating less and reflecting more.” The disciple continued, “Thank you sir. But I must tell you I hate to lose. Someday I will win, win and win . . .” The master turned as if looking at him for the first time and smiled, “That is good my child. But be careful, you may end up winning so much that winning will not satisfy you anymore. Do me a favor, will you? Try to win over yourself first.” . . . . . - by Dr. Dilip K. Barua, 9 June 2016 |