An Inquiry into Creativity and its Supports

8/8/2019 An Inquiry into Creativity and its Supports

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-inquiry-into-creativity-and-its-supports 1/31

[http://www.cfrce.org/bsr.html] [http://www.cfrce.org/pratiti.html]

Centre for Fundamental Research

and

Creative Education

Probing Nature ⊗ Nurturing Minds

An Inquiry into Creativity and its Supports

B S Ramachandra ∗ and Pratiti B R†

Centre for Fundamental Research and Creative Education Bangalore

(Dated: August 15, 2004)

“The institute will be neither a current university, struggling with diverse tasks and many students, nor a research

institute, devoted solely to the solution of problems. It may be pictured as a wedge between the two- a small university, in which a limited amount of teaching and a liberal amount of research are both found.It should, one by one, as men and funds are available -and only then- create a series of schools or groups- a school of mathematics,a school of economics, a school of history, etc.”

Abraham Flexner, 1940

The acquisition of basic necessities and the seeking after higher aspirations may be viewed, inessence, to be the Alpha and Omega of human endeavor. These two preoccupations, togetherwith the corresponding activities namely ‘earning and livelihood’ and ‘leisure and creativity’ respectively, are the main factors driving all human activity. The justification for these activitiesis most often taken to be primitive and intuitive and, therefore, self-evident and hardly in needof any inquiry at all. However, there is a radical departure from these preoccupations to the

organization of the corresponding activities so much so, that the self-evident notions give way toa tangled web of involved processes. In course of this departure, which by no means is final, ahost of initial-conditions present themselves, the choice of which is often crucial for the proper,

judicious and effective organization of the activities. A relatively ‘wrong’ choice of initial-conditionsoften turn out to be the source of fundamental difficulties and mutual conflicts associated with theactivities. Thence comes the enormous importance of taking stock, from time to time, of the statusof the preoccupations as well as the activities.

In the present inquiry we investigate these issues starting from the most general point of viewnamely the nature of civilizations. We examine the nature of the two kinds of activities namely‘earning and livelihood’ and ‘leisure and creativity’ and their stability . We point out that anequilibrium between these two kinds of activities is essential for the harmonious development of acivilization and that the nature of the equilibrium is reflected in the status of the corresponding civi-lization . Regarding the issue of ‘earning and livelihood’ and ‘leisure and creativity’ we point out thatwhereas the former ensures the existence of a civilization , the latter ensures its uniqueness. Coming

to the immediate issue of the conflict between the proponents of these two, we critically exam-ine the existing ‘support-systems’ which link the two and propose a solution to some of the problems.

A Note: This inquiry has been undertaken by the authors with a view to clarify to themselvescertain topics of deep concern and significance to them and for use as a vehicle for immediateaction, in particular, in the formation of the ”Centre for Fundamental Research and CreativeEducation ”. It is not intended for communication except in so far as it may serve to share their insights with individuals who may happen to have similar concerns.

∗[email protected]\homepage †[email protected]\homepage



2

Contents

Preface 3

GeneralIntroduction 4

Some First Principles 5A. Truth and Reality 7B. The Movement of Truth 8

1. The Ascending Movement or Evolution 92. The Descending Movement or Involution 93. The Movement Proper or ‘Envolution’ 10

C. Language, Mathematics and theFundamental-Levels 10

D. The Role of ‘Language’ 12

The Variety of

Human Activities 12

I. The Unity of Human Endeavor 12

II. The Duality of Human Activities 13A. The Basic Needs and Necessities 13B. The Higher Needs and Aspirations 15C. The Clash of the Activities 18

D. The Nature of the Clash 181. Earning and Livelihood 192. Leisure and Creativity 20

E. Equilibrium and Stability of Activities 221. The Instability of Mutual Dependence 232. The Stability of Independence 243. The Neutrality of Inter-Dependence 24

A Critique of Support-Systems 26

III. Inherent Defects of A Support(S )-System 26

A. The Supporting Body 27B. The Recipients 27

IV. Individual Evaluation of the Individual 28A. Self-Evaluation 28

V. The Harmony of ASupport-Support(S 2)-System 28

VI. The Support-Support System: InitialDifficulties 28A. Inertia and Resistance 28

B. Over-Enthusiasm and Mis-Direction 29C. The Vanity of Vanities 29

1. Vanity of Vanities, All is Not Vanity:Means 29

2. Vanity of Vanities, This is Vanity: Ends 29

VII. The Support-Support System: A Workingformula 30

A. Level I : Creativity and Leisure : TimeAlloted -Complement of Level II 30

B. Level II: Earning and Livelihood : TimeAlloted -4 to 5 hrs per day 31

References 31



3

Preface

“These men know their own minds; they havetheir own way; the men who have throughout human history meant most to themselves and to human progress have usually followed their own inner light; no organizer, no administra-

tor, no institution can do more than furnish conditions favorable to the restless prowling of an enlightened and informed human spirit”-Abraham Flexner, 1940

The above words of Abraham Flexner uttered nearlysix decades past are particularly apt to characterize notonly the kind of seekers , but more important, the kindof environment that ought to be created and maintainedin order to establish an ideal centre for higher seeking.Flexner had in mind the creation of an institute for advanced study . Institute indeed it was planned tobe but it was envisioned to be of much richer scope.

In reality, it was intended to be what one may term auniversity-institute in the sense that its scope wasbroad and was not restricted to any one or few disci-plines but sought to encompass diverse fields of humanendeavor. Moreover, the growth of the institute was tobe organic, absorbing, assimilating and consolidating thematerials offered to it by the environment. In Flexner’sown pregnant and insightful words,

“The institute will be neither a current university,struggling with diverse tasks and many students, nor a research institute, devoted solely to the solution of problems. It may be pictured as a wedge between thetwo- a small university, in which a limited amount of

teaching and a liberal amount of research are both found.It should, one by one, as men and funds are available-and only then- create a series of schools or groups- a school of mathematics, a school of economics, a school of history, etc. The “schools” may change from time totime; in any event, the designations are so broad that they may readily cover one group of activities today,quite another as time goes on. Thus, from the outset theschool of mathematics might as well contain the history or philosophy of science....Each school should conduct its affairs in its own way; for neither the subjects nor the scholars will all fit in one mold”.And remarkably, the very same words seem to strike

a deep cord inside us the moment we confront theaspirations which are motivating us toward the creationof such a university-institute, which we have termedCentre for Fundamental Research and CreativeEducation . Indeed, times have changed and the natureof activities have evolved far beyond that prevailingat the time of Flexner but, nevertheless, the problemsfacing genuine seekers have remained, essentially, thesame.

The spirit of the ‘University-Institute’ sought to beembodied by the Centre for Fundamental Research

and Creative Education may best be captured by thefollowing words of Robert Prisig

“The real University, he said, has no spe-cific location. It owns no property, pays nosalaries and receives no material dues. Thereal University is a state of mind. It is that great heritage of rational thought that has

been brought down to us through the centuriesand which does not exist at any specific loca-tion. It’s a state of mind which is regenerated throughout the centuries by a body of peoplewho traditionally carry the title of professor,but even that title is not part of the real Uni-versity. The real University is nothing lessthan the continuing body of reason itself.In addition to this state of mind, “reason,”there’s a legal entity which is unfortunately called by the same name but which is quiteanother thing. This is a nonprofit corpora-tion, a branch of the state with a specific ad-

dress. It owns property, is capable of paying salaries, of receiving money and of respond-ing to legislative pressures in the process.But this second university, the legal corpo-ration, cannot teach, does not generate new knowledge or evaluate ideas. It is not the real University at all. It is just a church building,the setting, the location at which conditionshave been made favorable for the real church to exist.”—Robert Pirsig, “Zen and the art of motor-cycle maintenance.”

Therefore, the present inquiry, in itself, is soughtto contribute to the formation and establishment of the University-Institute. On the one hand, in orderthat it may serve the younger generation of studentsrepresented by the ‘University’ sector, and keeping inmind the deplorable narrowness of the education theyare imparted, we have taken an active approach ininserting significant and instructive passages from thecited references. However, this inquiry, is in no wayinfluenced by the cited references and, therefore, theyshould not be held responsible for the points of viewpresented herein. In the same vein we would like toadd that one looking for ‘standard’ views on the present

topic and not ready to take one’s own independentstandpoint would benefit but little by reading this. As issaid, Truth is often far from being ‘comfortable’ and oneattached to particular points of view may find it quiteunsettling. On the other hand, in order that it mayserve as a vehicle of expression(for the authors) and of communication to other serious seekers represented bythe ‘Institute’ sector, we have not hesitated to deployall possible modes of inquiry towards the enunciation of the issues involved. Thus, we have made free use of puremathematical methods like symbolic logic and topology where and when it is thought to be appropriate. How-



4

ever, these passages may be skipped, by the uninitiated,without any loss of continuity.

Due to the involved nature of the issues, some over-simplifications, inevitably have been made. These shouldbecome evident to the reader in passing. To be rid of suchsuperfluities would entail a great deal of work and wouldturn this into arm-chair philosophy rather than a vehicle

for immediate action which is the real motivation behindthis inquiry. In contrast to the dictum ‘practice whatyou preach’ or in more clear terms ‘realize the ideal’ wewould like to adapt the words ‘preach what you have al-ready practiced’ or ‘express and communicate the alreadyrealized’. Indeed, it is the former namely ‘expression’ tooneself, which we have given importance to. For, we holdthe opinion that self-expression should precede commu-nication. It has been our experience to witness manya sincere seeker inhibiting his creativity due to the ab-sence of channels of communication, either because theyare lacking or because of lack of acceptance. We oftenwondered as to why, in the present times, one inhibits

creativity either by restricting it along certain directionsor by relegating certain of its expressions to a ‘hobby’.For a true seeker, on the contrary, such an artificial divi-sion is not really possible. The reason, in our opinion, forsuch suppression of creativity, is first of all because onewould perhaps, have imbibed the incomplete and erro-neous notion that the purpose of creativity is ‘communi-cation’ or that it is only by attempting to ‘communicate’that one’s creativity flowers. Secondly, that ‘expression’is identical to ‘communication’. Therefore, in attempt-ing to ‘communicate’ before ‘expressing’ to oneself, onedilutes creativity by subjecting it to an averaging pro-cess at the very start. That is, one restricts creativity

at the source by attempting to ‘direct’ it which, as iswell known, is not really possible for, creativity is oftenan unexpected visitant. Lastly, one becomes often thevictim of the ‘creativity’ demand namely that one feelsthe state of creativity to be the only desirable one andthat in absence of such a state, when one ‘struggles’ toexpress an yet unmanifest creativity, one flounders. Thisis akin to what one feels during meditation when one in-advertently becomes attached to the delight inherent incertain states of trance and it is precisely the reason whycertain of the meditative disciplines caution the aspirantagainst such stumbling blocks. The unmanifest state of creativity precedes creative flowering which gives rise to

‘expression’. We have therefore, sought self-expressionfirst and only then, communication. As to the motivefor communication we quote and close this preface by apassage from Seneca,

“I should very much like, then to share thisall too sudden metamorphosis of mine with you. Doing so would make me start to feel a surer faith in the friendship that exists be-tween us, that true friendship which not hopenor fear nor concern for personal advantageever sunders, that friendship in which and for

which people are ready to die. I can give you plenty of examples of people who have not been lacking a friend but friendship, some-thing that can never happen when mutual in-clination draws two personalities together in a fellowship of desire for all that is honorable.Why cannot it happen? Because they know that everything -and especially their setbacks

is shared between them.”—Seneca, ‘Letters From A Stoic’

General Introduction

“It is extremely advantageous to be able tobring a large number of investigations un-der the formula of a single problem. For in this manner, we not only facilitate our own labour, in asmuch as we define it clearly toourselves, but also render it more easy for

others to decide whether we have done jus-tice to our undertaking.”—Immanuel Kant, “The Critique of PureReason”

It is a necessary movement in the life of a seeker1 to stepback, from time to time, from the preoccupations of theday to day activities and inquire into the meaning behindthese activities. This is indispensable, not only to enliventhe activities themselves by clarifying their meaning butalso to consolidate the gains of experience. An exam-ination of the course of these activities shows that allhuman activity follows a certain pattern dictated by the

aims, whether basic or higher, of humanity. Thus thereemerges into being the form of the activity. The aim defines the form that sustains the activity . In additionto this, there are the fruits of the activity. So longas the relation between the aim , the form and the fruits, is clear enough the activity proceeds more or less,smoothly. As humanity evolves, however, the activitiesevolve and the nature of the relation also evolves and af-ter a certain point of time, begins to be obscured2. Any

1 “It is not easy for a man to think; but once he has begun he

will never leave off. Once a thinker, always a thinker, and theunderstanding once practiced in reflection will never rest.”—–Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Emile”

2 “So, instead of supposing that older theories are falsified at a certain point of time, we merely say that man is continually de-veloping new forms of insight, which are clear up to a point and then tend to become unclear. In this activity, there is evidently no reason to suppose that there is or will be a final form of in-sight(corresponding to absolute truth) or even a steady series of approximations to this. Rather, in the nature of the case, onemay expect the unending development of new forms of insight (which will, however, assimilate certain key features of the older forms as simplifications, in the way that relativity theory doeswith Newtonian theory). As pointed out earlier, however, this



5

attempt to maintain the form beyond this limit leads tostagnation and decay of the activities themselves. Thereare then only two possibilities open.

1. Re-clarify the nature of the relation and renew the form.

2. Re-define the relation and adapt a form more

in tune with the original aims themselves.

Indeed, prolonged negligence in taking the former stepleaves the latter as the only alternative as demonstratedby history.

Most of the difficulties and sufferings of the presentday seekers may be traced to a decay in the relation between the aim , the form and the fruits of their ac-tivities. And since the problem has been seriously ne-glected for quite a long period of time, any attempt torenew the form is to once again proceed to build oninsecure foundations. There is no alternative but to re-define the relation itself and create and adapt a form

in harmony with the original aims, given the prevailingconditions.

Some First Principles

“Our attitude towards what we listen to isdetermined by our habits. We expect thingsto be said in the way in which we are ac-customed to talk ourselves; things that aresaid in some other way do not seem the sameat all but seem, rather, incomprehensible and

strange because of their unfamiliarity; for it is what is familiar that we find comprehen-sible. The power that familiarity possesses isshown by the laws; there, because of habit, themythical and childish elements in them carry more weight than does our recognition of them for what they are. Some people will not lis-ten to anyone who does not talk in the man-ner of a mathematician, others again expect a poet to be adduced as an authority. Somepeople want rigorous treatment in everything,whereas others are annoyed by it, either be-cause they cannot follow it or because of its

pettiness; for rigorousness does carry with it something that makes some people feel that in arguments, just as in business transactions, it is rather illiberal.”—-Aristotle, “Metaphysics”

means that our theories are to be regarded primarily as waysof looking at the world as a whole (ie world-views) rather than as ‘absolutely true knowledge of how things are’ (or as a steady approach toward the latter)”—David Bohm, “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”

The fundamental principles on which we base ourinvestigations stem from the observation that all act of knowledge pre-supposes the Subject , which we denoteby S , the Object , which we denote by O and theRelation , which we denote by R which simply capturesthe fact that any act of knowledge is a triple given bythe Knower , the the Knowledge and the Known .

Now, without any loss of generality, S,O,R may beconsidered to be sets3, the nature of which, however, itis not necessary, at this stage to specify but to keep itas general as possible so as to be applicable to a varietyof cases. The set O namely that corresponding to theObject may be taken, for instance, to be the set of truth-objects. Out of these we may select a collectionof subsets τ = {U } in O of an arbitrary nature so thatit possesses the following properties.

• The empty set Φ namely a set containing no truth-object and the the set O belong to τ .

This is obvious since it is possible to choose a subsetwith no truth-object in τ . So also it is possibleto choose the set O itself as a (non-proper)subsetwhich belongs to τ .

• The union of any collection of sets from τ belongsto τ .That is, that any collection of truth-objects maybe combined to arrive at another truth-object , atthe least, the empty set Φ.

• The intersection of any finite number of sets fromτ belong to τ .It is essential that we keep the intersection finite

since otherwise contradictions may appear, such asfor instance, that the complete intersection may re-sult in a truth-object not belonging to τ .

These properties are that of a topology in O. There-fore, O now becomes a topological space denoted by(O, τ ) and the subsets from the collection τ may betreated as open sets.

It remains now to deal likewise with S . To turn itinto a topological space may, at first glance, seem to bea formidable problem and, indeed it is, if one were toattempt to analyze the Subject and to ‘decompose’ it

into subsets. Not only is there no intuitive support forthis step but also it would be difficult to maintain clarityin dealing with concepts like the empty set at the level of

3 The term ‘class’ would, perhaps, be a better one as it is in accor-dance with mathematical logic. However, the differences that setapart the theory of sets against the theory of classes are subtleand may be ignored in the present context so as to make useof the standard results of topology. Moreover, one needs only toadapt the Godel-Bernays theory of sets in order to make effectiveuse of category theory instead of set theory.



6

the Subject proper. Nevertheless, this difficulty may beevaded and triumphed over by making use of one of thethree problems that lead to continuous mappings[2].Thus, at one stroke, we may turn both S and R intotopological spaces simultaneously. We first recall theproblem.

Given a topological space O, a set S and a mapping

R : S −→ O. Endow S with a topology so as to makeR continuous.

The solution is as follows.

Let τ = {V } be a topology in O. Takeσ = {R −1(V )}V ∈τ . Then σ satisfies the axiomsof topology. It is obvious that R is continuous as amapping of topological spaces (S, σ), (O, τ )4.

By defining S, O as topological spaces and R as acontinuous mapping we have placed just enough struc-ture necessary to deal precisely with these quantities.

But this structure is not sufficient in order to introducedifferential equations. One needs to endow S, O in ad-dition, with a differentiable( or analytic) structure forwhich we shall tacitly assume that the above topological spaces are also paracompact. Moreover, the quanti-ties S , R , O are themselves subject -just as, for in-stance, humanity is- to change or more precisely, evolu-tion. And the process of evolution may be parametrizedby an ‘evolution parameter’ which we denote by t. Theparameter t may for convenience be taken to be ‘time’though it may not be so possible for all situations. More-over, to a rough approximation, S,O,R may be assumedto be smooth functions of t though, sometimes, piece-

wise smooth or analytic, depending on the nature of thedesired formalism. Therefore, it is more appropriate towrite S t, R t, Ot instead of S,O,R to indicate thatthey are subject to evolution. It is convenient, therefore,to consider instead of S t, R t, Ot, the product spaces{S t, R t, Ot} × R to collect all these, at various epochstogether and take the quantities S t, Ot to be defined onmanifolds N and M of dimensions n and m respectively.The function R t is defined on an n × m dimensionalmanifold L(N, M ). There exists thus, a mapping

f : N −→ M (0.1)

with Im(S ) ⊂ M the image of the Subject in theObject, and the kernel of the Subject being composedof those points which are not related to any elementsin the Object, ker(S ) : {R (O) = 0}. Therefore,in a sense, Im(S ) may be interpreted as purelyobjective-knowledge and ker(S ) may be interpretedas purely subjective-knowledge. According to this

4 In fact, σ is the weakest of the topologies possessing this prop-erty.

interpretation, it follows that, in general, knowledge isa combination of subjective and objective elements andmay appropriately considered to be what may be termedsubojective rather than being exclusively subjective orobjective.

In course of evolution, the Subject, the Relation andthe Object evolve as defined by the system of -in general-,

non-linear differential equations

dS t

dt= S t(S t)

dR t

dt= Rt(R t)

dOt

dt= Ot(Ot) (0.2)

where S t, Rt and Ot are parameter-dependent vectorfields on the manifolds N , M and L(N, M ) respec-tively. Here, L(N, M ) denotes the space of mappings

from N to M .

This formalism suffices to illustrate the hidden possi-bilities of the meaning behind evolution. Evolution of theSubject induces a corresponding evolution in the Object.There is, moreover, an equilibrium between the Subject,the Object and the Relation between them. And thisequilibrium may be unstable, stable or neutral ie struc-turally stable5. However, if either one or two of thetriplet falls out of tune with the evolution of the other,instability sets in. Any attempt to take the evolutionfurther by ignoring this instability leads to a weakeningor collapse of the system of differential equations. If our

aim were only in deducing the full consequences of theabove formalism, it would rather suffice to focus on thesystem per se. Our object, however, in attempting to castour principles into a mathematical formalism is to drawattention to the fact, most often unnoticed or ignored,that merely assuming that the Subject progresses alongwith the Object, without due regard to the evolution of

5 “Mathematical formulations of this depend, therefore, on twothings:(a) what kind of perturbations we allow;(b) what we are prepared to be insensitive to.

In the literature, in a given area, different choices tend to begiven different names; but the same name occurs in different areas with different meanings. And the commonest name of all is structural stability. The notion of structural stability wasintroduced in the context of differential equations by the Rus-sian mathematicians A.A. Andronov and L.S. Pontryagin in 1937 and gave rise to the concept of a structurally stable dy-namical system, where for (a) we allow small perturbations of the differential equation involved, and for (b) require topologi-cal equivalence of the set of solution curves. On the other hand catastrophe theory (a) permits small smooth perturbations of therelevant family of functions, and (b) requires the stronger ‘dif- feomorphism’ equivalence”—-Poston and Stewart, “Catastrophetheory and its applications”



7

the Relation, is to proceed on incomplete grounds. Of-ten, the Relation plays a very significant role and oughtto be allowed to evolve6 along with the other two. Whatis usually done, however, is that one sets up a Relationat a given time say t0 and holds it fixed. But the Sub- ject and the Object naturally evolve and the Relation isunnaturally held fixed in spite of the force of the evolu-tionary processes. Thus, invariably, the equilibrium of

the system of differential equations is lost. Moreover,there is a more pressing motive for adapting a mathe-matical mode of reasoning. The reason, in our opinion,for the ‘unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics’ is inthat mathematics affords a primitive or rather, low-level7

language in which to address pertinent issues. Higher-level languages such as the standard human languages8

no doubt are profound creations of the human spirit andenable the expression and communication of subtle formsof thought. However, their very sophisticated nature actmore as a veil for the truths sought. Whereas a low-levellanguage9 such as mathematics support just the neces-sary and sufficient structures and hence, though in a

sense, mathematics is a tautology 10, it enables the sys-

6 “Clarity of perception and thought evidently requires that we beaware of how our experience is shaped by the insight (clear or confused) provided by the theories that are implicit or explicit in our general ways of thinking. To this end, it is useful to em-phasize that experience and knowledge are one process, rather than to think that our knowledge is about some sort of separateexperience...Now, if we are not aware that our theories are ever-changing forms of insight, giving shape and form to experience in gen-eral, our vision will be limited. One could put it like this: expe-rience with nature is very much like experience with human be-ings. If one approaches another man with a fixed 1theory’ about him as an ‘enemy’ against whom one must defend oneself, hewill respond similarly, and thus one’s ‘theory’ will apparently be confirmed by experience. Similarly, nature will respond in accordance with the theory with which it is approached. Thus,in ancient times, men thought that plagues were inevitable, and this thought helped make them responsible for their spread. With modern scientific forms of insight man’s behaviour is such that he ceases the insanitary modes of life responsible for spreading plague and thus they are no longer inevitable.—David Bohm, “Wholeness and the Implicate Order” ”

7 In fact, it is a level-3 language in the sense of the fundamental-levels which will be introduced below in Section A.

8 Note, however, that the Godel incompleteness theorem places anessential limitation on any given language. There always exist

truths that are undecidable ie neither provable nor disprovable.9 This is precisely the reason, for instance, for the use of a binarysystem in machine languages.

10 “The prime source of scientific knowledge about the physical world is the experience gained by systematic observation of phys-ical systems. Purely mathematical knowledge, although very useful for the organization of empirical raw material into a body of interrelated facts, is useless as a source of knowledge about thephysical world. The reason for this is that mathematical truth isanalytical truth; this means that it contains nothing more than what is already contained in the premises or the axioms. It isalways certain, but, just because of this certainty, essentially tau-tological. Empirical truth, on the other hand, is synthetic truth.The general physical laws are arrived at by induction from ob-

tematic treatment of concepts and the system of conceptswithout introducing redundant structures. Thus, for in-stance, instead of arguing endlessly on, for example, thetopic of the ‘form’ and the ‘spirit’ of an ideal, one can, byformulating the notion mathematically, see immediatelythat adhering to the ‘form’ would be to unnaturally pre-vent the inevitable evolution of the form whereas respect-ing the ‘spirit’ would mean that one allows the form to

evolve harmoniously. Thus, to reiterate, in this sense, welook upon mathematics as an effective channel of per-ception and a low-level language par excellence. And aswith other languages, there are two parts to it namely(1) the grammar and syntax and (2) composition. Theformer may be thought of as the practice of the disciplineof mathematics and the latter as its use as a channel of perception 11. Needless to say, both the grammar andsyntax as well as the composition are necessary and suf-ficient for a true appreciation of the role of a language.In like manner, it would seem appropriate to considerall branches of inquiry as so many channels of percep-tion of secondary-senses the primary-senses being

the usual five senses. And just as a deficiency in one of the senses implies inability to perceive the correspond-ing object of perception so also, lack of appreciation of aparticular branch of inquiry implies inability to perceivean aspect of the Reality corresponding to that branch.

A. Truth and Reality

“In the objects we propose to investigate, our inquiries should be directed not to what othershave thought, nor to what we ourselves con-

jecture, but to what we can clearly and perspicuously behold and with certainty deduce; for knowledge is not won in any other way.”—–Rene Descartes, “Rules for the Direction of the Mind”

served facts, and therefore are never certain but only verifiable for a finite number of instances.—–J.M. Jauch, ’Foundations of Quantum Mechanics’, Chap 3

11 ...“the actual physical situations in the real world are so compli-

cated that it is necessary to have a much broader understanding of the equations.

What it means really to understand an equation -that is, in more than a strictly mathematical sense -was described by Dirac.He said: “I understand what an equation means if I have a way of figuring out the characteristics of its solution without actu-ally solving it.” So if we have a way of knowing what should happen in given circumstances without actually solving the equa-tions, then we “understand” the equations, as applied to thesecircumstances. A physical understanding is a completely un-mathematical, imprecise, and inexact thing, but absolutely necessary for a physicist”.—-Richard Feynman, “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”, Vol II



8

The basic first principle that we shall set forth inthe present inquiry is that there is behind any act of knowledge, essentially a single truth. However, thistruth has various levels or gradations that trace itssubtlety and effectiveness. At the highest original levelis the truth per se namely the truth as cognized byitself or the truth absolute. This truth reflects itself onvarious levels of existence in order, the Intuitive Mind,

the Ideal Mind, the Rational Mind, Life, and Matter.As the distance between the truth per se and the levelsincreases, the truth becomes less and less subtle until, inthe level of Matter, it loses its form and remains merelyas a ‘law of material Nature’. More precisely, we mayunderstand this as follows. At the level of Truth per se,the truth is completely unconstrained . And by constraint here, we mean the intermingling of the nature of otherlevels. As one moves farther and farther away fromthe highest level, more and more constraints appearand thus the truth tends to become more and more gross.

Now before we take this premises further, it is nec-

essary to draw attention to the facts behind this prin-ciple. For, here, we are not setting up a principle ei-ther as an axiom rooted in rational experience or as ametaphysical[3][4][5][6] one based on pure reason nor asone taking its stand on supra-rational experience[7][8][9]such as that encompassed by mysticism or spiritual expe-rience. To do thus would shift the domain of inquiry to aspecialized class and thus limit the scope of its characterto serve as a vehicle of direct action. Moreover, the dis-advantage of such a specialization -in no way, however, tothe earnest seeker- but to beginners, especially to thosewith an exclusive bent of mind- is that it demands aparticular orientation or inclination toward excessive ra-

tionalism on one hand and a tendency toward mysticismon the other hand. Rather than taking any such exclu-sive view, we are proceeding in the spirit of setting up aworking hypothesis whose only justification is, -as of allhypothesis- that it serves ‘to represent the complex of our experiences’ 12 effectively. What then are the facts thatwe can summon up for justifying this principle? Theyare based on the well-known observation that there is aclose relation between the reality and our organization of the reality namely by means of theories and hypothesis.

B. The Movement of Truth

“If we wish our science to be complete, thosematters which promote the end we have in view must one and all be scrutinised by a movement of thought which is continuous and is nowhere interrupted; they must also be in-cluded in an enumeration which is both ade-

12 Albert Einstein, ‘The Meaning of Relativity’

quate and methodical.”—–Rene Descartes, “Rules for the Direction of the Mind”

Pure Truth per se is truth absolute, without any rela-tion whatsoever, by its very definition. But when turnedtoward Existence, however, it determines itself as a dy-namic movement namely as the Knowledge of the Ex-

istence. And the Existence, in turn, manifests itself invarious gradations or fundamental-levels, as cognizedby the Subject, the Knower . From the point of view setforth above, this split into the Subject, the Object andthe Relation may be understood as follows.

The Subject namely the Knower is essentially one andhas a single status. However, the Object is by no meansis one nor has a single status but depends on the ‘inter-est’ of the Subject. And since Existence is perceived bythe Subject according to levels(of consciousness), it fol-lows that corresponding to each level there is associateda particular Relation. Given this situation the Subjectchooses a ‘mode of inquiry’ to represent the Relation for,

the Relation by itself is indiscernible except in so far asit allows itself to be represented to the perceiving humanconsciousness. Therefore, the ‘mode of inquiry’ by virtueof being directed to the Object, inherits the gradation of the Object ie it also falls into corresponding levels. Thismay be visualized as follows. Denote the Subject, as be-fore, as S t. Then the Object may be denoted by Otl,where l indicates the levels. Corresponding to this theRelation may be denoted as Rtl. Here, without loss of generality, we identify the ‘modes of inquiry’ with thecorresponding Relations Rtl. This scheme allows one todraw several conclusions. We call the collection of allthe fundamental-levels as the level-spectrum . First of

all, the Objects Otl and the corresponding Relations Rtl

may be arranged in an order. There are two possibilitieshere. (1) The levels are unbounded. (2) The levels arebounded. We treat the latter case since the former maybe obtained from the latter as a limit process in one orboth of the directions. If the levels are bounded, thereexists a minimal and a maximal element in both Otl andRtl. However, the classification into a minimal and amaximal level is a matter of choice. It depends on theenumeration of the levels adapted which naturally allowsfor two possibilities. To see this we note that the Subject,in a sense, partially reflects the Object chosen. Thus, forthe sake of reference, he chooses a ‘mean-level’ obtained

as a weighted average of the levels. Weighted because,each Subject has particular tendencies which make it con-venient to choose a mean-level rather than a minimal or amaximal one. Thus, for instance, in the majority of cases,the Subject is found to choose the ‘mental-level’ . This isparticularly convenient as the rational mind usually pre-dominates over the other faculties of the Subject, at least,in the activity of inquiry. Now, as seen from this mean-level, the other levels fall into two classes. Those belowand those above. The movement may now be studied inan ascending or a descending order as per the choice of aninitial and a final level among the minimal and the max-



9

imal levels. The former may be termed as a movement of evolution and the latter may be termed a movement of involution . There remains the question of the or-der of the levels. To see this we recall the discussion inSection A on constraints. The constraints allow for anatural ordering of the levels. The ordering goes thus.At the highest level of truth per se, there are no con-straints whatsoever and therefore, the Subject merely13

reflects the Object and the Relation is one of identi- fication . More precisely, it follows that at this level,the Object is merely a reflection of the Subject throughidentity . Rather, the Knowledge ceases to be objec-tive and becomes purely subjective. Correspondingly,the Reality also manifests itself as being subjective Asone moves away from the highest level, however, the con-straints grow in number and, in the end, reach a maximallevel . Here, the Subject merely absorbs -through the in-strumentality of the mind and the senses- the Knowledgeof the Object. Rather, the Object ceases to reflect theSubject altogether and becomes purely objective. Cor-respondingly, the Reality now manifests itself as being

objective. We not take a look at these two movementsone by one.

1. The Ascending Movement or Evolution

The ascending movement or evolution is discernedby choosing the initial-level to be the one with the max-imum number of constraints. The higher levels are nowbuilt up in an ascending order. It follows that in thispath, one soon comes across the weighted-average as anintermediate level and -due to the nature of the ascending

movement, which depends on a laborious climb from onelevel to the other higher- one is forced to hypothesize the final-level to coincide with the weighted-average itself.Thence, one is forced to limit one’s domain of inquiryby helplessly equating the the level of the truth per se tolimit itself to that of the weighted-average. Rather, one isforced to make an incomplete and unfounded hypothesisthat the highest level of truth is that of the reference-level itself. Thus, immediately, one shuts off domainsof inquiry not falling within that encompassed by thereference-level . And, in complete contradiction to thevery spirit of this movement namely to arrive at objec-tive truth, one ends up positing the limitation of the

Subject and hence arrives rather at a disguised form of Subjective truth. One partially escapes from this error,however, when the distance between the reference-level and the minimal-level is maximum as, for instance, thecase in the physical science and even, to some extent, inthe biological sciences when the aim is only to arrive atthe nature of the processes and not the processes them-selves. When, however, one wishes to study the processes

13 In the original sense of the term ‘mere’ namely ‘pure’

themselves, one faces immense difficulties due to the verychoice of the reference-level to be the maximal-level .These difficulties are compounded when one takes on thestudy of mental or psychological phenomena. For, as longas the distance between the levels is large enough, thereis more or less a partial demarcation between objectiveand subjective truths. As this distance decreases, how-ever, the demarcation becomes illusory and the objective

and the subjective truths fuse into one. Any attemptthen, to force the truth to be objective, leads to errorand confusion. There is no other alternative than to ad-mit levels beyond the present reference-level in orderto increase the distance between the levels. As a concreteillustration, we may take the Darwinian theory of evolu-tion. This theory bases itself on an investigation of theconstraints present in the living world. As is well-known,they are classified as

1. The struggle for existence.

2. Variation

3. Natural selection.4. The survival of the fittest.

These constraints have served, to a large extent, to un-derstand and predict the evolution of the lower organ-isms up to the human. When, however, it is sought tobe applied to the human, it is well-known that not onlyare such attempts uncommon but also subject to severelimitation. What, in fact, is missing in such attempts,perhaps, is that one has not taken care to

• Choose the right number of constraints.To see this, we may note, for instance, that the lastconstraint namely ‘the survival of the fittest’ is no

longer valid when turned to the human scene.

• Understand the nature of the constraints.

Therefore, it is not that the truth is intrinsically lim-ited but that the levels are not clearly defined by takinginto account the constraints involved. The entire fieldof inquiry encompassed by present-day scientific pursuitscome in the category of the truths attainable, of evo-lutionary movement . We now take a look at the othermovement namely the involutionary movement .

2. The Descending Movement or Involution

The descending movement or involution is discernedby choosing the initial-level to be the one with the leastnumber of constraints, or rather, the one with no con-straints ie the truth per se. The ‘lower’ levels are nowglimpsed in a descending order14 In this path also one

14 “We speak of the evolution of Life in Matter, the evolution of Mind in Matter; but evolution is only a word which states the



10

soon comes across the weighted-average as an inter-mediate level but one is not forced to take it by anymeans to be the final-level . For, having the initial-level to be the truth per se, one merely increases the num-ber of constraints in order to arrive at the final-level and the weighted-average is certainly not the levelwith the maximal number of constraints. However, thisgreater scope and flexibility of the involutionary move-

ment should not blind one to the immense difficulties incarrying on the inquiry. For, the choice of the initial-levelas the truth per se implies that one takes one’s stand onthe truth absolute and this is impossible by any kind of inquiry that is based on the reference-level . That is, oneneeds to first ascend directly to the level of thetruth absolute, take one’s stand on it and then attempt to discern the lower levels. And the verydifficulty of the ascent makes it more difficult to performthe reverse process of attempting to come down fromthe heights and discern the lower levels. As a result, itis not unoften the case that to one who chooses an ex-clusive movement of involution, the truth appears to be

predominantly subjective. This movement, in princi-ple, explains more the truth of the unity of things but,in practice, it shuts off the domain of inquiry more ve-hemently than the evolutionary movement, which by itsvery nature never ceases to climb and therefore, in courseof ‘evolution’, is bound to continually extend its domainof inquiry. The field of inquiry encompassed by mostspiritual pursuits, is to a large extent, dominated by themovement of involution. We now attempt to look at themovement itself without stress on its ascending or thedescending nature.

3. The Movement Proper or ‘Envolution’

The ascending and the descending movements are dis-cerned as an outcome of the attempt of the Subject tochoose an initial and a final level based on the numberof the constraints. The total movement, however, tran-scends and admits both the movements. What is meantby this is that there is no imperative need to make an ex-

phenomenon without explaining it. For there seems to be no rea-son why Life should evolve out of material elements or Mind out

of living form, unless we accept the Vedantic solution that Life isalready involved in Matter and Mind in Life because in essenceMatter is a form of veiled Life, Life a form of veiled Conscious-ness. And then there seems to be little objection to a farther step in the series and the admission that mental consciousnessmay itself be only a form and a veil of higher states which arebeyond Mind. In that case, the unconquerable impulse of man towards God, Light, Bliss, Freedom, Immortality presents itself in its rightful place in the chain as simply the imperative impulseby which Nature is seeking to evolve beyond Mind, and seems tobe as natural, true and just as the impulse towards Life which she has implanted in certain forms of Matter or the impulse to-wards Mind which she has implanted in certain forms of Life.”,Sri Aurobindo, “The Life Divine, pp3”

clusive rigid choice of the initial and final levels. Ratherthan attempting to take one’s station on the level withthe maximal number of constraints or on truth per se,it is wiser to admit both and to study the truth as it isconstrained at the various levels. Thus, it is more ap-propriate to speak of a movement of envolution insteadof evolution or involution . The latter are in fact, in asense inverses of each other whereas the former namely

envolution transcends both and encompasses the totalmovement. Here, the reference-level no longer dominatesthe inquiry but is itself subject to envolution . That is,the reference-level may be freely chosen to that whichbest corresponds to the level of inquiry. In this move-ment, it is inevitable that the rigid classification into objective and subjective truths breaks down. For, truth isessentially subject-object-ive or ‘subojective’ and ‘re-lational’ depending on the level on which one focusesthe inquiry. It follows that the modes of inquiry admit-ted by the envolutionary movement are also maximalnamely all possible modes accessible to the Subject areadmitted and employed to arrive at the truth. It is com-

pletely immaterial whether the modes belong to ratio-nal scientific inquiry or that subsumed by non-scientific15

supra-rational pursuits such as mysticism, spiritual prac-tice, or occultism. More appropriately, in this move-ment, one seeks the truth per se as well as its relationswith phenomena. And whatever means is available willbe used and when not available, will be discovered andused. Moreover, it is inevitable that this is as it shouldbe namely that the truth be perceived as subojective.Indeed, since all levels are admitted on an equal footing,this movement contains on one hand, purely subjectiveand on the other hand, purely objective truths as specialcases. In general, however, the truth is seen to transcend

any exclusive classification into objective and subjectiveforms. The movement of envolution also does greater jus-tice to the fact that whatever is, is in Existence and thatthere is nothing outside it. Whereas the evolutionarymovement places exclusive stress on Matter and the in-volutionary movement on Spirit alone, the envolutionarymovement, in a sense, places stress both on the evolu-tion of Spirit out of Matter and the involution of Spiritin Matter.

C. Language, Mathematics and theFundamental-Levels

In the light of the fundamental-levels discussed above,we can understand better the role of language in ex-pression and communication of knowledge. As discussed

15 Note that ‘non-scientific’ is not the same as ‘un-scientific’ andneither is ‘irrational’ the appropriate term for all that is ‘non-rational’. Neither should one be under the superstition that truthis necessarily ‘scientific’ only. To do so is to fall into the incom-pleteness of the evolutionary movement.



11

above, each fundamental-level determines a certain Rela-tion between the Subject and the Object correspondingto that particular level. Now each such fundamental-level may be thought of as giving rise to a corresponding‘language’ which enables the Subject to express to one-self -and to communicate to another Subject- the con-tent of the Object. Therefore, corresponding to eachfundamental-level is a corresponding ‘language’ . It

then follows that the knowledge of a certain level canbe best expressed by a language corresponding to thatlevel. There now remains two cases to consider.

1. The role of a higher-level language in describing theknowledge of a lower-level.

2. The role of a lower-level language in describing theknowledge of a higher-level.

Before we discuss these cases we set up some preliminar-ies.

Let Lh and Ll denote two arbitrary levels, one higherand one lower, respectively. Each level may be, for con-creteness, taken to be either a space or a manifold. Let phl denote a mapping from Lh to Ll and ilh that from Ll

to Lh. Further, we identify the phl and the ilh with thecorresponding languages.

Lhphl−→ Ll

Llilh−→ Lh (0.3)

The language phl serves to describe the knowledge of alower-level namely Ll. Now the higher-level Lh differsfrom the lower-level Ll in that it is less constrained.

That is, Ll is obtained from Lh by imposing constraintsand therefore, as already discussed above, Lh is, in asense, contained but for additional constraints, in Lh andtherefore, phl may be thought of as a projection . Onthe other hand, the language ilh serves to describe theknowledge of a higher-level namely Lh. Therefore, dueto its more constrained nature, it can describe but in alimited manner, the higher-level Lh and is an inclusion .On the other hand, there already exist ‘ proper-level’ languages ihh and ill both of which are inclusions sincethey are languages corresponding to the same levelsrespectively. The task now is to construct phl and ilh.In order to glimpse the situation clearly, consider the

following diagram.

Lh

ihh

−→ Lh

↓ phl ↓ jhl ↓ phl

Ll

ill

−→ Ll

The collection of all the fundamental-levels forms, there-fore, a category L. For each ordered pair of levels L1,L2, the set M L(L1, L2) is the set of morphisms fromL1 to L2. In addition, there exists a mapping associatingany ordered set of three levels L1, L2, L3 and any pair

of morphisms f ∈ M L(L1, L2), g ∈ M L(L2, L3) withtheir composition gf ∈ M L(L1, L3). Thus, we obtaina commutative diagram of the morphisms in the givencategory

L2

f g

L1 −→ L3gf

Two other properties natural to a category are also sat-isfied.

1. For f ∈ MorL(L1 L2), g ∈ M orL(L2, L3),h ∈ MorL(L3, L4)

we have

h(gf ) = (hg)f in MorL(L1 L4).

This expresses the associative property.

2. For any level L2 in MorL(L2 L2), there exists amorphism I L2

such that for any f ∈ M orL(L1 L2),g ∈ MorL(L2 L3),I L2

f = f and gI L2= g.

This implies the existence of the identity element.

It follows that the construction of an effective language phl is equivalent to the construction of a morphism jhl from ihh to ill. That is, by imposing suitableconstraints on ihh we arrive at a ill, which may not,

however, be unique. This level-language jhl, there-fore, enables us to describe a lower-level in terms of a higher-level language. We notice that there are twofactors involved in the construction of a level-language.One is the existence of proper-level languages and theother, the level-language. It may seem natural tosuppose that the level-language, since it is obtainedby imposing constraints on a higher-level language,coincides essentially with the corresponding lower-levellanguage. This, however, is not necessarily so. For,though the level-language is constrained to function ata corresponding lower-level, it by no means is confinedto that level. Rather, it partakes of the quality of

the higher-level from which it originates and, in fact,is sustained -at least in its creative aspects- by thenature of the higher-level. This accounts for the nowindisputable facts, for instance, in mathematics andtestified by many great mathematicians, that althoughthe structure of mathematics is logical and rational, thesource of mathematical creativity is intuition16. Thus,mathematics is to be distinguished from languages as

16 —Henri Poincare



12

we know them in that whereas they are most oftenproper-languages, mathematics is a level-language.This point is perhaps overlooked when one speaks of mathematics as being a language. It no doubt is a lan-guage but not a mere language. It is a level-languagethat depends on both the Rational and the Intuitivelevels. It draws its sustenance from the Intuitive-leveland describes with great effectivity the knowledge at

the Rational-level. The mapping jIR , therefore, is amorphism from the manifold of Intuitive-languagesto the manifold of Rational-languages. Its kernel iscomposed of those Intuitive-elements that are absentat the Rational-level and its image comprises thoseRational-elements that are obtained as reflections of corresponding Intuitive-elements.

Returning to the fundamental-levels we may capturethe entire content of the above discussion by means of the commutative diagram

−→ Lkik k

−1

−→ Lk−1ik−1 k−2

−→ Lk−2 −→↓ pkk ↓ jk k−1 ↓ pk−1 k−1 ↓ jk−1 k−2 ↓ pk−2 k−2

−→ Lk

ik k−1

−→ Lk−1

ik−1 k−2

−→ Lk−2 −→

Indeed the diagram is commutative. To see this consider,for instance, the levels Lk and Lk−1. We have here twopossibilities. One is to project Lk onto Lk−1 and thenconstruct a proper-language. The other is to construct aproper-language in Lk and project it onto Lk−1. And itis not difficult to ensure that both these steps coincide.Therefore, the above diagram is commutative and henceforms a cell-complex .

D. The Role of ‘Language’

In order to understand and appreciate the role of ‘lan-guage’ in the context of the fundamental-levels, we ob-serve the following facts.

• The knowledge of the Object should not depend,essentially, on the mode of expression and commu-nication employed.

• In the process of expression and communication, itis often convenient to break up the totality of theknowledge into certain basis-elements.

• To capture the entire content of the Object, a com-plete basis is necessary.

• The ‘number’ of the basis-elements depends in-versely on the relative number of constraints at agiven level. That is, greater the number of con-straints, lesser the number of the basis-elementsneeded.

The Variety of HumanActivities

I. THE UNITY OF HUMAN ENDEAVOR

All human endeavor begins from the necessity of

fulfilling certain needs. The needs by themselves areprimitive and intuitive namely self-evident but the formsthat represent the organization of the activities thatlead to their fulfillment are not necessarily intuitive. Itis at this point that the departure from the activities of the primitives to the activities of the civilized peoplestakes place. However, this departure though radicalis -as exemplified by the rise and fall of civilizations-by no means final. The pattern that emerges by anexamination of the history of civilizations seems to beas follows. On one hand there are certain needs, basicand higher, justified by experience. There grow aroundthese certain activities which follow more or less an

evolutionary pattern. This process begins to become‘self-conscious’ ie, to be questioned, with the appearanceof contradictions and ‘fundamental difficulties’ in theactivities. Further evolution of the activities along thesame pattern fails to resolve these contradictions. It canonly be resolved by a ‘revolution’ in the nature of theactivities themselves.

The activities corresponding to the seeking of Truthand Knowledge in the present times are beset with fun-damental difficulties for precisely the above reason. Notonly are the difficulties fundamental, in the sense thatthey arise -but not necessarily begin17, from the needs

but also in the sense that they are cascading in na-ture. Generations after generations could be contam-inated by these difficulties to a point where recoverywould be impossible as is evidenced by the fall of an-cient civilizations[12]18[10][11]. For, the activity of seek-

17 “That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be nodoubt. But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all knowledge arises out of experience”—-Immanual Kant

18 “First, a distinction exists between civilization in the singular and civilizations in the plural. The idea of civilization was devel-

oped by eighteenth-century French thinkers as the opposite of theconcept of “barbarism.” Civilized society differed from primitivesociety because it was settled, urban, and literate. To be civilized was good, to be uncivilized was bad. The concept of civilization provided a standard by which to judge societies, and during thenineteenth century, Europeans devoted much intellectual, diplo-matic, and political energy to elaborating the criteria by which non-European societies might be judged sufficiently “civilized”to be accepted as members of the European-dominated interna-tional system. At the same time, however, people increasingly spoke of civilizations in the plural. This meant “renunciation of a civilization defined as an ideal, or rather as the ideal” and a shift away from the assumption there was a single standard for what was civilized, “confined”, in Braudel’s phrase, “to a few



13

ing -however impractical its ultimate manifestations mayseem to be- in reality, serves to give meaning to the very existence of civilization itself . As has been aptlysaid[13], “It may not contribute to the preserva-tion of the civilization but to make the civiliza-tion itself worth preserving 19. On the other hand,with equal justice to the non-seekers, one may assert inthe same spirit of the above statement that the activities

of non-seeking namely that corresponding to livelihood“may not make the civilization worth saving but to make the civilization itself to exist in the first place.” Therefore, it is not that the seekers are in anyway privileged in asserting the exclusive importance of their activity. Rather, both the non-seekers as well asthe seekers are justified, each in their own way, in assert-ing the importance and significance of their respectiveactivities. And rather than identifying oneself either as anon-seeker or a seeker and limiting one’s view, it is wiseto take an impartial and transcendent view that recog-nizes each kind of activity per se for the role it plays inthe economy of things. This leads one to a freshness of

outlook by lifting one away from the level of the conflictsbetween the non-seekers and the seekers to a height fromwhich one may assert in a truly positive tone that “with-out the activity of the non-seekers the civilization exists not and without the activity of the seekersthe civilization is not unique and therefore not worth preserving”. It is therefore, essentially a ques-tion of the existence and uniqueness of the civiliza-tion , that is the real issue that is involved in the presenton-going and perhaps, half-conscious conflict between theseekers and the non-seekers. Half-conscious because theconflict has not as yet assumed the proportions of an issueand is rather prevalent as an unrest among the individual

seekers, an un-rest that manifests itself whenever a seeker

privileged peoples or groups, humanity’s ‘elite.” Instead therewere many civilizations, each of which was civilized in its own way. Civilization in the singular, in short, “lost some of its ca-chet,” and a civilization in the plural sense could in fact be quiteuncivilized in the singular sense.”—-Samuel P Huntington

19 A passionate advocate of unfettered scientific research,(Robert)Wilson frequently was pressed by the Congress to ex-plain why the taxpayer should spend millions of dollars to fund an enormous, expensive gizmo whose sole use was to let physi-cists chase subatomic particles. One exchange, between Wilson and a skeptical Senator John Pastore of Rhode Island, has be-come legendary in the research community. Pastore asked,“Isthere anything connected with the hopes of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of this country?”

“No, sir” Wilson said. “I don’t believe so.”“Nothing at all?”“Nothing at all.”“It has no value in that respect?”“ It has only to do with the respect with which we regard

one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with, are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets?...It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending .”

is either forced to dilute the activity of seeking due to ex-ternal pressure and the necessity of earning his livelihoodor, more serious, forced to dis-continue the activity alto-gether. And also because it has as yet not assumed amass-proportion but inflicts itself upon unsuspecting in-dividuals by isolating them from the community of seek-ers. Nevertheless, by its very, isolated nature it succeedsin not unoften, inflicting individuals of especial qualities

who do not fit naturally into the main-stream commu-nity. And this implies a serious loss of talented indi-viduals. This being the case, it is rather ironical that there are on one hand, ‘laments’ by the sci-ence committees and science congresses that thereis a great dearth of ‘young talent’ in the coun-try and in addition there is a great brain-drain.As a remedy huge amounts are issued as awardsand scholarships. On the other hand, truly tal-ented and moreover, truly meritorious individu-als of proven intrinsic ability and talent are often forced by this very system to terminate their seek-ing sometimes during their ripening of the parts

and just before fruition. What an enormous and avoidable -by a more enlightened policy- waste of talent and human-resource is this as compared tothe former namely the illusory lack of ‘young tal-ent’ and ‘brain-drain’ ! All this with regard to theseekers. Considering the non-seekers, however, there doesnot seem to be such a clear and distinct conflict of a simi-lar nature at the individual level and especially as relatedto the seekers as a whole. Thence comes the enormousimportance of inquiring into the fundamental difficultiesinherent in the activity of seeking . As in dealing withany involved topic, one can go farthest by beginning fromfirst principles and tracing out the origin, growth, cessa-

tion and the path of elimination of the difficulties so asto arrive at effective solutions. We undertake such aninvestigation here.

II. THE DUALITY OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES

A. The Basic Needs and Necessities

From the very dawn of civilization, the basic needshave remained to be food, clothing and shelter. Con-trary to simple-minded definitions, in modern civiliza-

tions, however, it is clear that these alone do not com-plete the set. There are other needs equally basic thatare necessary for leading an independent existence, thedetails of which we shall not go into here. Thus it ismore meaningful to use the term aims in general andnecessities in particular, instead of needs. These areto be distinguished from pursuits which are not actu-ally necessary but are sought after to enrich life or alsomerely for the sake of acquisition. What we are inter-ested in is the relation between the basic necessities,the corresponding activities and the fruits where by‘fruits’ we mean that which enable us to obtain sus-



14

tenance and support. Given the basic necessities, thewhole process is subsumed by the terms Earning and Livelihood(EL). The results of the activities are theproduce and the fruits constitute the material returnslike barter or money obtained as equivalent to its worth.Thus there is a well-knit relationship represented by acausal-chain

Earning and Livelihood :f −1

→ Aims(Necessities)f 0→ Activities

f 1→ Results

f 2→ F ruits (2.1)

This casual-chain contains qualitative information andmay be described using the language of homological al-gebra. The kth homology group is then defined as

H k = ker(f k)/Im(f k−1) (2.2)

We illustrate the meaning of this. Consider, for instance,H 0. Then, ker(f 0) comprises those Necessities which leadto zero Activities. And Im(f −1) comprises those Activ-ities which are driven by the Necessities. We now forman equivalence class of Activities by discarding the zeroActivities. That is, we take the equivalence class to bethe factor space ker(f k )/Im(f k−1) which is precisely H 0.To obtain H 1 and H 2 we merely replace Necessities andActivities respectively, turn by turn, with Activities andResults, Results and Fruits. Once the H k are obtained,we immediately turn the qualitative information into aquantitative one by means of the Euler polynomial

e(EL) =

n

k=0

dim(H k)

(2.3)

In particular, the Euler-Poincare characteristic isgiven by

χ(EL) =

n

k=0

(−1)kbk

(2.4)

The quantities bk ≡ dim(H k) are the kth Betti numbers.In concrete terms, b0 represents the number of essential-activities or ‘vertices’ , b1 the number of essential-results or ‘edges’ and b2 the number of essential-

fruits or ‘faces’ of the abstract simplex or ‘polyhe-dra’ formed by Earning and Livelihood . The Euler-Poincare characteristic is a topological invariant and is,therefore, insensitive to the deformation of the overallprocess. For a given fixed Euler-Poincare characteristic,there is freedom for varying the relative values of theBetti numbers. As a consequence, it is possible to keepthe overall process invariant under the variation of theindividual links of the causal-chain .

In essence, this chain is a cycle. That is,

Earning and Livelihood :f 3→ Necessities

f 0→ Activities

f 1→ Results

f 2→ Fruits

f 3→ Necessities

(2.5)

For, since it is the necessities which are important andsince moreover these are clearly defined and likely tochange quantitatively rather than qualitatively, ie in

number only, it follows that given the option to arrive atthe necessities without going through the complete chain,the process can be completed. In short, the activity isgoal-oriented and goal-dominated, the ends are far moreimportant than the means20. That is, the necessitiesare in a sense directly equivalent to the fruits! It is thiswell-knit and direct relationship between the necessitiesand the fruits that ensures that any activity correspond-ing to the basic necessities alone has a certain stabilitynot likely to be easily lost in course of time. By impli-cation, it follows that the follower after basic necessitiesalone, who is not disturbed by the stirrings of higher as-pirations, also has a certain stability. He is less likely to

suffer from fundamental difficulties inherent in the activ-ity for, these difficulties in fact do not exist! The onlydifficulties he may face spring from an entirely differentsource not relevant for our purpose. Moreover, since theprocess itself is not that important as compared to thegoals, there prevails an additional stability in the formof routine. The process is goal-driven and subjected toa strict routine. Thence also the justification of the ter-minology ‘Earning and Livelihood ’. It is the activity that supports the condition . That is, it is earning that supports livelihood . Keeping aside exceptionalcases of individuals who happen to fall into this activityby accident, it is true that stricter the adherence to rou-

tine and the goals, more the stability for the individualalso. Once one pays due attention to these two factorsduring the ‘office-hours’ , one can afford to ‘forget’ about the process altogether during the rest of the day.After these ‘obligations’ , one is, ironically speaking, ina sense, free21. Thus here, the aim is livelihood, theprocess is mastered by ‘repetition and practice’ and,

20 Note, however, that this is strictly true only for the ‘primary’activities namely those activities that have an ‘input’ and an‘output’. Thus, for instance, activities like that of Banking, In-surance, Stocks and Shares...fall outside the strictly goal-driven

activities for they are process-driven. We do not consider theseissues in the present inquiry.

21 “When the non-Castalians speak of the free professions, the word may sound very serious and even inspiring. But when we useit, we intend it ironically. Freedom exists in those professionsonly to the extent that the student chooses the profession himself.That produces an appearance of freedom, although in most casesthe choice is made less by the student than by his family, and many a father would sooner bite off his tongue than really allow his son free choice. But perhaps that is a slander; let us dropthis objection. Let us say that the freedom exists, but it is lim-ited to the one unique act of choosing the profession. Afterward all freedom is over. When he begins his studies at the univer-sity, the doctor, lawyer or engineer is forced into an extremely



15

not necessarily, by ‘originality and creativity’ and thegoal is also livelihood. The ‘rest’ of the time, which maynot be much, may be spent in a matter of fact mannerof no great consequence to the individual or the collec-tive. Due to the ascending curve of evolution and dueto the enormous importance of the role of the material-human in the economy of Nature namely preservation of the species, it follows that there is always a great prepon-

derance in the number of individuals engaged in earningand livelihood alone.

B. The Higher Needs and Aspirations

Again, from the dawn of civilization, the higherneeds have remained to be essentially, ‘Truth andKnowledge’ whether of phenomena or that behindphenomena. These ‘needs’ , unlike that of the basic,are not so straight-forward to justify or define. Thesehigher needs in turn intermingle to produce other needs.Thus, together, all these constitute what we may callthe higher aims or rather higher aspirations. Inthe centuries of the recent past, however, the diversityof terms corresponding to higher aspirations have allcome to be understood by just the terms ‘Truth and Knowledge’ and the associated activities are recog-nized to be ‘creative’. Thus, the activity correspondingto these aspirations may, for convenience, be termed‘creativity’. Now given the higher aspirations, the‘results’ are ‘Truth and Knowledge’ . The activity is‘creativity’. In addition there is another indispensablefactor for creativity namely ‘leisure’. The entire pro-cess may be termed Leisure and Creativity‘’(LC).

Thus here also there is a causal-chain which due to itsless straight-forward nature we represent by wavy arrows,

Leisure and Creativity : Aims(Aspirations)

ActivitiesResults (2.6)

Unlike in the case of basic necessities, here the processis equally important and sometimes more importantthan the goals though the goals are by no meansdisregarded. In short, the activity is process-drivenas well as goal-driven. However, in principle, it isleft entirely to the individuals to determine which of

rigid curriculum which ends with a series of examinations. If he passes them, he receives his license and can thereafter pursuehis profession in seeming freedom. But in doing so he becomesthe slave of base powers; he is dependent on success, on money,on his ambition, his hunger for fame, on whether or not peoplelike him. He must submit to elections, must earn money, must take part in the ruthless competition of castes, families, politi-cal parties, newspapers. In return he has the freedom to becomesuccessful and well to-do, and to be hated by the unsuccessful, or vice versa.—-Hermann Hesse, “The Glass Bead Game”

the two drives the activity. The possibility that theactivity may be process-driven stems also from the factthat it is not unoften the case that the goals maybe unattainable especially when the seeker is inquest of ultimate, fundamental truths or laws of Nature.This justifies the terminology ‘Leisure and Creativity’ .It is the condition that supports the activity .That is, in case of higher aspirations, it is leisure

(the condition) which supports creativity (theactivity) in contrast to basic necessities wherein it isearning (the activity) that supports livelihood (the condition). But whence come the ‘fruits’ whichare necessary for sustenance and support? For, theseeker after higher aspirations cannot do without basicneeds and, in fact, without basic necessities! In reality,the terms ‘basic’ and ‘higher’ indicate predominancerather than exclusiveness. And although the followerafter basic necessities alone, may be able to do withouthigher aspirations, the converse is not true, except inextreme cases when the seeker chooses an asceticmode of life wherein only basic needs matter. More-

over, the ‘fruits’ here may be of subtle forms, thatis, of pursuits namely honor and recognition, powerand prestige or merely vanity....Though these are notabsent in the case of the basic necessities, there, theydo not affect the process itself as the basic necessitieshaving the primary goal of livelihood, does in no waypreclude the pursuits of relative-values which are whathonor, recognition and the other vanities, in essence,represent. In the activity corresponding to higheraspirations, however, these ‘pursuits’ are stumblingblocks especially when pursued as ends. For, theentire purpose of higher aspiration is the seeking of not relative-values but absolute-values represented by

‘Truth and Knowledge’ . This aspect will be treatedin detail in the following sections but for now, we seetherefore, that in ‘Leisure and Creativity’, the ‘fruits’ are extrinsic to the process. Therefore the entire chainlooks like,

Leisure and C reativity : Aims(Aspirations)

ActivitiesResults Fruits (2.7)

with the chain of wavy arrows indicating the indirectrelationship of the fruits with the necessities. Sincethere is no well-knit relationship between the necessities

and the fruits, and since the fruits are extrinsic to theprocess altogether, this process is only apparently stable.It remains stable only so long as the fruits do not beginto affect or control the process. In that case, the chainis weakened and the process itself in danger of beingdamped. By implication, it follows that the seeker after higher aspirations partakes of the instabilityinherent in the process. He is not unoften torn betweenthe process, the goals and the acquisition of the fruits. This is more so especially when the ‘goals’ are‘artificially imposed’ on him by an agency externalto the process but which supports the activity by



16

providing the fruits and other auxiliaries. Moreover,in contrast to the follower of basic necessities, thereprevails an additional instability in the form of anabsence of routine. For, contrary to the views -heldby half-hearted researchers- the activity correspondingto higher aspirations cannot be captured by routineor compartmentalized. There are no ‘office-hours’ but rather, perhaps ‘hours in an office’ and there

is no ‘rest of the time’ but rather ‘time for therest of the creative activities’. The seeker either isinvolved in the activity or not at all in it. A naturalselection determines whether a seeker remains asone or not. With these ‘imperatives’ rather than‘obligations’ one is in a much more real sense -but byno means totally- free22 Thus, here the aim is ‘Truth and Knowledge’ , the process cannot be masteredby ‘repetition and practice’ but necessarily, by‘originality and creativity’ and the goal is certainlynot livelihood. Again, due to the ascending curve of evolution and due to the rather minor role played by thenon-material human in the direct economy of Nature, it

follows that the number of individuals engaged in ‘leisureand creativity’ is rather insignificant as compared tothat in ‘earning and livelihood’.

The basic necessities and the higher aspirations to-gether, constitute the sum-total of all human aims. How-ever, as mentioned above, they need not and -at least inthe present times- do not and cannot, mutually excludeeach other as such. Though it would seem that the seekerafter higher aspirations is dependent on basic necessitieswhereas the follower after basic necessities may be ableto do without the higher aspirations, there is no sharp

22 “ For the elite pupil and later member of the Order, everything is the other way around. He does not ‘choose’ any profession.He does not imagine that he is a better judge of this own tal-ents than are his teachers. He accepts the place and the function within the hierarchy that his superiors choose for him -if, that is,the matter is not reversed and the qualities, gifts, and faults of the pupil compel the teacher to send him to one place or another.In the midst of this seeming unfreedom every electus enjoys thegreatest imaginable freedom after his early courses. Whereas theman in the ‘free’ professions must submit to a narrow and rigid course of studies with rigid examinations in order to train for his future career, the electus. as soon as he begins studying in-

dependently, enjoys so much freedom that there are many whoall their lives choose the most abstruse and frequently almost foolish studies, and may continue without hindrance as long astheir conduct does not degenerate. The natural teacher is em-ployed as teacher, the natural educator as educator, the natural translator as translator; each, as if of his own accord, finds hisway to the place in which he can serve, and in serving be free.Moreover, for the rest of his life he is saved from that ‘freedom’ of career which means such terrible slavery. He knows nothing of the struggle for money, fame, rank; he recognizes no parties,no dichotomy between the individual and the office, between what is private and what is public, he feels no dependence upon suc-cess.”—-Hermann Hesse, “The Glass Bead Game”

but rather, a fluid, moving boundary exists between thetwo. This is obvious in modern times when the very ac-quisition of basic necessities depends on the results of higher aspirations. Nevertheless, one should nevermake the mistake of making the higher aspira-tions subserve the acquisition of basic necessitiesalone. For, the motive behind the one is not theinspiration behind the other! And in an impartial

manner, with equal justice to both the higher aspira-tions as well as basic necessities, the follower after basicnecessities is justified in protesting23 that one shouldnever make the mistake of thrusting the higher as-pirations on the follower of basic necessities anddemand that he ‘support’ the activity of higheraspirations. However abhorrent and shocking this mayseem to a seeker of higher aspirations, in his pride of in-tellect or due to a ‘spiritual egoism’, it must be clearlyrecognized by a chastened and enlightened seeker that inthe right view of things, there is no activity that is in-trinsically superior or inferior by itself. Rather, it is thespirit in which one performs an activity that elevates the

activity itself. This is because, an activity by itself, takenas a process, a method, a means toward an end cannotbe made to fit into the framework of ethics or moral-ity. It is the humans who engage in the activity who arenaturally subject to ethics and morality either due to anawakened conscience or due to the need to maintain socialstability. This being the fact it is rather amusing to wit-ness the endless debate carried out against science thatits pursuit ought to be moral and ethical. Thus it follows,as is captured by an ancient saying, that in spirit, “Man-ual labor done for the sake of truth or other noble motivesis far superior to the highest intellectual work done for thesake of self-aggrandizement”. It is lack of awareness in

practice -and not mere theory- of the truth of this ‘dig-nity of labor’ that is one of the reasons for the mutualhostility between the seeker of higher aspirations and thefollower of basic necessities. It is most often held by theseekers that the followers of basic necessities are ‘igno-rant’ and incapable of appreciating the sublime natureof the activity of ‘leisure and creativity’. For the samereason, the followers of basic necessities are not unoftenheld in contempt and suspicion by the seekers forgettingthe fact that one after all follows one’s own inclinationand motives and that just as the seekers would be aghastif they were asked to devote themselves to mere ‘earningand livelihood’ so also it is but legitimate that the fol-

lower of basic necessities should confess their inability -if not lack of motivation- to go after higher seeking alone.In truth, is it not the case that one finds many a followerof basic necessities trying to appreciate the activities of higher seeking in whatever possible manner he can as,

23 He rarely does so. Rather, it is often the case that he expressesbewilderment that a seeker can go after intangible realities like‘truth and knowledge’ at the cost of ‘earning and livelihood’



17

for instance, by one trying to pick up a smattering of science through popular sources? It behooves us at thepresent time then to heal the unhealthy chasm that aloss of the spirit of the dignity of labor has created andto learn to look upon each activity for the role it plays inthe economy of Nature. Learn we must not only to un-derstand the difficulties of the seekers but also to see thatthe responsibility for such a sorry state of affairs lies in

the seekers themselves. Indeed, in a recent review articleby Thomas Thiemann entitled “Lectures on Loop Quan-tum Gravity24”, one finds the following lament, “To besure, it is a shame that one has to justify fundamen-tal research at all, a situation unheard of in the begin-ning of the 20’th century which probably was part of thereason why so many breakthroughs especially in funda-mental physics have happened in that time. Fundamen-tal research can work only in absence of any pressureto produce(mainstream) results, otherwise new, rad-ical and independent thoughts are no longer produced. Tosee the time scale on which fundamental research leads topractical results, one has to be aware that General Rel-

ativity and Quantum Theory were discovered in the 20’sand 30’s already but it took some 70 years before quantum mechanics, through, e.g. computers, mobile phones, theinternet, electronic devices or general relativity through e.g. space travel or the global positioning system (GPS)became an integral part of life of a large fraction of thehuman population. Where would we be today if the inde-pendent thinkers of those times were forced to do practi-cal physics due to lack of funding for analyzing their fundamental questions? ” Reading these words a seekerwould like to at once ‘react’ with vehemence that that thelaymen out there in the funding agencies are so very igno-rant or corrupt to the extreme that they fail to appreciate

and if not, at least to ‘support’ so noble a cause as theseeking after higher aspirations, which after all “‘makesthe civilization itself worth preserving”. An enlightenedview, however, a view that takes its stand from a height -that transcends limitations due to bias, prejudgment andthe attachment to particular forms of ideas, ideals andopinions- from which one can see the whole of human ac-tivity as an essential unity, informs us that what at prima facie appears as a righteous lament, is, in fact, one-sidedand self-caused. One-sided because it looks at humanactivity from the standpoint of a seeker engrossed in theactivities for their own sake per se and not for the sakeof higher seeking! For, in the seeking after higher aspi-

rations, -as was recognized in ancient India, for instance,-one needs to take a view that springs from an insightinto the totality of things and not from an attachment toa particular form of truth which drives the activity. Itis self-caused because, -as we shall discuss in detail in alater section-, a simple look at the causal-chain describedabove shows that the problem referred to by the lament

24 Available as a gr-qc eprint at arXiv.org

springs from a neglect on the part of the seekersthemselves and not, in principle, from the followers af-ter basic necessities. It is the seekers themselves who havein gross neglect of their total responsibility, freely ‘surrendered’ their ‘fate’, course of livelihood and sometimes also, direction, into the hands of the followers after basic necessities! This would nodoubt seem perhaps, too outrageous a statement to one

not matured to an intellectual passivity that refuses tostick to the forms but seeks truth face to face. But surely,if one traces back the problem to its origin, -its placeof origin mainly in the West and which has been takenover essentially en-masse by the institution-builders of India, the time, before, during and near the end of thesecond world war25 -one can immediately see the truthof the statement that ‘pride has a fall’ . For, flushed atthe tremendous victories achieved due to the mobiliza-tion of the sciences toward the war-effort and toward thedevelopment of political economy, the seekers, especiallythose in the physical sciences, took pride in ‘drawing sup-port’ from various sources such as the army, the navy, the

Congress....And it was but natural for the latter to sup-pose that the seekers were so disposed that they werewilling to offer their ‘services’ for exchange of ‘support’.And is it not, but natural, that the ‘services’ should bedefined by the ones who need them? And is it not theseekers who in consultation with the ‘funding agencies’arrived at an ‘activity-equation’,


ActivitiesResults ↔ Services

↔ Funds ↔ Fruits← Results ← Activities

← Necessities : Earning and Livelihood (2.8)

And is it not clear that equating two essentially differ-ent kinds of activities, one process-predominant and theother goal-predominant, is an inconsistent and unstable

25 “Before the war, we physicists never had occupied ourselves with problems and questions which could in any direct way be called immediately practical. We had directed our whole attention todiscovering the laws of the physical universe as elements in a clear, consistent, logical, and often mathematical scheme. Wemade it a principle of our code as scientists to communicateour findings to others in the most frank, direct, and expeditious

manner. Inseparably connected wit our scientific work -and nosmall part of it- was the training of future scientists.

Yet we physicists were in our work from 1940 to 1945 largely responsible for the discovery and practical development of at least two of the most remarkable and terrible weapons of the Second World War: radar and the so-called atomic bomb. To apply theadjective ”terrible” to radar may occasion some surprise to thosewho only have read or thought about electronic devices in termsof their beneficial peacetime applications....The potentialities of this extraordinarily facile and protean instrument of war are now even more disquieting to anyone who appreciates the degree towhich radar heightens the surprise value and accuracy of other weapons.—-I I Rabi, ‘Science, the Center of Culture’



18

relation? It might have been that at that time, the sit-uation favored this for, the new-born mutual respect26

between the seekers and the ‘funding agencies’, -a re-spect that sprang more from an unity of purpose namelyto frustrate the danger represented by Fascism -allowedflexibility in the use of the activity-equation. But as hu-manity evolves, the ‘situation’ also evolves whereas theactivity-equation may not or only so slowly that after a

certain time the evolution of the ‘situation’ grows out of tune with the evolution of the activity-equation. Thus, asdiscussed above, further evolution in the ‘situation’ butmust fail to resolve the mutual contradictions. It can onlybe resolved by a ‘revolution’ in the activity-equation itself that bridges the gap and eliminates the contradictions.It follows that any lamenting or petitioning or criticizingthe ‘funding agencies’ or other support-bodies does butill-help toward the resolution of the above conflict. Tocontinue in such ill-directed endeavors is to once againshirk responsibility and to further the conflict. There isno other alternative than to study the activity-equationand restore stability to it either by redefining the equa-

tion itself or by stabilizing the activity of ‘leisure andcreativity’ itself for, as discussed above, the activity of ‘earning and livelihood’ is inherently stable. This beingthe fact it is now clear that the source of the difficultiesof the seekers lies not in the system which constitutesthe activity of ‘earning and livelihood’ but in that of theseekers themselves. It is evasion of this responsibility thathas thus far prevented any action toward the resolutionof the conflict between the seekers and the non-seekersto which we now turn.

C. The Clash of the Activities

The basic necessities and the higher aspirationsconstitute, therefore, the sum-total of the factors driv-ing human activities. And, as discussed above, in thepresent state of affairs at least, the followers of basic ne-cessities and the seekers after higher aspirations are inmutual antagonism, if not hostility. There is, if one mayput it so, a half-conscious but nevertheless, hostile atti-tude amounting to what we may term a ‘class-struggle’between the seekers and the non-seekers. This is some-what surprising if one takes into account the totality of human activities. In the present times at least, the to-tality is so prominent that it is only in principle that

26 “What is more, industry now, with considerable success, is lur-ing the physicist from his academic hideout with glittering piecesof silver and promise of unlimited scientific equipment and corpsof assistants. And NASA, too, and our rejuvenated military forces are building giant laboratories (anyone of which could useup all our currently available and really well-trained physicists),and stocking them with men who are assured they can continuescientific research and still adhere to the well-meaning but com-pletely impossible regulations of the Civil Service Commission.”—-I I Rabi, ‘Science, the Center of Culture’

one can maintain the duality of the activities ‘earningand livelihood’ and ‘leisure and creativity’. Such beingthe case, one would expect an attitude of understandingand cooperation if not empathy and interdependence be-tween the two classes. The absence of such an attitudespells -in the long run, if not in the immediate future-disaster to the progress of civilization itself. This is be-cause, the civilization is bound to evolve in course of time

and this is important, the evolution is to a great ex-tent, governed by the initial conditions. And theseinitial conditions, like any dynamical system, most of-ten suffice to be the present state of affairs and thetendency or direction followed by the state of affairs. Though an exceedingly complex dynamical sys-tem such as a civilization -even the definition of which isfar from easy- cannot be encompassed or described by anevolution-equation and though it may be far from beingdeterministic, keeping aside departures from determinismor tendencies towards deterministic chaos represented by‘revolutions’, we may more or less take it that the initialconditions mentioned above, do -to a large extent-govern

the evolution. Moreover, the ‘rate of change of the stateof affairs’ also plays an indispensable role in the rise ordecline, growth or decay of the civilization. In fact, if a civilization were only an inert mass-aggregate of peo-ples, it could well be described entirely by the methodsof mathematical statistics or deterministic chaos. Then,the initial conditions would play an even greater role inthat a small change in them could lead to pronouncedchanges in the evolution. However, for good or bad, acivilization escapes such a categorization more in view of the fact that the fixing of initial conditions themselvesis subject to evolution due to non-linearity. This impliesthat in the absence of ‘good’ initial conditions, the civ-

ilization flounders whereas the moment such conditionsare discovered and adapted, there is a good chance thatthe civilization may flourish and take a turn towards anexceeding of past or present limitations.

Thus, the prevailing state of affairs as regards the re-lation between the seekers and the non-seekers namelymutual hostility if far from playing the role of ‘good’ ini-tial conditions. Yet, the fact that they do exist and needonly to be discovered and adapted is also true. To seethis it is necessary to understand the nature of the mu-tual hostility in some detail.

D. The Nature of the Clash

In Section II B, we propounded the thesis that the dif-ficulties inherent in the activities of seeking stemmedfrom the inconsistent activity-equation. This, in turn,is a reflection of the attitudes of the individuals towardthe activities of ‘earning and livelihood’ on one hand and‘leisure and creativity’ on the other. It is convenient totreat the two separately.



19

1. Earning and Livelihood

The basic necessities can only be fulfilled naturallyby the activities of ‘earning and livelihood’. By thevery definition of the term ‘basic’ it implies that theseactivities cannot be dispensed with. This is true irre-spective of any urge toward higher aspirations. It is a

necessary but by no means sufficient conditionfor any civilization, worth its name, to exist and tosurvive. It is the primary business of humanity butnot necessarily, its higher or ultimate one. It is primary,firstly because without it humanity cannot exist as acivilization but would be forced to resort or revert tosome sort of barbarism as a means of survival. Andwithout it the higher aspirations cannot take their holdon the mass of humanity but would remain the choicepossession of a few privileged individuals. It is primary,secondly in the sense of the original meaning of the termnamely that it is the stage of humanity’s childhood.Unless this stage of growth of humanity is harmoniously

fulfilled and overpassed, it cannot step into its youthfulstage of consolidation, preservation and construction27.Finally, it is not sufficient because the youthful stageought to be naturally followed by the mature adultstage of creativity marked by the stirrings of higheraspiration and culminating in ripe wisdom representedby the activities involved in the passing on of values tothe future generations.

It follows, therefore, that the individuals engaged inthe activity of ‘earning and livelihood’ alone -and havenot graduated to ‘leisure and creativity’ -inherit the char-acteristics of the primary nature of that activity in the

sense that they are subject to a natural ‘ignorance’. Theyare, to a large extent, -according to the two-fold meaningof the term ‘ignorance’ namely not-knowing and ‘ignoringto see’ are either unable to appreciate or choose not to ap-preciate, the spirit of higher aspirations respectively. The

27 “The absence of any organized system of industrial production in the Roman society, accompanied as it was by a lack of economic forethought, had serious consequences , of which one examplemay here be given. The devaluation of the coinage during thethird century brought about the ruin of the middle class. In re-cent times a similar cause has produced a similar effect in one

of the most advanced nations in Europe. But deadly as werethe immediate effects of the fall of the German mark in 1923,these effects were soon repaired by the productive energies of theGerman people assisted by the application of capital to industry.The Roman empire possessed no such powers of recuperation.There was no organized system of credit, no elaborate industrial plant, no skilled industrial or commercial leadership. The con-ditions under which a great economic reverse could be promptly retrieved did not exist.More important was a decline in morale, a loss of heart, evident even in the Senate, the body which should have led the Common-wealth in the civic virtues of honor and independence, courageand patriotism —–H A L Fisher, “History of Europe”, Vol I”

former represents ‘child-hood’ and the latter the ‘youth’of humanity for, the child is ignorant by not-knowingwhereas the youth may be ignorant by arrogantly choos-ing not to know. Endowed with this view sprung fromignorance, these individuals, not unoften, tend to take agross-measure of the nature of higher aspirations. Theyhold that the primary business is the sole rational one notonly necessary but also sufficient and that whatever ‘ir-

rational’ higher aspirations may afflict a minority of indi-viduals ought to be admitted or encouraged only in so faras they may be made to subserve the primary one. Notonly so, it is not at all infrequent but rather too commonto see these kind of individuals also grudgingly adapt andparticipate in the activities of ‘leisure and creativity’ inorder to consciously deploy these activities toward ‘earn-ing and livelihood’. In doing so great care is taken to seethat they do not over-step the minimum needed require-ments borrowed from the results of higher aspirations. Tobe ‘practical’ is an oft-repeated and oft-heeded dictum.This being the case, it is not uncommon to find irritationexpressed toward the seekers after higher aspirations for

what they feel is a ‘useless’ activity and in reality, a pro-longation of the stage of childhood and youth as againsttheir ‘useful’, utilitarian, ‘practical’ mature adult-hood.For, they would argue, are not only children supposed tostudy? And are not these seekers doing nothing but pro-longing their study which ought to have ended long ago?Whence are they going to ‘settle down’ in life and engagein the primary business of ‘earning and livelihood’ andthereby support themselves and their dependents? Andironically, supporting these arguments is the fact thatseekers too often -be virtue of their absorption in theirseeking- tend to exhibit signs of impracticality, unworld-liness or other-worldliness all of which do little to dispell

but rather to confirm the views of the non-seekers28. Andsince it is these very non-seeker individuals who formsupporting-bodies or funding agencies, a much magnifiedversion of the above negative views against the seekersprevents them from having understanding and empathytowards the activities of ‘leisure and creativity’. If nothostility, it is a feeling of worldly superiority that marksthe non-seekers off from the seekers. And greater theworldly position, greater the feeling of superiority whichimplies that persons at the helm of worldly affairs aremost often the least equipped to understand the needs of

28 “Socrates: The same thing as the story about the Thracian maid-servant who exercised her wit at the expense of Thales, when hewas looking up to study the stars and tumbled down a well. Shescoffed at him for being so eager to know what was happening in the sky that he could not see what lay at his feet. Anyone whogives his life to philosophy is open to such mockery. It is truethat he is unaware what his next-door neighbor is doing, hardly knows, indeed, whether the creature is a man at all; he spendsall his pains on the question, what man is, and what powers and properties distinguish such a nature from any other. You seewhat I mean, Theodorus?”—-Plato, “Theaetetus”



20

the seeker class. Even when the non-seekers by a stirringof higher aspirations or merely by an attempt to put ona garb of scientific superiority, attempt to appreciate orknow about science through the perusal of popular sci-entific writings, they miss the mark and acquire rather,views based on fantasy instead of reality. They acquirealso an equally fantastic view of the seekers often far re-moved from reality. They imbibe, for instance, the view

that one who does a spectacular piece of scientific workis a genius forgetting the basic fact of causality that oneis incapable of knowing the cause(genius) before the ef-fect(result of the work) and that if there is no work toshow, there is no genius. Again, for instance, that beinga scientist is equivalent to being an intellectual capable of understanding and appreciating diverse or all branches of knowledge forgetting the fact that an exclusive scientifictraining may be a necessary but not at all sufficient oneto enter into the spirit of other branches like philosoph-ical issues, social conditions, or politics. Now, none of these partial-views help the non-seekers in understand-ing the spirit of a seeker. At most, the non-seekers have

to bank on the results of inquiry29 which the seekers pro-duce from time to time under the influence of creativity.Thus, in the present state of affairs, it is inevitable that(at the least a mild) hostility is the attitude of the non-seekers toward the seekers. We now consider the samefrom the side of the seekers.

2. Leisure and Creativity

“Such are the two characters, Theodorus.The one is nursed in freedom and leisure, thephilosopher, as you may call him. He may be excused if he looks foolish or useless when faced with some menial task, if he cannot tieup bedclothes into a neat bundle of flavor a dish with spices and a speech with flattery.The other is smart in the dispatch of all such services, but has not learned to wear his cloak like a gentleman, or caught the accent of dis-course that will rightly celebrate the true life

29 “Socrates: On the other hand, my friend, when the philosopher drags the other upward to a height at which he may consent to

drop the question, ‘What injustice have I done to you or you to me?’ and to think about justice and injustice in themselves,what each is, and how they differ from one another and from anything else, or to stop quoting poetry about the happiness of kings or of men with gold in store and think about the meaning of kingship and the whole question of human happiness and misery,what their nature is, and how humanity can gain the one and escape the other -in all this field, the situation is reversed. Now it is he who is dizzy from hanging at such an unaccustomed height and looking down from mid-air. Lost and dismayed and stammering, he will be laughed at, not by maidservants or theuneducated -they will not see what is happening- but by everyonewhose breeding has been the antithesis of a slave’s.”—-Plato, “Theaetetus”

of happiness for gods and men.Theodorus: If you could convince everyone,Socrates, as you convince me, there would bemore peace and fewer evils in the world.” —-Plato, “Theaetetus”

The higher aspirations can only be sought after by the

activities of ‘leisure and creativity’. Again, by the veryterm ‘higher’ it implies that these activities are ‘superior’in spirit ie, not in the sense of high or low, positive ornegative but merely supremely worth following after.This is true irrespective of any tendency toward thefulfillment of basic necessities. It is necessary but notsufficient for any civilization worth its name to beunique and to progress30. It is the secondary busi-ness of humanity but not necessarily its complete one.It is secondary, firstly because a civilization may wellexist without it though in a primitive state of agrarianor nomadic community of peoples rather than a uniquerace of peoples with a conscious and distinct stamp of

identity. Without it, the inhabiting peoples would beforced to depend entirely on natural sources ratherthan natural resources. It is secondary, secondly inthe original sense of the term namely that it dependsand follows the stage of humanity’s childhood and youth.Unless humanity can make this transition it cannot‘mature’ into adult-hood and grow ripe in wisdom. Andwithout this step, it is ill-able to preserve31 itself bycontinuity through the ‘passing on of values’ to thefuture generations and thus evolve a distinct individu-ality or culture32. No doubt, it is not impossible to

30 ‘The wise use of leisure, it must be conceded, is a product of civilization and education. A man who has worked long hoursall his life will be bored if he becomes suddenly id le. But without a considerable amount of leisure a man is cut off from many of the best things.- Bertrand Russel’

31 “The Roman empire was after all a very primitive organiza-tion; it did not educate, did not explain itself to its increasing multitudes of citizens, did not invite their co-operation in its de-cisions. There was no network of schools to insure a common understanding, no distribution of news to sustain collective ac-tivity. The adventurers who struggled for power from the daysof Marius and Sulla onward had no idea of creating and call-ing in public opinion upon the imperial affairs. The spirit of citizenship died of starvation and no one observed it die. All empires, al l states, all organizations of human society are, in

the ultimate, things of understanding and will. There remained no will for the Roman Empire in the world and so it came to an end.But though the Latin-speaking Roman Empire died in the fifth century, something else had been born within it that was to avail itself enormously of its prestige and tradition and that was theLatin-speaking half of the Catholic Church. This lived while theempire died because it appealed to the minds and wills of men because it had books and a great system of teachers and mis-sionaries to hold it together, things stronger than any law or legions.”—–H G Wells, “A Short History of the World”

32 “Nineteenth century German thinkers drew a sharp distinction between civilization, which involved mechanics, technology, and



21

perform the ‘passing on of values’ or preserve theculture by continuity, by humanity in the primary stageitself but only as unstable because ill-assimilated orinsufficiently internalized processes. And a civilizationwhich attempts to preserve itself by such pre-matureprocesses fails to withstand the ravages of time or thatof culture-shock or that of the clash of civilizations33.Finally, it is not sufficient because it ought to be

preceded by the stages of humanity’s childhood andyouth if it to remain vital and vigorous and thus stability.

Coming to the issue of civilization, as mentioned, forinstance, in Huntington[12], a sharp distinction betweencivilization and culture is not recognized at present,outside Germany. Nevertheless, for convenience, we keepthis possibility in mind in the present inquiry in orderto distinguish the predominance of the primary or thesecondary activities of humanity. Thus, we find it partic-ularly convenient -by abuse of language- to designate theterm civilization to a pre-ponderance of the primaryactivities and the term culture to a pre-ponderance of the secondary activities. This criterion allows us to usethe concept of stability as applied to both civilization and culture and in terms of these we may classify thestability of a civilization.

Stability of

Civilizations

Civilization Culture

Unstable Unstable Unstable

Unstable Stable Unstable

Stable Unstable Stable

Stable Stable Neutral or

Structurally Stable

material factors, and culture, which involved values, ideals, and the higher intellectual artistic, moral qualities of a society. Thisdistinction has persisted in German thought but has not been accepted elsewhere. Some anthropologists have even reversed therelation and conceived of cultures as characteristic of primitive,unchanging, nonurban societies, while more complex, developed,urban, and dynamic societies are civilizations. These effortsto distinguish culture and civilization, however, have not caught on, and outside Germany, there is overwhelming agreement with

Braudel that it is “delusory to wish in the German way to sep-arate culture from its foundation civilization.” Civilization and culture both refer to the overall way of life of a people, and a civilization is a culture writ large. They both involve the “val-ues, norms, institutions, and modes of thinking to which suc-cessive generations in a given society have attached primary im-portance.”—-Samuel P Huntington

33 Note, for instance, that even this may be a necessary but notsufficient condition to emerge victorious from the clash of civi-lizations. At present, India is in the throes of such a clash thelike of which had not been witnessed in history. But again, itsassimilative capacity shows signs of a great recovery destined tooccupy the pages of history when its task is done.

It follows, therefore, that the individuals engaged inthe activity of ‘leisure and creativity’ alone -and havenever mastered or at least acquainted with the activitiesof ‘earning and livelihood’ -inherit the characteristics of the secondary nature of that activity in the sense thatthey are subject to a natural ‘incapacity’34. They are-to a large extent, in a two-fold manner- either choosenot to engage in or are intrinsically incapable, of ‘earn-

ing and livelihood’, which they can by no means over-pass, but the fruits of which they are in need somehowor the other, not only for survival but also to supporttheir activity of ‘leisure and creativity’ itself. The for-mer represents the ‘adult-hood’ and the latter ‘old-age’of humanity. The adult is not incapable of but can choosenot to engage in following basic necessities per se but onesubject to old-age is incapable of ‘earning and livelihood’.Endowed with this view sprung from incapacity these in-dividuals, not unoften, tend to grossly underestimate therole of the basic necessities. They hold that the primarybusiness of humanity is that of the seeking after higheraspirations and that it ought to be given the highest im-

portance as being the noblest of activities. And that itis the natural ‘duty’ of those engaged in ‘earning andlivelihood’ to recognize, respect and support the activityof ‘leisure and creativity’. In contrast to the followers of basic necessities who fail to appreciate higher aspirationsdue to ignorance, the seekers after higher aspirations failto appreciate the importance of the followers of basic ne-cessities either due to another kind of ignorance or dueto ‘pride’ of intellect. For, the seeking after higher aspi-rations, though in principle, ought to liberate the seek-ers from ignorance, pride and vanity of all sorts, it israrely that it so happens. This is because the seekingafter higher aspirations is usually carried out in a partial

manner by confining attention to a fragmentary aspectof reality and not the totality of things. Thus, the seek-ing is vitiated and more often tends to be just anotherkind of activity equivalent in spirit to that of ‘earningand livelihood’ with the further disadvantage that there

34 “Socrates: Then, if that is your wish, let us speak of the leadersin philosophy, for the weaker members may be neglected. From their youth up they have never known the way to market placeor law court or Council chamber or any other place of publicassembly; they never hear a decree read out or look at the text of a law. To take any interest in the rivalries of political cliques,

in meetings, dinners, and merrymakings with flute girls, never occurs to them even in dreams. Whether any fellow citizen iswell, or ill-born or has inherited some defect from his ances-tors on either side, the philosopher knows no more than how many pints of water there are in the sea. He is not even awarethat he knows nothing of all this, for if he holds himself aloof,if is not for reputation’s sake, but because it is really only hisbody that sojourns in his city, while his thought, disdaining all such things as worthless, takes wings as Pindar says, ‘beyond the sky, beneath the earth, ‘searching the heavens and measur-ing the plains, everywhere seeking the true nature of everything as a whole, never sinking to what lies close at hand.”—-Plato, “Theaetetus”



22

is no actual ‘earning’ involved. Rather, one still dependson external support for livelihood. It is only when oneseeks the essence of things, their unity as well as theirtotality and also attempts to go behind phenomena, tothe thing-in-itself, the soul of the truth, that one reallybegins to ‘realize’ rather than ‘idealize’ the truths. Andit is only then that the truth so realized can be made togovern each and every detail of life. In absence of such a

state of affairs, knowledge fails to be a power to transformoneself according to the truths glimpsed and remains anidle gleam. To illustrate this, for instance, one is oftenengrossed in the forms of seeking rather than the truthssought and even if a better mode of seeking is open, onerefuses to adapt it as one feels more comfortable to stickto the forms of seeking one has been used to or has theinclination for. Even, such individuals tend to ‘control’and channelize their creativity along particular directionseither bu inhibiting creativity or artificially restricting itsflowering. And being engrossed in their activity they can-not afford to earn their own livelihood but would ratherobtain it however meager it may be from the followers of

basic necessities. Thus, in a sense, in the present state of affairs as they stand, the seekers after higher aspirationsare dependents35 of the followers of basic necessities.Those in ‘adult-hood’ are dependent by choice but thosein ‘old-age’ are dependent in a senile manner of being

35 “Socrates: And so my friend, as I said at first, on a public oc-casion or in private company, in a law court or anywhere else,when he is forced to talk about what lies at his feet or is beforehis eyes, the whole rabble will join the maidservants in laugh-ing at him, as from inexperience he walks blindly and stumblesinto every pitfall. His terrible clumsiness makes him seem so

stupid. He cannot engage in an exchange of abuse, for, never having made a study of anyone’s peculiar weaknesses, he has nopersonal scandals to bring up; so in his helplessness he looks a fool. When people vaunt their own or other men’s merits, hisunaffected laughter makes him conspicuous and they think he is frivolous. When a despot or king is eulogized, he fancies he ishearing some keeper of swine or sheep or cows being congratu-lated on the quantity of milk he has squeezed out of his flock; only he reflects that the animal that princes tend and milk is moregiven than sheep or cows to nurse a sullen grievance, and that a herdsman of this sort, penned up in his castle, is doomed by sheer press of work to be as rude and uncultivated as the shep-herd in his mountain fold. He hears of the marvelous wealth of some landlord who owns ten thousand acres or more, but that seems a small matter to one accustomed to think of the earth

as a whole. When they harp upon birth -some gentleman whocan point to seven generations of wealthy ancestors- he thinksthat such commendation must come from men of purblind vi-sion, too uneducated to keep their eyes fixed on the whole or toreflect that any man has had countless myriads of ancestors and progenitors going back to Heracles, son of Amphitryon, strikeshim as showing a strange pettiness of outlook. He laughs at a man who cannot rid his mind of foolish vanity by reckoning that before Amphitryon there was a twenty-fifth ancestor, and beforehim a fiftieth, whose fortunes were as luck would have it. But in all these matters the world has the laugh of the philosopher,partly because he seems arrogant, partly because of his helplessignorance in matters of daily life.”Plato, “Theaetetus”

incapable of earning their own livelihood. And in spiteof this dependence, one finds them, not unoften, hold-ing the followers of basic necessities in contempt if notscorn. Thus, here also, it is inevitable that (at the least amild) hostility -sprung from an unfounded and perhaps,half-conscious sense of false ‘superiority’ , as illustratedby the words of Plato quoted in the beginning of thissub-subsection- is the attitude of the seekers toward the

non-seekers.

E. Equilibrium and Stability of Activities

As mentioned above, the basic necessities and thehigher aspirations constitute the entirety of factors driv-ing human activities. Together they go into the formationof a complete ‘organism’ of humanity. In their entiretyand fullness, they subsume the ‘life-cycle’ of a humanbeing starting from the stages of ‘childhood’ and passingthrough ‘youth’ to ‘maturity’ and ‘old-age’ and -due to

these being attributes of humanity rather than a humanbeing- all coexisting at one and the same time. A perfectequilibrium in the coexistence of these stages, therefore,is the condition for the well-being of a cultured human-ity in a given civilization, if not that of a cultured andcivilized humanity. It therefore, follows that an equilib-rium between the activities of ‘earning and livelihood’and ‘leisure and creativity’ is a necessary condition for acivilization to exist. However, it is not sufficient for thecivilization to be stable because a great deal depends onthe nature of the equilibrium. The nature of the equi-librium determines whether a civilization is stable, neu-tral(structurally stable) or unstable. As the terms im-

ply, a stable equilibrium is one in which a slight deviationfrom equilibrium does not disturb but the forces support-ing the equilibrium work in such a way as to restore theequilibrium. In a neutral or structurally stable equi-librium -which is essentially stable- there is no questionof deviation from equilibrium at all because there is nopreferred condition and the equilibrium admits all pos-sible configurations36[? ] of the civilizations and theother, the age or rather, the relative life-span of the civi-lizations as on record. A neutral or structurally stableequilibrium is naturally stable whereas a stable equilib-rium need not be structurally stable. In an unstableequilibrium, a minor deviation from equilibrium tends

to destroy the equilibrium altogether. This is applicable

36 “Thus there are many different notions of structural stability.Whether in a given application the notion that is mathematically most convenient really corresponds to the physical repeatability of the experiment, depends on the circumstances, and must beinvestigated separately in each instance. It is a common claim that anything stable enough to be observed repeatedly must bestructurally stable, in whatever sense the claimant feels happiest with at the time.”—Poston and Stewart, “Catastrophe theory and its applications”



23

both to civilizations as well as a civilization. In the for-mer case namely that of civilizations, examples of stable,neutral(structurally stable) and unstable equilibriumare illustrated by that of the Sinic, the Indian37[14] andthe Western respectively. Here, we have based our clas-sification on two factors. One the flexibility, adaptabilityand assimilability38. This is because, structural sta-bility assumes flexibility, adaptability and assimilabil-

ity in addition to a long life-span39. Thus, for instance,the Sinic(that corresponding to the Chinese) civilizationhas a long life-span but is in stable rather than in neu-tral equilibrium whereas the Indian civilization havingan equally long life-span is neutral due to its inherentflexibility, adaptability and assimilability40. It admits

37 “A nation is an organic living being with a common body and mind and soul. Like the individual it has its cycle of birth and growth, of youth and old age, and if the process of decay isnot arrested, the cycle ends in death. Many ancient nationshave perished thus in the past -like the Egyptians, the Assyri-ans and the Babylonians. On the other hand, India and China still live and flourish. Indeed, China, today, under a materialis-tic ideology which lays over-stress on outward economic factorsand suppresses the full play of the multi-mooded human mind -contemporary China under Communism is seriously endanger-ing her own historic continuity. But whatever her future may hold, her past is highly significant and can be compared with In-dia’s. There must be some good reason why these two old peopleshave lived through so many cataclysms and why, throughout thecenturies gone by, in the midst of such dire vicissitudes, they have preserved the thread of their civilization and are still ableto give wonderful signs of vitality.” -Charu Chandra Dutt

38 “Civilizations have no clear-cut boundaries and no precise begin-nings and endings. People can and do define their identities and,as a result, the composition and shapes of civilizations change

over time. The cultures of peoples interact and overlap. The ex-tent to which the cultures of civilizations resemble or differ from each other also varies considerably. Civilizations are nonethe-less meaningful entities, and while the lines between them areseldom sharp, they are real ...While Civilizations endure, they also evolve. They are dy-namic; they rise and fall; they merge and divide; and as any student of history knows, they also disappear and are buried in the sands of time. The phases of their evolution may be specified in various ways....While significant differences exist, all thesetheories see civilizations evolving through a time of troubles or conflict to a universal state to decay and disintegration.”—-Samuel P Huntington

39 “Fourth, civilizations are mortal but also long-lived; they evolve,adapt, and are the most enduring of human associations, “reali-ties of the extreme longue duree”. Their “unique and particular

essence” is their long historical continuity. Civilization is in fact the longest story of all.” Empires rise and fall, govern-ments come and go, civilizations remain and “survive political,social, economic, even ideological upheavals”—-Samuel P Huntington

40 “A somewhat idealized physical example may help to explain this.A frictionless pendulum hanging in a vacuum performs perfectly regular oscillations. Perturb it by giving a slightly larger initial push, and it will continue to oscillate regularly with almost thesame period. In this sense, the system is structurally stable.Perturb instead by letting a little air in, and the oscilla-tions will gradually die away. In this sense it is structurally unstable. But if we now restrict attention to experiments

all possible configurations by virtue of its freedom fromrigid forms and adherence to the spirit rather than theletter of the expressions of truth. Witness, for instance,that though the Sinic civilization is already in the pro-cess of being Westernized, the Indian civilization, on thecontrary, though infiltrated by the spirit of the West, isalready in the process of assimilation and recovery of thespirit.

Coming back to the case of the civilization, during thepresent times at least, the equilibrium if far from beingstable, not to speak of being neutral. To say thus of acivilization which by definition subsumes its entire life-span and because of which, according to historians, it ismore meaningful to speak of a culture may seem to befar-fetched. But one need not adhere rigidly to classi-fications based on a study of ancient civilizations aloneas that does not adequately take into account the di-versity of possibilities that pose themselves due to thecurrent state of affairs. The equilibrium is unstable inthe present times because it is based on mutual antago-nism between the seekers and the non-seekers and a slight

deviation from equilibrium threatens to destroy the equi-librium to a considerable extent. Especially is this sit-uation captured and mirrored by the activity-equationwhich clearly is unstable being a relation between twoinherently different kinds of activities. We now take alook at the nature of the equilibrium in some detail.

1. The Instability of Mutual Dependence

A divorce in the activities of ‘earning and livelihood’and ‘leisure and creativity’ -as is the situation in the

present times- inevitably leads to mutual dependence. Itnot only isolates individuals engaged in one of the activ-ities, from the other but -and this is the crucial point-makes the particular individuals less and less capableof the activity in which they are not engaged. As thisstate of affairs persists, gradually, the individuals in onekind of the activities become incapable of appreciatingthe indispensable role of the other kind of activities inthe economy of human endeavor. But due to this veryindispensability, the individuals in one kind of the activ-ities are forced to depend on those in the other kind.But this dependence proves to be an unhappy wed-lockheld together by force of necessity rather than harmony

and at any time may threaten to develop instability. Thisdifficulty is compounded by the tendency to extreme spe-cialization that demands that the divergence between the

lasting only 50 swings, we cannot detect the change, and it is once more structurally stable . Finally, go back to the orig-inal perturbation of the airless system but look at timekeeping properties over a period of a year(or longer if need be): now wewill notice qualitative differences, such as missed appointments.Unstable again!”—Poston and Stewart, “Catastrophe theory and its applications”



24

two kinds of activities begin quite early in the life of anindividual. Thus, at an early stage, an individual inher-its the hostility, half-conscious perhaps but neverthelesspresent, toward the activity he is not inclined to. This,however belongs properly to the topic of ‘Teaching andEducation’ and therefore, here we shall not address itfurther. In the case of India, there are additional diffi-culties contributing to further instability which, however,

we shall take up in a separate section. Suffice it here toremark that in the present case, the activity-equation re-mains as it is presented above without any modifications.

2. The Stability of Independence

An attempt to restore stability into the equilibriumbetween the two kinds of activities may start by re-clarifying the nature of the activities and renewing theforms sustaining the activities. This step rests on thefollowing observation alluded to in the Introduction.

When the activity-equation was adapted, there weretwo factors. One the nature of the activities and theother, the prevailing situation or conditions. In courseof time, however, the nature of the activities undergoesevolution and becomes more and more complex. This isdue to two factors. One is because of the developmentof technique and the other the evolution in the needsand aspirations of humanity. For, humanity is not astatic entity but subject to evolutionary processes noless than the individual. At each stage in the courseof evolution, humanity assimilates and consolidates thegains of past experience and prepares itself for further

possibilities. And if it fails to recognize the necessity forthe renewal of forms it pays heavily by having to takethe burden of disharmony and unrest in the individuals.One may look at this in the following manner. Thereis the activity, an individual and other individuals.Humanity is a weighted average of individuals accordingto their constructive or destructive tendencies. All thethree entities are, however, subject to evolution in theincreasing order of the rate of evolution, ‘Nature of the activities’, ‘Humanity’, ‘the Individual’. Therefore,there are essentially three curves of evolution. Thefirst is that of an abstract entity namely ‘Nature of theactivities’, the second that of a weighted-average namely

‘Humanity’ which is partly abstract and partly concreteand the third that of a ‘conscious’ Individual. It is cleartherefore that the second and the third entities alonebear the brunt of the difficulties. Moreover, there is anon-linear process present here. Initially, due to theweighted-average nature of humanity, the difficultiesare not that much felt by humanity itself at large butprimarily by the Individual who in fact, suffers acutely.Nevertheless, gradually, the difficulties of the Individualsevolve into that of humanity and once it picks upsufficient momentum the non-linearity manifests itself asa cascade process, of potential danger to the civilization.

Further evolution along the same lines only compoundsthe difficulties. There is no other alternative than toarrest the evolution41 which is impossible or -this is infact easier- give a new positive turn to it.

That positive turn is first, to re-clarify the nature of therelation between the Aim, the Form and the Fruits of theactivities. This requires that the vital role played by each

of the two kinds of activities namely that correspond-ing to the basic necessities and the higher aspirations, isrecognized and admitted to be indispensable for the well-being of humanity. This must be achieved, not merely bythe concerned bodies like committees and funding agen-cies but -this is most important-, to a large extent, bythe Individuals themselves. It should be admitted thatthe nurturing of one kind of activity nurtures the otherand that it is expedient to take care to strengthen andrenew the form of each kind of activity. This is to befollowed by allowing sufficient flexibility for the activity-equation. By means of these steps the dependence is nottotally abolished but nevertheless, a great deal of inde-pendence is won for the Individuals. And this impliesthat the equilibrium between the two kinds of activitiesis more or less stable.

3. The Neutrality of Inter-Dependence

The restoring of stability to the equilibrium betweenthe two kinds of activities is a significant step towardthe stabilization of the civilization itself. As such itought to be encouraged and pursued with great urgency.However, though it is an important, nevertheless difficult

step, it by no means is the only possible step. Theextreme difficulty of this step should not blind one tothe other, less difficult and more significant possibilitynamely that of achieving neutrality of the equilibrium.In order to achieve stability it is necessary to re-clarify the nature of the relation between the aims the formsand the fruits of the activities and then to renew therelation. But this is not sufficient. For, this does notautomatically ensure that the stability is retained in thecourse of further evolution. This, in turn, implies thatthe civilization which with difficulty has been impartedstability may not continue to do so for a relativelylong period of time. In fact, since the problems facing

humanity are essentially similar at any period, it ispossible that the secret of the relatively long life-span of certain civilizations lies in the way the peoples of thatcivilization, in times ancient, tackled and arrived at theequilibrium in the activities. Therefore, an attempt toarrive at greater stability should always be pursued.

41 It is curious to inquire whether ‘arrested civilizations’ as havebeen classified by the standard historians have anything to dowith the present step.



25

Coming to the present possibility namely restorationof neutrality to the equilibrium, the way lies not inre-clarifying the nature of the relation and renewing theform but in re-defining the relation and adapting a form more in tune with the original aimsthemselves. And this immediately implies that oneneeds not only to re-define the activity-equation butalso to complete the, as per now incomplete, activity of

‘leisure and creativity’. This is the by-far most effectiveand subtle and at the same time, less difficult, approachto arrive at neutrality of the equilibrium. Moreover,there is a profound possibility in this approach that holdspromise of naturality in addition to neutrality . To seethis, it is instructive to study the activity-equation andapply the above mentioned steps toward achieving first,stability and next, neutrality . Firstly, we perform theprocess of completing the activity-equation. A glanceat the activity-equation(2.8) shows that it is intrinsicallyunstable because of two reasons. The first is that thetwo kinds of activities are essentially different. Wesummarize this situation for convenience.

Present status of Present status of

‘Earning and Livelihood’ ‘Leisure and Creativity’

1 Primary Secondary

2 ‘Childhood and youth’ ‘Adult-hood and Old-age’

of humanity of humanity

3 Goal-driven Process-driven

and/or goal-driven

4 Complete Incomplete

5 Stable Unstable

The above table enables us to draw a number of conclu-sions.

• Both the primary and the secondary activities arenecessary for a harmonious evolution of humanity.Therefore, it is desirable to merge the two kindsand have instead, a single kind of complete ac-tivities by means of a true and effective synthesisof ‘Earning and Livelihood’ and ‘Leisure and Cre-ativity’ .

• Humanity needs a co-existence of all the four stagesof growth namely ‘childhood and youth’ and ‘adult-hood and old-age’.

• ‘Earning and Livelihood’ is goal-driven whereas‘Leisure and Creativity’ is both process-driven andgoal-driven. Thus, from the point of view of drivealone, ‘Leisure and Creativity’ is more complete.Therefore, it is desirable to extend this type of com-pleteness to ‘Earning and Livelihood’ also. For thisreason also, merging of the two kinds of activitiesleads to greater completeness.

• ‘Earning and Livelihood’ is essentially completesince it forms a cycle. But ‘Leisure and Creativ-ity’ is not as it forms rather, a loosely held chain.Therefore, it is desirable to complete this process.This implies that the fruits of this activity belongto the chain.

• ‘Earning and Livelihood’ is essentially stable due

to the above reasons whereas ‘Leisure and Creativ-ity’ is essentially unstable. Therefore, it is enoughto stabilize the latter.

Performing the above steps, therefore, enable one tostabilize the activity-equation and arrive at a ‘stable’ activity-equation.

We now show how instead of stability , neutrality may be achieved in, in fact, a simpler manner than theabove. Here, the key idea is to re-define the relation .In principle, as well as in practice, this may be done asfollows.

Define a single kind of ‘activities’ that satisfy the fol-lowing conditions.

• It is both primary and secondary at the sametime.

• It subsumes the complete ‘life-cycle’ of humanity.

• It is strongly goal-driven as well as process-driven .

• It is complete.

• It is stable.

In other words, there is now a single kind of ‘activities’which we may term either as ‘Earning and Leisure’ or ‘Livelihood and Creativity’ depending on whetherone wants to place stress on the activity supporting thecondition or the condition supporting the activity respec-tively. This may strike one as paradoxical at first glance.For, how can Earning become the activity that sup-ports Leisure or livelihood become the condition thatsupports the activity of creativity ? To see this wemerely write in order,

Earning and Livelihood ↔ Leisure and C reativity(2.9)

and observe that by invoking the above conditions,Livelihood is naturally subsumed by Leisure andEarning is subsumed by Creativity . That is, the con-dition Leisure naturally implies the condition Liveli-hood and the activity of Creativity naturally impliesthe activity of Earning . Contrast this with the for-mer state of affairs wherein not only are Livelihood and Leisure antagonistic to each other but also, Earning isantagonistic to Creativity . Thus, the formerly two kindsof activities are now indissolubly merged into a single,complete and stable kind of activity. And because it iscomplete, stable and envelopes both the primary and the



26

secondary kinds of activities, it is essentially neutral or structurally-stable. It admits all possible configura-tions and yet remains stable.

A Critique of

Support-SystemsFrom our general investigations on the nature of civi-

lizations, it is time now to specialize to the present times.As per our thesis, the stability of a civilization is, to alarge extent, determined by the activities supporting it.

III. INHERENT DEFECTS OF ASUPPORT(S )-SYSTEM

Learning is too precious a thing to be ex-changed for wealth;

use your hands for worldly goods and your mind for heavenly thoughts.- Ancient Jewish saying.

“After I returned to Munich, and my brother started to plough his fields, I decided to giveup the PhD in astrophysics I had begun and turn to fundamental physics, above all time.I did a PhD on Einstein’s theory of gravi-tation in Cologne and then started to think about a university position in Britain. But even then there was the pressure to ‘pub-lish or perish’. If you could not turn

out one or two research papers eachyear(now, crazily, one is expected to produce four or five) and do all the teaching and ad-ministrative duties, I was warned, you could not look forward to much of a career. But I may want to spend years thinking about basic issues before publishing anything.As luck would have it, I had learned Russian as a hobby while in Munich and had earned some money by translating Russian scientific journals. Once you get into such work, it goesquite fast, especially if you can dictate it. So I decided to earn my living that way, and work

away at the question of time as and when I could. I have tried throughout my life to fund my own research and would like tocontinue to do so.”-Julian Barbour, ‘The End of Time’.

It is now a well established fact -partly drawn atten-tion to, by the example of the 19th century renaissancein learning, invention and discovery- that leisure is one of the foremost factors that give rise to creativity. As wasdiscussed above the process is represented by the causal-chain,

Leisure and Creativity : Aims(Aspirations) Activities Results Fruitscoupled with the instability inherent in it. Since therecognition of leisure as a necessary condition for nur-turing creativity, humanity has sought to provide it byevolving various formulae. More precisely, organizations,institutions, and other bodies both government and pri-vatized, have endeavored to encourage creativity by pro-

viding ‘leisure’ to persons selected, appointed, qualified,or empowered to carry on the concerned activities. This‘support’ has mainly taken the form of ‘scholarships’, ‘fel-lowships’, ‘grants’, ‘professor-ships’ and other temporaryor permanent positions, which in essence, serve as fruitsoccurring in the activity-equation,


ActivitiesResults ↔ Services

↔ Funds ↔ Fruits← Results ← Activities

← Necessities : Earning and Livelihood (3.1)

which, as we have already discussed, is inconsistentand unstable. It is not surprising therefore to see that,in reality, the ‘leisure’ provided by this ‘support’ is asemblance of what it truly means and stands for. Thefatal flaw in this support -as is justified by the experi-ences of several of the seekers - is that it provides onlya ‘controlled-leisure’ with the control being extrinsic tothe seeker s. This by itself need not carry negative con-notations if it is conducive to creativity. But the factsdemonstrate that there are serious difficulties with this.The fatality referred to is in that this ‘controlled-leisure’most often degenerates into a bondage worse than thatprevailing in the absence of leisure such as in jobs and

other positions concerned mainly with ‘earning and liveli-hood’. This is because ‘controlled-leisure’ presumes ‘ac-countability’ to the supporting body. And not only is themeans of accountability ill-understood42 by the support-ing body but is not altogether free from misuse by the

42 “It is sometimes proposed too by the writers of science reportagethat we alleviate man’s lot in the atomic age by corralling scien-tists in large industrial public-research institutions, fondly imag-ined as industrial in character, where a group of wise men whoknow our important problems better than the scientist himself would as overseers and public guardians direct scientific re-

search. Out of this pleasant hell there would presumably would emerge on order cures for cancer and the common cold, rocket devices to make trips to the moon a weekend possibility for desk-weary stenographers, and so on. With childish faith in the capa-bilities of “Science” and a complete lack of any understanding of the nature of scientific creation, such erudite news writersapparently believe it possible that such concepts as the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics may now be produced on or-der from wise men in Washington, who, by sublime divination,realize the necessity for such theories and are moreover able toconvince the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that the re-sults would justify the expenditure of the taxpayers’ money.On the other hand, the universities still hope the physicists will return to them to satisfy the needs of their students. It has be-



27

recipients themselves. Above all, -and this is the most fa-tal flaw- this ‘controlled-leisure’ with accountability to anexternal supporting body dampens the spirit of creativ-ity by inducing a feeling of guilt in the recipient. Sincecreativity cannot be controlled and is an outcome of in-spiration43, it is not unoften the case that the seeker hav-ing to account for the support, begins to develop a senseof guilt that he is taking the support without giving any-

thing in return, rather the only thing in return that isexpected, -an account of the results of creativity! Butthe creativity is absent! As an illustration, the situationis not altogether different from that of an organizationpurporting to ‘support’ Wordsworth or Shelly with theaccountability consisting in the latter producing a cer-tain minimum number of poems in a given period! Nowlet us go back and take a closer look at the supportingbody.

A. The Supporting Body

• Most often the supporting body is unaware of theimplications of the support to the recipients andwhen it is, only indirectly through representatives.This is not a problem if the representatives are per-sons of integrity and responsibility. On the otherhand, if they are power-seekers they can play a dou-ble role by mis-representing the interests of boththe supporting body and the recipients.

• It does not share or understand the ideology of therecipients, is unable to appreciate the different na-ture and source of inspiration behind the seeker s.

• It wrongly equates the activities of the seeker swith direct or indirect, short term or long term,gross material benefits. These may be wealth,honor(when given without due recognition and ap-preciation of the implications of the seeker ’s work).

• It cannot protect an individual seeker ’s basic inter-ests. That is, the individual, especially in the caseof students, has no security. Not only is there thepossibility that the seeker may be forced to leave acertain institute but also there is the greater dangerof being forced to leave the community of seeker saltogether. Such for instance, is the case when the

seeker happens to antagonize -whether for right orwrong- persons wielding power and authority. Noconsideration is given to the fact that a seeker is

come obvious to the heads of institutes of learning that the futuregeneration of scientists will be a sorry lot if the best scientistsleave academic circles for more lucrative positions in the military or industrial laboratories.” —-I I Rabi, ‘Science, the Center of Culture’

43 For a persuasive illustration, read for instance, Poincare’s writ-ings on creativity

always in a precarious position as most often he isat the mercy of temporary fellowships which maybe terminated any moment. Besides, earning thedispleasure of those in authority spells disaster forthe seeker irrespective -or rather because- of thefact that all that he may be asking for is justicetoward his activities of free inquiry, learning andbroad research interests.

B. The Recipients

The recipients suffers distortions in that they strug-gle to ‘control’ research activity by directing attention totopics that lead to better accountability. The distortionsoften amount to the following.

• Focusing on the trend44 or ‘fashion’: This ensuresthat the recipient community forwards or recom-mends the support to the seeker s.

• Focusing on topics of ‘faster’ accountability.• Focusing on publishing45 for the sake of account-

ability rather than accounting the publications.

44 “I learned later that many of my fundamental interests were whatother people called philosophical and that scientists tended tolook down on philosophy as not being very serious. This createda problem for me, as I was never able to see any inherent sepa-ration between science and philosophy. Indeed in earlier times,science was called natural philosophy and this corresponded per-fectly with the way I saw the whole field. At university, I hada few friends who approached the subject in the same way and

we had many discussions in a spirit of friendship and commoninquiry. However, in graduate school at the California Instituteof Technology, which I entered in 1939, I found that there wasa tremendous emphasis on competition and this interfere d withfree discussions. There was a great deal of pressure to concen-trate on learning formal techniques for getting results. It seemedthat there was little room for the desire to understand in thebroad sense that I had in mind. Neither was there a free ex-change and the friendship that is essential for such understand-ing.Although I was quite capable of mastering these mathematicaltechniques, I did not feel that it was worth going on with, notwithout a deeper philosophical ground and the spirit of commoninquiry. You see, it is these things that provide the interest andmotivation for using mathematical techniques to study the na-ture of reality.”

—-David Bohm45 “These sorts of ideas continued right through school, along with

a feeling of the interconnectedness of everything. It was almost as if the entire universe were a living entity. But of course,when I got down to the serious business of studying science at the university, all this changed. I felt that the deepest questions,particularly about the quantum theory , were never properly an-swered. It seemed pretty clear that most scientists were not really interested in these sorts of questions. They felt that they werenot really related to their day-to-day research. Instead, we wereall encouraged to focus on getting concrete results that could beused in published papers and to work on problems that were “sci-entifically acceptable.” So fairly early on, I found myself getting into hot water because I was always more excited by questions



28

That is, aiming at mere publishing rather than ascommunication and expressions of ideas, results,and insights of creative activity.

• Concentrates power and authority in few privilegedindividuals or institutions.

• Tends to measure excellence and merit according

to gross values like the number of papers publishedand the conferences attended, or the students su-pervised, or the teaching experience rather thanintrinsic depth of learning, innate capacity for re-search and other really significant factors.

IV. INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION OF THEINDIVIDUAL

A. Self-Evaluation

V. THE HARMONY OF A

SUPPORT-SUPPORT(S 2)-SYSTEM

Thus, it is clear that the kind of support providedby the bodies extrinsic to the seeker s is no supportat all. Moreover, as we have already pointed out inthe beginning, any support which is support per seencourages dependence. Take a concrete example forinstance, too well known to even mention here. Supposea person is in need of money. One who can afford to givemay either give money regularly to the person in need orshow the person a way to earn it for himself. The formeris ‘supporting’ the needy and encourages dependenceand inertia and the latter which is ‘supporting’ the needyto support himself, empowers the needy to eliminate theneed itself altogether and goes for independence. If thisbe the case, is it not clear that a similar situation mayprevail in the case of a seeker being supported by anextrinsic supporting body? But one may point out thatthe seeker is not taking the support for nothing. Heis contributing -if not directly to the supporting body-in any case, to humanity at large. This argument isperfectly fine provided it is consistent to all the factsinvolved in the process of support and seeking . Butas pointed out above, there do exist serious difficultieswhich if not apparent, are only so because the particularseeker may not have come across it or that his position,due to some privilege or the other, keeps him off fromseeing them. An enlightened scrutiny -that is attuned tothe highest ideals that are associated with true seeking -will reveal that the support per se enslaves him tosubordinate terms like career, institution, salary...we

that I didn’t know how to answer than by more routine research.And of course, that’s not the way to build up an impressive list of scientific publications.”—–David Peat

must remember that we are talking here about seeker s,not at all those who find intrinsic merit in materialbenefits alone! Most important, this dependence dullsand weakens the survival-skills of the seeker !To summarize this, clearly, leisure is not to beobtained through support.

On the other hand, providing support to support one-self, or support-support has an entirely different effect.It does not lead to dependence nor merely to indepen-dence but transcends both and leads to interdependence.This step shifts the accountability from the supportingbody -which in fact does not exist, for it now supportsto support- to the recipient, the seeker . It now remainsto be seen how leisure may be attained through this in-terdependence. Before we do this, however, we need toconsider certain difficulties and possible objections thatmay be raised against the present proposition of supportto support.

VI. THE SUPPORT-SUPPORT SYSTEM:INITIAL DIFFICULTIES

Any movement which promises to radically alter a cur-rent system has first to deal with the forces of inertiaand resistance. Next, the forces of over-enthusiasm andmis-direction and last the subtle forces of the vanity of vanities which carry away even the seekers of knowledgelacking in wisdom and sometimes, even the wise. Allthese three kinds of difficulties are intermingled in many

of the seekers especially because we have lost living con-tact with the fine culture of self-discipline practiced un-der various forms, all endowing the seeker with a puri-fied understanding, vishuddha buddhi by chitta-shuddhi,by which one became free from the mixtures of the lowermind, manas. Thus, most often the seeker finds himself carried away by the rush of these modes and tends tomake wrong choices of action. Let us now treat themturn by turn.

A. Inertia and Resistance

The greatest obstacle to the support-support schemecomes from the unwillingness of the seekers to exertthemselves for what they think is unduly difficult andlikely to disturb them by awakening them from theirblissful-ignorance. They would rather continue to suf-fer the system, which they think is after all part of life.It is better to adapt oneself to the system and whatevereffort is applied in directions other than this seems tothem to be negative.



29

B. Over-Enthusiasm and Mis-Direction

This is not that much of a danger as the first but theweakness of this movement is that the over-enthusiasmvery soon falls back to inertia and leads to mis-direction.For since most often it is not preceded by sufficientthought, it tends to shoot off the mark and moreoverinvite harmful elements into the system. Most organiza-tions suffer mainly due to this defect. The seekers whoare subjected to this suffer because they see the possibil-ity of satisfying their kinetic tendencies and rush head-long into work without due contemplation of the natureof the work. They are impatient with thinking whichis considered a needless wastage of time and effort. Ac-cording to these types of seekers, the work will dictatethe idealism and therefore it is better to get into workimmediately. Thus, they eventually land up in difficultieseven though they manage to come out of the old system.

C. The Vanity of Vanities

This is by far the most subtle form of difficulty forin fact it appears to most as not a difficulty at all. Inessence, this may be subsumed by all pursuits which areaimed at the attainment of relative-merit. That is,the hankering after relative-values like fame, recognition,awards indeed anything which not necessarily falling intothe class of basic necessities and higher aspirations, yetare sought after with a vehemence. First, we sort outhis topic into two parts, which we term ‘means’ and‘ends’. In fact there are two families also one relatedto basic aims and the other to higher aims and each of

these may be divided into two classes. Since we are hereconcerned with seekers we consider only the higher aims.First there is the class ‘means’.

1. Vanity of Vanities, All is Not Vanity: Means

The seekers falling into this class pursue relative-valueslike position, honor, fame, recognition, awards and de-grees as merely a means toward the fulfillment of

• Basic necessities: Many relative-values especiallydegrees and certain awards like the Nobel prize and

the Fields medal carry enormous monetary value.Thus, the seekers pursuing relative-values associ-ated with monetary benefit fall into this sub-class.This by itself does not constitute a difficulty as itis perfectly legitimate to fulfill basic necessities.

• As opportunities toward higher aspirations: Manyrelative-values like honor and recognition serve asspring-boards to better opportunities for pursuingthe higher aspirations. Therefore, like the former,these also are sane and rational and do not consti-tute a source of difficulty.

Both this and the above are trivial difficulties whichmay be conquered by a spirit of earnestness.

2. Vanity of Vanities, This is Vanity: Ends

When the relative-values are pursued as ends, however,

they may aptly be described as the pursuit of the vanityof vanities and turn out to be fundamental difficulties.We remind ourselves that we have in mind here the seek-ers after higher aspirations and not persons after basicaims alone. But why should this be called the vanity of vanities? What is wrong in pursuing relative-values asends? The answer is not that easy. The moment sucha question as this is posed one tends to dodge it off asbeing not relevant or of a personal nature or as of be-ing unanswerable by reason but nevertheless justified byemotional needs or as justified by experience. It is herethat the formula of going to the first principles helps.If we trace back the motivation behind the pursuit of

relative-values as ends where does it lead us? Take atypical possibility. Suppose at some period of time therewere no such thing as degrees. Let us say that among ahundred people, one of them by virtue of expression orby demonstration is singled out by the people as being‘different’ in general and ‘honorable’ in particular. Sup-pose further that they wish to attach a ‘label’ associatedwith the quality admired, to the person thus singled out.This could take the form of a sheet of paper on which allthe ninety nine people place their names along with theirsignatures endorsing the ‘honor’. This becomes the prac-tice and as time goes on the numbers increase say to athousand. It is then difficult to gather all the signatures

at least on a single sheet of paper. Thus it is decidedthat a representative of the people would perform thetask of honoring the singled-out person. This ‘representa-tive’ becomes like the ‘Vice-chancellor’ of an ‘University’and the ‘honor’ then named as a ‘degree’. Now applyfirst principles to the ‘Vice-chancellor’. This person isalso the product of a similar process only that it is priorin time. Thus the whole process amounts to this: Oneperson told by others to be ‘superior’ in ‘qualification’‘recognizes’ another person to be of some ‘qualification’.Now it is clear that when only two persons are concerned,it is very difficult to judge in an absolute sense. Thus,one ends up ascribing a rough, relative-merit to the other

person and the process can be reversed also. For thereis no reason why priority in time should be a valid pointin the process. Indeed, facts may be found in commonwhich demonstrate the truth of this reasoning. Is it notthe case that many a time an inferior person turns outto be the judge of the merits of a superior one? How of-ten do we not see this! But the vanity in this consists of the blindness with which one gives importance to theserelative-values. Moreover, one is usually so blind in see-ing the fact that by the very definition ‘relative-values’have no intrinsic value at all. They derive their valuefrom adventitious sources namely the rest of the group



31

B. Level II: Earning and Livelihood : Time Alloted-4 to 5 hrs per day

Level II includes all those activities which can beturned toward interchange between the seeker s and theoutside world. Thus, activities coming under Level I may-when not in conflict with the spirit of true seek-ing - also when possible and beneficial, play a suitablerole here. We may list these as follows.

1. Teaching

2. Development and Innovation

3. Publishing

4. Consultancy

5. Derived Activities: These indirectly serve to sup-port seekers to support themselves. However, theyenter the picture only when the proposed Centeracquires a certain ‘critical mass’. They may be the

following.

• Administration

• Public Relations

• Management

• Accountancy

• Library

• Computer Center

• Laboratory

• Electrical and Electronics

• Stores

“Be thou not offended”, the voice softened,“Seek if thou must Her form celestial, but I tell thee truly, this indeed is Her embod-ied. Yes, this river of time-life is Her form

true. It is fed by the fountains of eternity and flows down thru time sparkling into lifebubbling. It flows and rushes and slows and rushes again but nowhere stops. It lingers a while in dreamy rest and laughs and speedsand bears away, all that for it did duty asa blockade. It narrows here a while and turns around itself, feigning to be banked and

then slips and widens away into the shore-less main. Widening, it regains its kinshipwith the waters of eternity. What thou seest as lakes are merely the dammed up waters of the self-same river. And these last not long, for the walls can but ill-bear their pressureand needs must give way to the onrush of life.Thenceforth, take this as thy guide, this river of time-life, learn from this river, and belikethis river, seek not to dam its waters, for not in mortal hands doeth that strength abide. If perchance thou ignore this my fair warning,if perchance thou place barricades along its

path and hopeth to contain its waters fierceinto a reservoir narrow, thou wouldst succeed perhaps a while only. Thou wouldst benefit mortal-kind a while longer yet, but beware, be forewarned, lest the pent-up fury of the watersso dammed releases itself in onslaught terribleand all thy creation be at naught and washed away. Yes, beware and would that you would choose this to an yet more terrible fate that awaits such mis-action, that of the waters in wrath, disdaining motion and inert and im-mobile, shallow and decaying, seek stagnation as their vengeance.

- B S Ramachandra, “Swadharma Bharati”,Canto 2, ‘The Home Coming’

[1] B S Ramachandra, “ ‘Swadharma Bharati’ - AUniversity-Institute for Advanced Study”, Issue-1”

[2] Borisovich et al ‘Introduction to Topology’ , Mir Publish-ers, Moscow.

[3] Plato, ‘Collected Dialogues’ .[4] Descartes. ‘Rules for the Directions of the Mind’, ‘Medi-

tations’ .[5] Kant, ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’ .[6] Herbert Spencer, ‘First Principles’ .[7] ‘The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali’ , in Raja Yoga by Swami

Vivekananda.[8] Akashya Kumar Bannerjea ‘The Philosophy of Gorak-

nath’ .[9] Sri Aurobindo, ‘The Life Divine’ .

[10] Gibbons, ‘The Rise and Decline of the Roman Empire’ .[11] Will Durant, ‘The Story of Civilization’ Vols I to V .[12] Samuel P Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations and

the Remaking of World Order”.[13] Robert P. Crease and Charles C. Mann, ‘The Second Cre-

ation’ .[14] Charu Chandra Dutt, ‘The Culture of India as Envisaged

by Sri Aurobindo’ .

An Inquiry into Creativity and its Supports

Documents

Transcript of An Inquiry into Creativity and its Supports