32 Positions of the Theory

September  27, 1999

   We propose to lay down the theory of social development, rather social evolution. Evolution is the transition from one form or structure of society to an entirely new, higher form or structure of society. Such a theory should trace the LAWS of such a transition and prove that it is true in the history of the society.

   The transition from agriculture to industry is one such. All the laws of our theory must be found to be true in this transition and the subsequent one from industry to the present state.

  By society we mean the organised collective. There we only know the INDIVIDUAL. As our theory is of the society and the only thing that matters to us is the individual, we need to pronounce on the various possible relations between them.

   It is an evolution of FORM; even in social development it is the FORM that matters. Therefore, the social forms, their constitution, their dissolution, and emergence of new ones must be explained in terms of their laws. If need be, FORM itself must be explained.

   Form is the appearance Force assumes. Whether we consider it as material force or social energy, the laws that govern that energy along the route of force, power, skills, and result come under the purview of this theory.

   The society we live in is conscious at some level. Its change for the better, issues out of becoming more conscious. Society exists, functions, grows and evolves through organisation. The laws that govern the change of consciousness, the birth of organisation and its growth are a necessary part of the theory.

   If the above constitutes the fundamentals, we know several important aspects of social living. Organisation, institution, money, efficiency, technology, education, Time, Space, and multiplier effect are some of the 20 or 30 aspects of social living. The laws or rules that govern these aspects in their relation to the above fundamentals as well as those that preside over any two of them in their relationship are of significance. They need to be listed exhaustively, explained in all their aspects, so that a whole theory will emerge.

   Again, the process of such a change has several expressions in a graded form, viz. principles, truths, processes, programmes and strategies. Each of them and their interrelationships need to be commented upon either in principle or their principles indicated.

   An exercise that covers the above territories may almost cover the THEORY in an exhaustive fashion. If it needs further exhaustive explanation, we must be able to offer it.                                   

   This theory emanates from the conceptive mind or the thinking mind which observes the physical, vital man in his environment, separates them from their physical appearance of events, sensational impression of subjectivity, and extracts the mental knowledge of truth so that it can discern the pattern hidden in it. When it emerges, it becomes a law. This whole exercise is from No.1, the conceptive mind in our scale of 1 to 9. Man exists at all these levels. His questions will be typical of the position he is in. Our answers must satisfy him on his terms.

   The answers we offer must create the bridge in thought between where he is and where we are, so that at first he will be able to see from his point of view. Next he may move from his position to ours and know what we are proclaiming. Whether he accepts our position or not, it behooves us to make him comprehend not only according to his terms but also from our own terms. When we do so, we would have done the very best in the circumstances.

1) People who have conceived of their own fields in terms of laws would be able to see our position. To them we can present ourselves rationally and enter into an exchange of ideas. If they too are people who have attempted to codify social development, it is possible to compare notes.

2) These are people who live in their mental emotions as poets do. To them our concepts, though clear, will be dry. They may appreciate an emotional presentation of these concepts. Concepts do not lend themselves to that transition. But, these people will readily appreciate how their own emotions can be subjected to a process out of which the inherent concepts will emerge. By traversing the same path in the reverse, we will be able to reach their comprehension.

3) Men of action, organised in their thoughts, will ask what they would do with concepts as they do not lend themselves to any action. Their own actions have in-built concepts of which they are unaware. By revealing them to these people, it will be possible for them to see the value of our concepts. Then they will readily be able to see how the comprehension of such a concept makes their own present action far more effective.

4) The effective intuitive executive who is undeveloped in the mind will ridicule the theory and won't be able to relate to it as he is not mental. The answer for him must be, as with everyone else, in terms of results. His own results are based on vital intuition and almost unfailing, but he won't be able to act where mental comprehension is needed. The link between the theory and his position will be the mental organisation, higher emotional appreciation and conceptualization. Suppose he is a dynamic sales executive who organises several sales people under him for a million dollar sales, we draw his attention to the facts,

a) He is able to achieve a million dollars in sales, and

b) At the same time he is unable to understand how. In his own mind it is ‘somehow'. Show him the unconscious organisation he employs, the higher emotional commitment of his sales force and extract the concept from them. The concept is--if an idea is well conceived and organised, it gets accomplished. He does all this without any conception. Should he add conception to it, he discovers himself as the employer. Whether he becomes one or not, he does come to conceive of the theory of his sales success.

5) The theoretical positions of No. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 can be similarly explained. I think the above is sufficient explanation. Now let us take some representative questions and examine them from the same point of view.

Several questions from the above positions may be,

• Why do we need a theory, why not simply do the work? (1)
• Computer, Internet, nano-technology have come now. Why go in for theories? (2)
• Technology develops, theory theorises. (2)
• I do not see the society, I see the individuals. (3)
• What matters is money, not theory. (4)
• This is no theory. (5)
• What is the use of greater comforts, another capitalist? (6)
• Unless a crisis arises, man will not act. (7)
• Do you think people in Africa are unhappy? (8)
• India needs spirituality, not materialism. (9)
• Theory is for science, not for social science. (10)
• I do not see any personal use for myself of this theory. (11)
• India needs a benevolent dictator. (12)
• International efforts have not yielded any practical results. (13)
• Man will not change. (14)
• The West has not developed by any theory, why should we have one now? (15)
• Asia can never develop as the USA or Europe has done. Nor is it necessary. (16)
• Why should US impose its way of life on others? (17)
• The rustic takes long decades to settle down in the town. (18)
• Each man has to learn it for himself. It is not from theory all of us have learnt. (19)
• Theory is going to be abstract; life is practical. (20)
• Will there be greater equality or fairness if this theory is accepted? (21)
• (1) This question arises from No. 3, an organised worker who is already working efficiently. Already we argued that the THEORY can show him that his work can be done better. Suppose he is a teacher in India producing 75% results in his class and is admired for that, it means he is efficient enough. Ask him to examine the utilization of TIME in teaching. When he actually evaluates, he will find the effective use of his time is only 45%. His lack of punctuality, lack of organisation, resourcefulness, forethought, etc. make him waste 55% of his time. As he is more efficient than others, it is not noticed. Suppose he exerts himself on all these scores, his results will not only rise from 75% to 95%, but the quality of his work will improve 100%. If this analysis goes in, from here we can explain to him what we have done. He is efficient. We are organised. Organisation means taking each input and using it fully in relation to other inputs. This is organisation of work. THEORY is organisation of knowledge, which is the essence of work.

• (2) All these are technologies. As technology is one of the inputs, when its quality rises, results will be better, but like atomic fission, sometimes a higher technology than man can beneficially use will have wrong results. Who is this man? From where does he raise this question? He is at No. 6. He cannot think or discriminate, can only SEE what is presented to him. He is an unthinking, unrelated (to his life) person who just responds to what he sees. He is not against the theory. He is impressed by what he sees. Theory is what he is unable to see. So, it does not impress him at all. How do we answer him? How can this theory be of any practical use to him? How does he respond to atom bomb? It is terrible, but he cannot make people give it up. He can give up a theory, but not ask people to give up polluting fuels. How can the world know that one day pollution will rise uncontrollably? Scientists go on discovering and accept some, discarding others. What about items that are harmful once discovered and that can't be given up? Is there a knowledge that can guide humankind to discover only what is useful? If so, how does one arrive at that knowledge?

Now people go after discoveries for their scientific interest or commercial use.

He who is ultimately affected is MAN.

What is that thought or knowledge which can let us know that MAN is the centre, not technology, not money, etc?

A theory of development is likely to arrive at such a conclusion, not scientific research.

Hence the importance of theory. We need to know what we are about. Why?

• (3) One who does not see the theory is vital, not mental. But what about the person who does not see the family, but sees only the members of the family. He sees the house, he sees the individual. He does not see the family. Family is not just a concept, though it can be called so. It is an emotional or social concept, not a mental concept. One who fails to see it is physical. He sees only what is physically presented to him. Where is he located in a scale of 1 to 9? Of course, he is in the physical plane of 7, 8 & 9. His emotional concept of physical perception does not permit him to see the society, but he is one who, of course sees the family. He is located at 8 with ill-developed emotional perceptions. How will you answer him meaningfully?

           No. 8 develops to No. 2 through 5. It also develops to No. 7. This person may not have primary physical skills in the work he has been doing for a long time. Suppose he is a typist. While the average typist types 20 pages a day without errors, he would be doing half of that with errors of all types and imperfections of all descriptions. He would not have developed the physical skill of No. 7. Tell him his efficiency can be doubled and quality of work raised. When he tries he will soon see the truth. Perhaps he is a trained typist who has not been benefited by the training. Ask him to go back to the instructions of the original training and take them seriously. He will double his quantity and quality. He would wonder how anyone could know that his skill could be improved. He only knew that he was inefficient.

          It is the theory that makes us know he is at 8 and he lacks the skill. Again, it is the theory of training that speaks that anyone can receive any training fully, if the effort is taken. That one is efficient and the other is inefficient, the theory says, is superstition. An example that relates to his Number will be comprehensible to him.

       If the policy of listing all questions we have heard and all possible questions we can imagine is followed, we can assign each question to a NUMBER in our scale of 1 to 9. Answers prepared for a person at that number about the theory will appeal to his understanding and experience.

          This exercise, coupled with the endeavour described in the first page to cover all aspects of the theory in this fashion will put material enough into our hands to write a BOOK on development satisfactorily.

• (4) He who sees the power of money is in the vital mind, No. 4. He sees the reality of money, obviously not the reality of theory. There is no use answering him in logical rational fashion. Our answer must begin with the vital reality he knows and must show him that to consider the theory, he must traverse 4 & 3 & 2. Thus he will reach 1. Naturally, he knows several instances where money and powers like money are unable to achieve but something else achieves. At 3, organisation achieves when No. 4 fails. At 2, idealism achieves. At 1, only conceptualization achieves. He sees that a very rich man with lots of money in his election campaign fails against a candidate of a caste which is organised. In 1952, the owner of the Indian Express, a Marwari magnate of all India renown stood for MP elections and dropped his election pamphlets from the plane. In spite of him being a Congress candidate, he lost against a non-practising lawyer of the Padayachi caste. The caste is a well-organised unit. No.3 is organisation. Money of No.4 was unable to win against the organisation of No.3.

          The government is well-organised. Congress is the most organised party in 1967. Even now that truth holds good in a great measure. In 1967 the organisation of the government as well as that of the Congress Party was not a match to the linguistic emotions of the DMK, the emotional idealism for the mother tongue Tamil. DMK was swept into power. Where money fails, organisation wins. Where organisation fails, higher emotions prevail.

          Much of our science is based on concepts. Without these concepts, there is no science and scientific products. He who sees money and only money does not see the CONCEPT of money that has helped the banks to create 9 times the amount of credit as their deposits. If banks related only to money and were not appreciative of the concept of money, the bank credit in the country would be 1/9^th of what it is today which means the industrial, commercial activities would be 1/9^th of what they are today.

             The theory is a concept which can expand the development of the nation 9 times.

• (5) A theory is one that is self-existent outside the practical realities. Our theory says that the collective is a self-existent reality that evolves through its individuals by its own energy of social will. Whether ours is a right theory or not, it is a theory by the definition of theory.
• (6) In modern times this thought is echoed from everywhere. It is not new. This was heard every time a new invention appeared, even when telegraph came. From what mental perch does this arise?

- First of all, this question ignores the fact that the questioner enjoys hundreds of more comforts than the previous generations enjoyed.

- If he does not want more, by that he declares "I need no progress of any type."

- He is unrealistic as he does not come forward to deny himself all the comforts his parents have not had.

- It means he speaks from his OWN point of view.

- One can speak about his own self from his point of view, not about others.

- Obviously one cannot speak about concepts from his own point of view.

- This man is not rational. He is also blind. He is not ashamed of speaking out ideas that would make a fool of him. He is at No. 6. For those at No. 6, we have already given our answers.

• (7) It is human experience that man acts only when there is a crisis. This is true. Only under pressure is one moved to act. This is not only true but it says that man is physical as only the physical acts under pressure. Then the question is whether we want to act under pressure, wait for pressure, or act as our thought dictates.

          In other words, do we want to be mental or physical?

            There was no pressure on Newton, Socrates, Copernicus, the Rishis, Columbus and all the pioneers. Ford and Edison were not pressurized by life circumstances, nor was the space programme of Kennedy. We can dismiss this man to be physical and tell him we want to be mental and not physical.

• (8) Happiness is a relative term, different things to different people. We say each man should seek happiness according to his own ideas.

          When thought arises in the body, it thinks in terms of physical facts that are before it.  In truth, thought receives sensations of facts and converts them into thought. He who saw the end of land on the western coast of Africa was a great pioneer who by not crossing it helped preserve life in those days. We have come a long way from there. There is no need to go back to it.

• (9) Those who wax eloquent about Indian spirituality forget that spirituality is preceded by mentality which was itself preceded by an abundant life of vitality. Vedic period was one of long life of material abundance followed by a penetrating mental activity of the Upanishads. India first needs to be rich. It is a poor spirituality that seeks spirit as a refuge of the weak; nor can it reach it that way. Even when they gave up life (Pattinattar), they gave up a rich life, not one of poverty.
• (10) Philosophy and Science often evolve theories. Development is just work. The general opinion is that development does not warrant a theory, though s scholars won't credit this view. It is worth examining this view and answering it.

    Philosophy and Science are subjects of the mind. Development does appear as work of the hands. No scholar of eminence will countenance the view that theories are not called for in economics or social development. Yet those who hold that view are found among scholars, planners, government leaders and laymen.

   Such a view arises from minds that do not SEE the relation between work and thought. These are people essentially located in No. 7 or being located in 3, who really belong to 7. They know the work, its organisation if they are in 3. When in 7 they really possess the skill of any one or a few parts of the work, and do not think beyond WORK and how to do the work. Men can be classified under:

o Those who do the mere manual work.

o Those who do it with skill.

o Those who do any part of a manual work with skill.

o Out of long experience, those who can do a certain work somehow; if not with skill - and complete it.

o Skillful men who can do the entire work themselves. (Men who can do a work skillfully themselves, CANNOT think of any theory because they are not that way inclined. The above question arises in their minds.)

o Those who can teach others their own skills of that work at the work spot.

o People who KNOW the process of the work.

o Who can write a manual of it.

o Men who understand the place of this work in the whole scheme.

o Theory arises only in their minds about a part of the work or the whole.

• (11) There are those who do not see any personal use value for a theory of this type. No theory can qualify for this requirement. Not only theories, but knowledge of several types that create a great use for us in the shape of a product do not have any personal use value for many. There are people who relate only to themselves. They belong to 4. They do not think in terms of others, society, the world, etc. Nor can they think of anything other than their own selves. No valid attempt to relate a theory to one who thinks only of his own use value can bear fruit. Still something can be tried. Twenty years ago, if someone who now uses computers for hours with benefit and enjoyment had been invited to a discussion that animatedly considered the marriage of telecommunications and computers, he would not have evinced any interest. Possibly he would have asked the same question. Today he spends hours on the Internet. His enjoyment of today could not be explained to him 20 years ago or 30 years ago. Nor does he know that the theory of technology can help it. Nor can we possibly show him the benefits that would accrue to him in future by the theory.

Theory of yesterday is the benefit of today is an idea he may not throw away. We may try to make a long list and show him that value of the theory. Maybe if we can show him the USE value of the earlier theory today and show how that use value can rise by a better appreciation of the theory, he may relent.

Suppose he is one who educates his children in the best schools, we can plead with him to appreciate the theory of education. When he sees his children can learn better by his understanding the theory - when he teaches them by Doman's methods - he may concede that the theory of development also may have some use value for him sometime later.

   It is not the duty of a theoretician to justify his theory to all sections of the population, but in doing so, he will better understand his own theory.

• (12) When Indira clamped her emergency, many people enjoyed the discipline the nation evinced. A dictator executes his own will. Theory elucidates how the social will can better execute. Here is a man who admires the role of a dictator on the eve of 2000 AD. He belongs to the politics of the 19^th century. Psychologically, though he has a Ph.D., his education does not seem to have given him anything other than the values of the previous century. What can we do with men of the previous century values? He belongs to No. 6 or even No. 8.

         Dictators are dictators, they are not benevolent. History has not produced one. This man is asking for something that does not exist. Benevolent dictator is an oxymoron. He is one who wants to submit to a stronger man and enjoy the benefits of his strength. He will only see the benefits of strength are tyranny and callous cruelty.

   Answers for those in 6 or 8 have already been given. He is one who having crossed the physical plane has not learned the lessons of the physical - dictatorship means utter poverty - and not being in the mental plane is unable to think. When he thinks, he speaks like this.

   We may compare India with countries of comparable economic conditions and a dictator, if there is one, and show that they are doubly poor. Also, those countries that have switched over to democracy in the last 5 decades, we can show, have made great economic progress.

• (13) Those who have been in aid programmes have lauded the results. Also they see their efforts and money go largely to waste. Here, we can insist that there should be a theory of Aid.

- A nation develops by its own choice.

- Though all nations, like men, are eager for aid, resentment of the donor is complete.

- As the aid funds are unrelated to the nation's income, checks and balances on it are less in practice.

- Aid of any description SAPS the initiative of any country.

- So far, if aid has had good results, it is when,

- The recipient has the infrastructure already and lost it;

- The recipient nation had the human skills to benefit from;

- Generals pushed down their throat education all over the country;

- Aid comes as technology, training or education;

- The aid indirectly, often by mistake, released the nation's potentials in human creativity or productivity.

  Otherwise, I shall be surprised to know of the success of aid. It would be well to consider the status of AID theoretically before we come to any conclusion.

• (14) Months before Indian freedom there were serious discussions among experienced men that freedom was not possible. They were not wrong in the usual sense of the word. They, in their long experience, or in their mature wisdom, had not seen an occasion when people in power voluntarily abdicated. Hence their skepticism. In that sense, they are right. Where will we put them in our scale? We can call them wise men and allot No. 1 to them. Or we can allot them the place where no knowledge abides, such as 6 or 7.

Indian freedom defies universal laws. Our theory too does so. All wise men will give to our theory the same response that man will not change. The very best example will be Sri Krishna. The whole of India worships him, but the caste in which he was born, the cowherd, has not, in the hands of other upper castes, received any consideration because Krishna was born among them.  Men have accepted Krishna, not his caste. Even the birth of the avatar has not made the opinion of caste in India a whit better for that caste.  It is true men do not change, essentially. But it is also true that when a material benefit is available, especially if social prestige goes with it, men readily change. Men who are known not to change are fully capable of changing if they choose.   So those who comment towards our theory on these lines will readily appreciate the theory if it is presented to them in a practically usable form that carries social approval or prestige along with it.

• (15) This is a natural question about why we need a theory, when the West did not need it. The answer is, without the theory we too can take 200 years or 150 years to change. A theoretical knowledge gives us the power to do it in half or 1/5 the time. The development of the West, as in any country, is from 9 to 1. In India it must be from 1 to 9. Therefore a theory is needed. Such a planning cannot be done without the theoretical knowledge.
• (16) That Asia cannot develop like USA, nor it is necessary, is a prevalent view. Where does it come from? The Westerner is perceived as a man of superior education, organisation and dynamism. How are the Asians, who have not any one of the endowments, going to achieve it? First, these abilities must be acquired which looks hardly possible. Whether it is necessary for us is an entirely different question. Vast majority of populations are finding it necessary.

Sri Aurobindo says Nature has developed mysticism in the East and materialism in the West. If this is so, each has developed the faculties needed for his goal. Now, the time has come for both to get both mysticism and material welfare. Obviously, we need not pass through the same path as the West, but without acquiring these talents, we are sure of not achieving their level of development.

A nation which is far more endowed with spirituality in its being, though a cripple on the surface, can develop the same faculties in a shorter time, if only they see the development not as it was accomplished there, but as we CAN achieve here. It would mean, if we bring to the surface our spiritual abilities and try to acquire social talents, it will be easier for us and our talents thus emerging will be more powerful. One can arrive at this conclusion only theoretically.

• (17) Those who ask why the US should impose itself on us, forget that the US is never on the scene unless it is invited. In a great measure, this is a non-existent question. One goes to World Bank; the World Bank does not go about offering loans. It is forgotten.

Again, if you invite US experts, they only know their cultural values. If you want the Asian way of development, you should invite Asians trained in Asian culture and ask them to give you ideas of future development. Whether one will invite religious leaders or political leaders wedded to indigenous values is up to those who invite.

• (18) Though the view of the rustic has an element of truth, in practice we do not find it to be true. The rustic quickly picks up the urban life, though not the urban culture. With education the period is shorter still.
• (19) This is a variation of the question No. 15.
• (20) Our theory endeavours to present itself ONLY as practical strategies. And to explain why it is necessary, we do have a theoretical explanation.
• (21) Heaven on earth is an age-old ideal. The sense of justice has been there forever. The society or the government has always been unjust or played as an instrument of injustice. Emerging out of cruelty, tyranny, unfairness, injustice is a measure of civilisation. In that sense, we are more civilised now than long ago. In this journey we know the following stages, facts, aspects, etc.

- At the earliest periods of history, the collective was more cruel than the individual.

- In the later periods the collective, as a rule, was less cruel than a few cruel individuals in power.

- The first thousand years of recorded history was a period of lessening collective cruelty.

- In those periods, cruelty was enjoyed, cruelty was even an ‘ideal' as a measure of one's power.

- As the collective enjoyed cruelty, it was equally true that individuals enjoyed being cruel. Starting from those periods, a public ideal of different intensities began to shape and its expressions were:

It is treason to aspire for the throne.

It is disloyal to desire to become the master, under whom one now is a slave.

A slave's ideal is loyalty to his master.

The master's wishes should be his own wishes, even if the master is cruel and treacherous.

It was wrong in those days to aspire for more comfort or property or rights because these were ambitions.

To have expectations is to be ambitious.

Slowly these ideas crystallized in spirituality as austerity and simplicity.

Simplicity was equated with austerity.

With the emergence of the individual, the trend reversed but the spirit rules even today.

In the last 50 or 25 years we witness the phenomenon all over the world that tyranny, cruelty, injustice and unfairness are very much there but the roles are reversed, i.e. those who were the victims are now the perpetrators.

Democracy, law, education, open market, printing, press, Protestantism, etc. helped the emergence of justice, but the reversing of roles is still there.

An evolutionary truth is, the VICTIM in either case needs injustice for their progress and enjoys it subliminally even as the forester enjoys living in the forest and is in tune with the life of trees.

Fairness can emerge only when the victim does not need it for his progress and for that reason enjoys it.

When we speak of fairness, we consider surface facts and do not go to the root cause.

Nevertheless, a movement of fairness can start on the surface too and there is nothing wrong, but it has its own limits.

As long as the advocates of fairness realize this basic evolutionary need in the society, their advocacy is admissible. If they really believe in an absolute Fairness, they are asking for something that the society in its collective wisdom will oppose tooth and nail.