Vision of a Peaceful Nonviolent New Millennium
( Developments in Science, Culture and Religion )
 |
By Mr. Jan R Hakemulder
We are living in one of the most extraordinary periods of change in evolution which has ever taken place on this planet. This change is so gigantic that it is almost incomprehensible, attributed to the simultaneous process of transformation of many cultures, religions, and values. It is understandable that we get bewildered by the complexity of this phenomenon. With this phenomenon of simultaneous happenings, however, we have to cope, because we are going to emerge from it.
A second point is that there is also a revolution in the individual. Many people, in their own way or in small organisations, are trying to contribute to their personal lives to change. Moreover, the entire mankind is looking for an art of living, a peaceful and fulfilled life on this planet in harmony with nature and environment.
In general terms one can notice the changes at three different levels, namely in science, in culture and in religion.
I would like to give a few examples in relation to science. Science has brought us a complete transformation of the human being. Modern mankind has experienced a complete evolution. In the past, in primordial times we just used our normal natural senses, our eyes, our ears, our brains, our arms and legs. Nowadays their applications are manifold.
Today, we are also living in an age of specialization. I learned from an astronomer that with radio telescopes he is able to see bodies at a distance of more than a 10 billion light years. When I asked him he told me that he had never looked through a microscope. I told him that just as he had the courage to penetrate into the infinite large, he should also have the courage to enter the world of the infinite small !
It seems to be very useful to introduce both instruments to students, to open for them the world of the infinite large and also of the infinite small. This equips them with the ability to penetrate deeply into creation.
We have multiplied our brain capacity with computers. We have multiplied our journey capacity by using cars, trains and planes. We have multiplied our sight with telescopes, microscopes and television, and the volume of our hearing with telephones across the continents. What we are witnessing today is that human species is equipped with mega-instruments in order to create itself into an even more advanced human species. In other words, human species will be able to comprehend its own complexity in relationship with its planetary home and with the universe. We have now reached a stage in biological sciences that can help us with our communication, all of us being cells of this total brain. in finding our fulfilment in our planetary conditions.
But the other side of the coin pertaining to science leads us to conclude that we have made enormous mistakes, which have to be corrected. So far as modalities to know the exact source of sciences are concerned, we have concentrated too much on mathematical sciences, ignoring the social and cultural sciences. Because of that we have developed a global system of exact sciences, but not of global psychology, philosophy, anthropology and psychiatry. We even do not have a globally accepted history. Only mathematical sciences are universally accepted. Here science should have a new role to uplift social sciences and to bring them into the stream of global phenomena.
My final conclusion about science badly needs a new ethical concept. The moot question is who causes the biggest a problems. It is clear that the Man in the Street does not threaten world peace. Scientists offering their discoveries, to military organisations are the ones who endanger the ~ existence of this planet.
This is also true of natural and cultural ecology. It is necessary to evolve new ethical codes for science to prevent such occurrences' in future. It is extremely difficult, because for ages the domain of ethics has been linked with the conscience of a particular group: what is good for my clan, for my country. But we are bound to develop new ethics whereby it is unethical to kill a human being. A new ethical code is needed to describe what is good and what is bad for humanity as a whole.
Such a universally acceptable concept of ethics is, however, extremely difficult to be realised because most countries dislike it. Many nations do not like to discuss human rights; others do not want to talk about free flow of information. Groups are always trying to get advantages over other groups. National governments are frantically engaged in monopolizing science. Strong efforts are needed at the level of scientists to denationalize science. I have great respect for individuals such as Carl Sagan or Jacques Cousteau who have the courage to resist governments that favor using science for national interests rather than for the benefit of the international community. But in this respect I would also like to mention those young and dynamic institutions for higher education, which have shown courage to oppose the state bureaucracies that interfere with academic freedom. Consequently, such institutions are not subsidized by the State. Investigations, however, reveal that this freedom is still too far. Another danger sensed by bureaucracy is the way universities, promote research and educate agents of change for tomorrow. One of the important topics of debates centres around the worldwide discrimination between institutions of higher education.
I am most pleased to note that more and more non-governmental organisations are coming forward to provide platforms to discuss such sensitive issues. And I call upon my colleagues to offer alternative thinking to those who are victims of bureaucratic states, and also to discuss ways and means to ensure the autonomy of universities.
To me, science is a search for the maximum fulfillment in the art of living. Science has proved to be very important to us. As we look at culture, we see an even broader approach to the art of living. Culture is also an attempt to penetrate the mysteries of life on this planet. Culture is, in my opinion, of a higher dimension than science. Science is a part of culture. And culture goes beyond science because it contains elements such as art, literature, language, and music. They are essential for further investigations into the art of living.
While analysing various cultures on earth, one finds in them the most appropriate answers to the mysteries of life. Let us take a simple example. In the West we take communication as language, and we also think of television, radio, movies and printed materials. But asking a Hindu what communication is, one gets a completely different answer. The word "Sanskrit" means the language of the gods: Sanskrit script is named "Devanagari", "Deva" is god, and "nagar" is town or stones. In Hindu philosophy we find that in writing one gives form to the god, because "the gods live in words". Every communication between people in a daily Hindu-life is a cosmic process. A dancer or artist in India communicates with the universe, with all that is alive and is divine.
A former Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant once said: "In the West one only talks about physical cruelty, but aggression in language is ignored. If you see the media one can see an enormous violence in the way people communicate with each other. And then there is an even more primal form of violence, and that is violence of the mind. All starts with violence of the mind, violence in thinking, and that will be expressed in words and as a last stage in actions."
That is the lesson we can learn from the Buddhist U Thant. It is good to realise that India and China were already high-level civilizations at a time when the Western people were still very primitive. We can learn a lot from Hinduism, Buddhism, and from Chinese philosophy as for example Taoism.
Here one may find people without much knowledge of the sciences. But centuries ago they had already found science and provided better answers to questions than modern physicists.
We can learn more from those ancient civilizations. We are now talking about intercultural education, about exchange of knowledge and students. Thousands of years ago many Chinese students went to India to study medicine, such as Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani. Upon return those Chinese students wrote essays and reports about their experiences. Therefore, we now have detailed reports about Indian medical training in Harappa and other cities. One of the conclusions from these reports is that professors were not only medical doctors but also philosophers and spiritual healers. I think that spiritual healing on this planet has to get much more attention in the modern way of approach to health sciences.
Like the exact sciences, cultures have also been nationalised. We have an American culture, a Russian culture, a West European culture, etc. The search for the essential things in life has been nationalised. Geniuses as Goethe and Beethoven are really universal. Even they were nationalised as Germans.
A new phenomenon, however, in the cultural picture of the modern world is that cultures and cultural differences are now firstly used as instruments of peace, whereas in the past they were a motive for war. The past cultures are now our wealth. And we are also more open to learn from the cultural wealth of other peoples. In this connection it is also good to look in for contacts with spiritual leaders who are still trying to live with nature as they did thousands of years ago, for instance the Hopis in Northern America and the aboriginals in Australia. They can teach us some fundamental elements that we need especially in our struggle to survive ecologically.
An Astronaut's Perspective : We need a perspective analogous to that of the astronauts who traveled into outer space and looked back upon the earth. From outer space they could see the earth as a whole. For the first time in history, human beings had a sense impression of the earth as a whole.
For centuries scientists had known the spherical shape of the earth and its place in the universe through mathematical speculation, but no one had actually seen the earth as a single unit. This new sense image of the earth as a whole can become the concrete symbol for the entire human race of the global consciousness emerging on the eve of the 21st century.
What do we observe from the perspective of astronauts? As we look at the earth as a whole, we can perceive two phenomena that are deeply affecting cultures on the eve of the 21st century: the meeting of world cultures and the secularisation of culture. As a result of the industrial revolution, the development of technology and travel. a communication network has encircled the earth. The cultures of the world can no longer remain in isolation.
Inevitably they are meeting each other through contacts, through the spread of books and academic studies, through inter-cultural conferences, and through official dialogue of the leaders of various traditions. Fortunately, all this is occurring in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. In such an atmosphere, the old attitudes of isolation, hostility, domination and colonialism can break down and may be replaced by cultural and spiritual sharing. But the danger is that attitudes may be as damaging as the former ones.
The Axial Period : From our astronauts' vantage point, I would like to propose another perspective for viewing the educational phenomenon on the eve of the 21st century. Now I offer a prelude to my own theory drawn in part from two sources: Karl Jaspers and Teilhard de Chardin.
Some thirty-five years ago in his book, The Origin and Goal of History Karl Jaspers collected and combined together a number of facts into a comprehensive theory of the transformation of consciousness in the first millennium B.C. He pointed out that in three geographical areas, a remarkable alteration in consciousness occurred which produced the form of consciousness that has dominated the world.
Jaspers discovered an axis at this "point in history which gave birth to everything which, since then, man has been able to bell." He observes that "this axis of history is to be found in the period around 500 B.C. During this period spiritual teachers emerged heralding this transformation of consciousness. This occurred in three separated geographical regions without indiscernible influence of one on the other: in China, Central Asia, and in the Eastern Mediterranean."
In China, schools of Chinese philosophy emerged from the teachings of Lao-Tse and Confucius. In India the Upanishads were transforming the ancient cosmic, ritualistic Hinduism of the Vedas, while the Buddha and Mahavira inaugurated two new spiritual traditions. In the same geographical area, Zoroaster taught in Iran, describing the struggle between good and evil. In the Eastern Mediterranean the Jewish prophets-Elijah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah were effecting a transformation of Judaism from an emphasis on ritual observance to individual moral consciousness. In Greece, Socrates effected a similar awakening of individual moral consciousness. Here the birth of moral awareness was part of the dawn of Western philosophy in which the pre-Socratic cosmologists searched for a rational explanation of the universe. Plato and Aristotle produced metaphysical systems.
Although Axial consciousness brought many blessings, it created problems as well. By heightening self-awareness, it cut off the human connection with nature, the cosmos and the community. The Axial transformation of consciousness released an enormous spiritual energy, opening a philosophical journey into the depths of the self and up the ladder of the hierarchical universe to the transcendent. But this release of spiritual energy tended to draw the Axial person into the spiritual realm and away from the earth, from the life cycles. Its emphasis was on harmony with nature -the essence of spirituality.
The Second Axial Period : Let us return now to our astronaut's' position in outer space. From this vantage point I believe that we can discern a transformation of consciousness as significant and far-reaching as that of the Axial Period. In view of this, we can call the eve of the 21st century the second Axial Period. Unlike the transformation of the first Axial Period, this is a transition from individual to global consciousness. We could say that it is the encounter of cultures among themselves and the encounter of these traditions with the secular dimensions of culture.
In order to understand better the forces at work in the second Axial Period, I would like to draw from the thought of the paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. In the light of his research in evolution, he charted the development of consciousness from its roots in the geosphere and biosphere and into the future. In a process what he calls "planetisation", he observed that a shift in the forces of evolution had occurred over the past hundred years.
According to Teilhard this new global consciousness will not level all differences among peoples; rather. it will generate what he calls creative unions in which diversity is not erased but intensified.
This global consciousness is only one characteristic of the second Axial Period. The consciousness of this period is global in another sense: namely, in rediscovering its roots in the earth. In this second Axial Period we must rediscover the dimensions of consciousness of the pre-Axial Period. This consciousness was collective and cosmic, rooted in the earth and the life cycles. This means that the consciousness of the 21st century will be global from two perspectives:
from a horizontal perspective, cultures are meeting each other on the surface of the globe, entering into creative encounters that will produce a collective consciousness.
from a vertical perspective, they must plunge their roots deep into the earth and far into the universe in order to provide a stable and secure base for future development.
This new global consciousness must be organically and ecologically supported by structures that will ensure justice and peace. In the second Axial Period this twofold global consciousness is not only a creative possibility to enhance the 21st century; it is an absolute necessity if we are to survive. In my opinion this approach has been marvellously expressed in the ancient Egyptian symbol: ANKH
In fact, the theme : Mhigher Education Responsibilities Within Global Priorities" seems to me a very important topic for further discussions.
Therefore, I want to introduce a special project, an action-oriented programme.
The Global Peace University (GPU) : In this respect I have the pleasure and honour to invite your attention to the Global Peace University, a university which was established and registered in the Netherlands, in November, 1997. This was done on a special request of Prof. Trivedi and Lama Ganchen to have it registered in the same way as the successful Intercultural Open University. In the case of the Global Peace University, we concentrate on subjects as
Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution;
Health Science, including Oriental and other so -called Alternative Approaches to Health and Disease;
Sustainable Development;
Ecological and Environmental Programmes, including Eco-Philosophy.
The Global Peace University, having its logistical and administrative centre in Friesland, the Northern province of The Netherlands, and a centre in Tokyo, Japan, now returns to India, where peace is the of life.
Beyond Science : I would like you to think about the entire modern Western World view. It is difficult to bring it to our conscious attention because everything is with us all the time. And we need contrasts to notice things. Let me move to this critique on our modern Western mind by indicating a problem that we in the modern West face.
The identity crisis ! We do not know who we are. The problem now is that we have no coherent view of the human self in the modern West. What we have is a miscellaneous notion of who we are; and these notions do not cohere, but they do fall roughly speaking into two pivots.
One group of these notions is backed up by modern science. According to this, the human being can be understood as an organism in an environment, and genetically like all other organisms has needs and drives. This human being has through evolution, natural selection, and transmutations developed strategies for learning, and surviving by means of certain adapted transactions with the environment. That is one hypothesis.
Another hypothesis is backed up by our religious tradition. It is the Christian view that the human being was created in the image of God, with an immortal soul and occupying a place in nature somewhere in between the beast and the angel. At some time, humanity suffered a catastrophic fall, in consequence of which we have lost our way. And like the animals, we became capable of sin. We started to be seekers after salvation. We then have two views, one taught in our schools, the other preached from our pulpits. The problem is that they do not fit together. In fact, if we stop thinking about them and analyse them rationally we find them in opposite directions.
The Cause of Confusion : It is science which has influenced the Western wars for some 400 years. I do not say that the cause is modern science. And I certainly do not say that the cause is the scientists. The trouble is not because of science. It is not the scientist. It is all of us. We are all part of it. I even do not want to accuse ourselves because we did not know how to see the place of science with all its power in our human lives. It has changed the world. It has created the modern world. As a consequence of these dazzling results, science has started commanding the height of our cultural landscape. Because a scientist can prove a hypothesis, it is no wonder that we have moved science into a sacred role of an oracle.
The next statement is crucial in this respect. We can control only what is inferior to us. I suppose one can already imagine what lies ahead of us. But let me dwell on that. We can only control what is inferior to us: matter, that has no freedom, or will, or intelligence.
Of course, we can subject their bodies to experiment. In an experiment a special relation is being developed. Let us suppose that we try to experiment to study people as being full and whole human beings. Note what we have to do. We have to keep them in the dark about what we are trying to find out. We are going to make use of double-blind experiment that means we bring them in a tilt relationship to us. We know what is going on in that experiment about you as a complete human being; otherwise you may give false answers and destroy the whole experiment.
Let us look at it from the other way. Suppose there is something in this universe that is greater than us, that is superior to us. Of course, there are many things that are bigger, and also more powerful: thunderstorms, nuclear explosions. But we know that those things do not possess intelligence, compassion, so they are not really superior to us in the full sense. But suppose they exist. Just exercise your imagination: extraterrestrial beings, more advanced than human beings, angels or gods. The point is, if there is anything in this world that is greater than us, those things are not going to fit into our controlled experiments for the very plain reason that if they exist, it is They who dance around US. And they may step down to us and conform with our more rudimentary way of living if they wish. And if they do not, they will stay clear of it.
It is interesting to see where this logic leads us to. Nothing greater than the human self can ever appear in a scientific world view. Look at the evidence. Look at the textbooks of science. Do they include anything that is greater than humans? Do they have chapters on awareness, compassion, and tenderness? But we do not want to see the limits of scientific research, because science does not want to see the limits of scientific research, as science has become our god. And to admit that science has its limitations is more or less the same as for people in the Middle Ages to admit that god is semi-competent.
One way of argument is to say that science is still in its infancy and therefore we are not yet at that level of development. This is what Karl Popper states about science as a promissory note: give us the money, and in time we will deliver.
Let us look at that for a moment. It is true modern science is not as comprehensive as religion or art, but it was not born yesterday. And the fact is that for about four centuries we have been holding our breath for it to move into these higher regions. We hear examples. it is all around us, saying like "Let science move into the social and cultural sciences", and "it needs to do in the value round what it has done in the first round." But in my opinion, that is an illusion. Science is not the kind of instrument that can deal with that kind of thing. I have given the logical reason and the empirical fact is that in four centuries it has not moved one millimetre across that line towards what is greater than we are. And this forces us to reconsider our understanding of science.
Another way to show how it is resisted is to talk about the paradigm shift. Surely as things are changing, paradigms are changing. There are some points in the paradigm shift where we see that the elements of reality are free, and that they are interrelated. But it does not do anything in terms of the value question.
An interrelated system can be mechanistic as well as organic. And the mechanism is fading, that is true. But what replaces it? The only other tool or device that is available to science is chance. I am over-simplifying. But that is the main one. Now that the mechanism of natural selection in evolution has shown to be vastly overrated, the emphasis is going down on the other foot and that is chance. And with that we still are not closer to the dream we would like science to realise.
I now come back to the next point that science, as long as it is strictly science, can show us only an inferior world. And the problem of our time is that it is difficult to live the superior lives in an inferior world. It seems we are not able to see what is above the cloud. Carl Sagan in his television series at an audience of some two hundred million begins stating that the cosmos is everything and ever will be but what do we find as the programme develops? It is only space and the world at the level. Is that all what really includes?
The conclusion is this: We can see that the power of science is in direct proportion to its limitation. It does superbly well in that area in which it is competent to deal, but it gives us a restricted world-view and we feel as if we live in a cage. How long will it take us to open its bars?
-----------------------------------------------------
Author : Mr. Jan R Makemulder , is the International President of the Intercultural Open University, Opeinde, Netherland. He is also the founder of the Global Peace University and is an internationally acclaimed scholar.
Article Source : Anuvibha Reporter ( Special Issue : Dec. 2000 )
Ahimsa, Peacemaking, Conflict Prevention and Management Proceedings and Presentations
Fourth International Conference on Peace and Nonviolent Action ( IV ICPNA )
New Delhi : Nov. 10-14, 1999
-----------------------------------------------------
Mail to : Ahimsa Foundation
www.jainsamaj.org
R170704
