| In the last edition of Gurukula Network,
sustainability was presented as an important concept for developing global
and local systems that benefit individuals, communities, and society as
a whole. Two articles discussed sustainability in relation to Sarkar’s
socio-economic theory (Prout) and his model rural projects for local development
(Master Units). This article takes a deeper look at the conceptual problems
of sustainable development and suggests a more comprehensive notion of sustainability,
using Sarkar’s idea of progressive balance, or prama. |
| Comprehensive
Sustainability The Path of Progressive Balance By Howard Nemon |
 |
The arrival of the Gaia, a proto-type of a Viking ship, on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro in 1992, symbolically announced the beginning of the U.N.’s Earth Summit. The ship was appropriately named after James Lovelock’s hypothesis that the entire earth constitutes one living organism. Under the banner of UNICEF, the vessel carried thousands of messages of concern and hope from children around the world—messages for a better world. |
| The Summit, officially known as the UN’s
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), hosted over 120 heads
of state who gathered in Brazil to formulate a global agenda for sustainable
development. After decades of development efforts, the U.N. realized that
unless the world adopted a more sustainable way of utilizing its resources,
there would be no better world for our children. The result of the conference
was the Agenda 21, a comprehensive action plan that addressed all major
environmental problems. However, a progress report written by the U.N. in
2001 recognized that “…despite
initiatives by Governments, international organizations, business, civil
society groups and individuals to achieve sustainable development, progress
towards the goals established at UNCED has been slower than anticipated,
and in some respects conditions are actually worse than they were 10 years
ago.” What went wrong?
Certainly, the usual challenges were evident—lack of funding and
political will to carry out the recommendations. However, there are also
some fundamental difficulties in defining sustainable development and
implementing it. A brief history of its evolution will be helpful. The
first efforts in modern times to engage in what we now call “development”
took place after World War II, when the U.S. pumped billions of dollars
into the devastated economies of Europe and Japan. The idea behind this
development model was that through the right infusion of capital and know-how,
you could jumpstart a lagging economy. Although this was effective for
the industrialized nations, it did not work for the emerging developing
countries in the 1950-60s. One reason was that the countries of the North
used their strength in the free market system to exploit weaknesses in
the South. Additionally, the economic development model failed not only
to improve material conditions in these countries, but it did little to
address other major development problems, such as lack of political involvement,
social chaos and violence, violations of human rights, and environmental
destruction. Social development advocates in the 1970s tried to fuse economic
programs with social causes, including greater civic participation and
the building of local institutions. Instead of judging progress by increases
in per capita income or GNP, this social development model would measure
improvements in standards of living that reflected an array of social,
political, cultural, and economic indexes. Yet by the 1980s, there was
little to show in terms of real progress across all these indicators.
When sustainable development was officially adopted by the UN later in
that decade, it added the dimension of environmental stewardship to the
long list of social and economic challenges. Unfortunately, since then,
efforts to achieve sustainable development have run into a formidable
wall.
|
 |
| Each of these spheres is composed of numerous
components, or sub-spheres, which are critical for the development process.
The U.N., for example, has developed indicators of sustainable development
which divide these spheres into ‘themes’, i.e. social themes
(equity, health, security, education, housing, and population), environmental
themes (atmosphere, land, oceans/seas/coasts, fresh water, bio-diversity),
and economic themes (economic structure, consumption and production patterns).
There are many configurations of sustainability indicators, but they generally
fit into these three development spheres.
Although it has become quite common for international and local organizations
to speak about sustainable development, few have a clear idea how to achieve
it. As Ramesh Bjonnes pointed out in his article, Prout’s
Vision of Sustainability (see Gurukula Network, Oct. 2005),
the logic of capitalism is to generate profits, not to resolve social
or environmental problems. In the free market system, sustainability takes
the back seat to short-term capital accumulation. And while social development
specialists and environmentalists can easily articulate their respective
priorities, they often lack the vision, knowledge, skills, and power to
implement solutions that satisfy the triple bottom line, i.e. that simultaneously
stimulate healthy economic activity, promote social welfare, and protect
the environment. There are two important distinctions between sustainable development and prama. First, development models have mainly concentrated on the physical sphere. Although Sarkar agrees that meeting basic physical needs is the first priority in any development process, he explains that human needs are mental and spiritual as well. According to the theory of prama, sustainability is only possible when current and future needs are met in all three spheres. Second, Sarkar explains that these needs are not static, but evolve over time in the direction of spiritual realization, the goal of human life. Development, then, is not simply a process towards greater technological sophistication or wealth accumulation, or even greater civic participation, but rather a movement towards the spiritual sphere, while simultaneously meeting physical and mental needs. Prama, then, represents a progressive balance that must first be established in the physical sphere, then the mental, and finally the spiritual. For Sarkar, each and every aspect of individual
and collective existence has a physical, mental, and spiritual dimension.
He symbolizes the balance between these three dimensions with a triangle,
or trikon’a (Figure 3). Similar to sustainable development indicators,
the physical, mental, and spiritual spheres are divided into sub-spheres
which, in turn, can be composed of numerous sub-triangles. The physical
sphere consists of sub-spheres that relate directly with the mundane world,
such as agriculture, industry, trade, physical health, energy, water supply,
etc. The mental sphere encompasses more subtle fields of human endeavor
that |
 |
| primarily involve mental functions, including
the arts, philosophy, politics, psychology, and parapsychology. The divisions
in the spiritual sphere are fewer and correspond to aspects of the spiritual
endeavor. A perfect state of prama implies a balance within each level (sub-triangle,
sub-sphere, and sphere) and between all levels.
The sub-sphere of education will serve as a useful example. Sarkar explains
that the “hard” sciences which relate directly to the mundane
world (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) are located in the physical
sphere and the humanities, arts, and social sciences belong to the mental
sphere. So, chemistry, which is a sub-triangle of the physical education
sub-sphere, could be further analyzed into the sub-triangles of organic
chemistry, inorganic chemistry, biochemistry, physical chemistry, educational
chemistry, and environmental chemistry. Remember that prama implies a
balance within and between all triangles and spheres. Continuing with
this example, in the field of biochemistry, the pursuit and production
of specific pharmaceutical drugs must take into account its influence
within and between all three spheres. Therefore, it is necessary to develop
a proper balance within this sub-triangle (biochemistry), with other sub-triangles
(fields of chemistry), between the sub-spheres in the physical sphere
(education and health) and with the mental and spiritual spheres. In a
similar way, the field of psychology, as an educational component of the
mental sphere, could be divided into sub-fields or sub-triangles, and
efforts made to attain and sustain prama within these disciplines would
help to balance the mental sphere and its relationship to the physical
and spiritual spheres. These three form a synergistic triangle that operates in all three spheres
to establish prama. In the physical sphere, for instance, although PROUT
may play a dominant role, neo-humanism helps to integrate economic, social,
and environmental objectives while spiritual practices provides the necessary
inspiration and direction. In the mental sphere, neo-humanism is central
but PROUT provides guidance for maximum utilization of metaphysical and
supramundane potentialities. In the spiritual sphere, Sarkar explains
in his discussion on “pseudo-spirituality” that neo-humanism
is required to remove dogmas that hamper spiritual development. Together,
all three balance each sphere and harmonize the physical, mental, and
spiritual dimensions of individual human life and society as a whole.
Towards a Sustainable Wholeness References |