CHAPTER 6

Reasoning Out the Metaphysical Truths in Leadership Discussions

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Understand that inquiry into the metaphysical can be rational but there are limits defined by the meta physical itself.
2. There are four proofs that can be used in metaphysical inquiry.
3. Models can be used in meta-physics as in science.
4. The reader must use the four proofs in order to inquire into leadership.

The Question of Being Rational

Before we go any further, it is essential that we address an important issue related to ‘procedure’. We are making a study but as the topic shifts into the metaphysical sphere, we must not end up in the Science vs. Spiritualism debate and lose track. Chances are that any mention of spirituality will put off a section of readers who may be repulsive to any mention of anything to do with the spirit. So we take a pause and reckon as to what our approach and strategy will be as we hopefully pursue truths about leadership … . Do we take everything for its face value or then do we look at it with a critical eye … . Do we follow reason or just lap it up … ? This needs to be addressed first. And this chapter is dedicated to the same …

Leadership has Aesthetic Content

Even a basic inquiry into leadership leads to the conclusion that there are metaphysical dimensions to it. And if that is the truth, leadership cannot be explained away by confining its studies to the non-metaphysical plane alone.

Limiting Studies to the Material Sphere is Like This

It is a dark night and a person has lost a pen inside his house … . and he is searching for it out in the street. Why? Because there is no light in the house, where as the street lights are on … . Just as foolish would be an attempt to restrict studies about leadership to the material plane. One knows how to analyse things in the scientific domain, but that should not be the reason to limit one’s attempts to explain leadership within that sphere alone; if truly the answers to leadership lie in the metaphysical plane, then there must be an analysis that relates to the metaphysical plane and there alone is the inquirer going to find answers.

The Common Soul theory and the concept of Yogyathwa which we have dealt with so far in this chapter squarely deals with Metaphysics … The Common Soul is not a ‘material’ reality. And for a person comfortable with the scientific process, the attempts to explain matters related to a non-material thing in terms of ‘Theories’, ‘Hypotheses’ and ‘Axioms’ may sound out of context—even sacrilegious. However, there are reasons to believe that progress can be made if we reckon the limits to where such inquiry can go.

We shall therefore digress from the topic of leadership at this moment and focus our energies towards setting up a ‘reasonable’ platform-of-inquiry from which a safe inquiry into metaphysical realities can be done without loss of rational credibility.

Should I Sacrifice ‘Rationality’ for This?

The study of the metaphysical nature of man invariably leads to a zone where demagogues, dogmatists and zealots run amuck; and an important thing they seem to sacrifice in all they do is ‘reason’. And this thought of sacrificing reason and logic is repulsive to the average educated person.

Is it truly required that one must sacrifice reason and systematic enquiry to arrive at greater truths?

The answer is that, to a large extent, systematic reasoning unravels a lot of secrets in domain of metaphysics and leadership; it need not be sacrificed in a hurry. Without giving up this important ingredient—of following reason—great advancement is possible.

The Process of Inquiry that is Rational

Reverting to the scientific method we see that it is a ‘procedure’ which has ultimately given humans great insight into nature. It consists of stating hypotheses, subjecting the hypotheses to experiment, observation and proofs, and then arriving at ‘truths’ or ‘reality’ which are then accepted as ‘laws of nature’. These laws hold in the domains of the universe within which such hypotheses have been tested and therefore stand established. Therefore, by following this procedure strictly, scientists and great academic and research institutions have been able to push the frontiers of human understanding of nature.

Awareness of the existence of such a systematic process of inquiry in the field of science naturally leads one to wonder whether something of this kind can also be done in the non-material metaphysical field. Are there procedures which can be applied to pursue the ‘truth’ in ‘non-science’ or ‘meta-physical’ areas of life?

Leadership is after all a phenomenon in nature, which is related to ‘human behavior’. And its study is merely a pursuit of knowledge and understanding—of something that is found in nature. And one would wish that this pursuit of knowledge and understanding must be reasonable, scientific and must not be an exercise in dogmatism … .

Fortunately, it is possible to be very reasonable in the pursuit of knowledge here too … . It may not be ditto like the processes we are familiar with in the scientific world—may be something a little lesser—but convincing enough. This chapter is therefore dedicated to try and define the contours of a process of inquiry, which is at the same time reasonable and can be applied in the area of metaphysics.

In order to get to that we will first have to make some important observations regarding certain features that are used in inquiry.

Models

Knowledge of phenomenon is transferred from one human to another and from one generation to the next using ‘models’.

To understand this, consider a gentleman ‘G’ who is explaining to a lady ‘L’ all about visiting the ‘Eiffel tower’ which he recently saw. At Chennai, all he can do is show ‘L’ the Eiffel Tower keychain he picked up as a memento at Paris, or make a sand sculpture at Marina Beach that looks like the tower, or then maybe he can gesticulate to show something that tapers into a tower. Maybe, he could draw a picture on a piece of paper or better show a photograph of the said monument which he took on his mobile … . He could then point out as to how he got into the tower, where he stood and how he wondered at the whole wide world when he stood on top there … . The point to be noted is that irrespective of which of the above methods he used to convey his ideas, he did it by using a ‘model’ of the real thing; you do not get the real thing (Eiffel Tower) in Chennai. And yet, ‘L’ can be reasonably sure that she will not lose her way when she will be around the monument at Paris in the future … .

That is the importance of a ‘model’ when humans communicate. In fact, Stephen Hawking explains that this is the same method used in science too … . Check out what he has to say about this in the hugely popular book A Brief History of Time … .

‘ … in order to talk about the nature of the universe and to discuss questions such as whether it has a beginning or an end, you have to be clear about what a scientific theory is. I shall take the simple-minded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to the observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that may mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations … ’

Can anyone dare say that Stephen Hawking is not a man of science and rational thought? And he clearly shows that ‘models’ have an important role to play when knowledge is exchanged, even in the field of science. In fact, it means that even in the scientific field, all the theories being proposed are truly ‘models’ … they are not the real thing … .

The parallel to be drawn here is that we cannot talk ‘reality’ in the field of human nature either—just the same as in the field of science. Here too communication must happen in terms of ‘models’.

For example, Maslow’s theory too is ‘model’ of a part of the universe that contains ‘humans’; the ‘model’ specifically deals with the idea of ‘motivation’ in man. His theory consists of a list of human needs all arranged hierarchically. The listed needs indicate what man needs first, and after satisfaction of that how he looks for the next set of needs and soon on until we finally arrive at what he considers man’s highest need. This is definitely a ‘model’ that seeks to describe human nature.

Having perceived a certain reality about human beings, Maslow communicates to his students using this specific model. The outcome is that a lot of scholars have come to accept that there is an element of truth in what he says. Drawing a parallel with scientific processes it can be said that this is now considered (a kind of) ‘law of human nature’.

A student studying this model develops an understanding about human beings. When setting up a company, he is reasonably sure as to what his workforce will look for; ‘I should give them that … . then once satisfied they will look for this other thing … . and this yet another thing will come after that … ’ and so on … . and to the extent that he is able to use that knowledge to successfully handle situations in his company, the theory or model has succeeded … .

But then as we have seen, there are aspects of human behavior which may not be explained by Maslow’s model completely—likewise in science, where certain theories fail to explain all observations in nature … . Does that mean, therefore, that we must look for a more advanced model if possible? Are there other such theories regarding human nature proposed by other wise men which can score a march even over Maslow’s theory? … And why should such alternative models not be studied thoroughly … . ?

Is it not scientific to truly make a sincere attempt at understanding ‘other’ models as well? Indeed it is, there were many who took a first look at Einstein’s theory of relativity and thought it was ‘harebrained’, in fact even the Nobel Committee failed to understand the remarkable nature of this theory/model and they gave him the first Nobel Prize for a far simpler theory instead. But, we know today that relativity is one of the few path breaking discoveries in the long history of physics.

The moral of the story is that giving sincere thought to alternative theories/models to Maslow’s theory is but a natural process in a sincere inquiry. And one must be careful not to make exceptions even in metaphysics.

So, let this be the take away from this discussion: Ancient Investigators could have developed practical and excellent models to describe human nature; let there be a sincere attempt to see if these models can be of use to expand our understanding about leadership. Patience is required to listen and attempt to understand what these ancient investigators found and that must not be a difficult task; not for those who revel in the scientific method or in the pursuit of truth. Let us therefore, in due course of the book, consider some interesting models with the seriousness they command.

Establishing Theories Through Proofs

Another point of reckoning, in the interests of extending scientific processes into study of metaphysical realities, should be regarding developing proofs … .

In mathematics, it is very clear …

It begins with a hypothesis … . some statement saying that ‘nature is like this’ (the sum of angles of a triangle is 180 degrees)

Then there is the proof … . a series of logical steps where one begins from known or proved facts (in the triangle case the simplest of the proofs uses the fact that the angle at a point on a straight line is 180 degrees and that two sets of equal angles are created when parallel lines are cut by a transversal) and finally arrives at the fact that the Hypothesis is correct.

After this proof is established the hypothesis becomes a Theorem (that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees) … . The more general terminology used in all parts of science is that a certain ‘theory’ … . is established into a ‘law’; which further implies that there is now a certain accepted ‘law of nature’ that is yet to be disproved in the scientific world … Therefore, proof converts a hypothesis into a theorem or ‘law of nature’.

Now, while dealing with matters that are meta-physical there is a problem in the ‘proof ’ part … . and it is that for all metaphysical hypotheses the proof must be laid out only within the following confines:

1. Observation
2. Observations of others
3. Reasoned from observations
4. Authority

Here (a) is the most important proof and it is for each individual to ‘see’ the metaphysical truth for himself. The second, (b) means that one accepts that somebody else has, or several others have, truly made a certain observation, being reasonably sure that the observers are not lying, that they are not being delusional and have not been deceived. In (c) one starts at certain easily observable things, using these as a foundation and using ‘reason’ to fill in the dots one arrives at conclusions that a certain ‘theory’ about human nature is correct or false as the case may be. The fourth, ‘authority’ does not signify the power wielded by a priest or of a scholar or of a temporal ruler … . It signifies the authority in the bearing of a ‘wise man’; it is the confidence with which a wise man lives life; it is the confidence which people saw in Swamy Vivekananda when he said ‘Brothers and sisters of America’ at the conference of world religions in 1893 at Chicago … . It is a self-assurance that emanates from the wise and it is a thing that is felt in a wise man’s company.

Now there are no other proofs than those listed above … ?

None other than these are recognized as proofs in metaphysics. All rational communication in respect of studies in this field must keep this as the foundation.

Rejecting the second and fourth proofs under the pretext that it calls for trusting others’ views can still be considered excusable. Such students must rely on the first and third proofs; in which they must rely on their own faculties. This makes things difficult for them—as it also calls for great discipline to achieve the required sensitivity to observe such subtleties in nature. However, the rejection of all four proof amounts to foolishness and it reveals that one is not interested in the pursuit of truth—or that one is wantonly trying to avoid the truth.

It is a personal choice whether or not to pursue the truth; but finally having knowledge or not having it does make a difference. Accepting a proof leads to developing confidence in some particular observation/hypothesis about human nature. This is known to result in transformational changes in individuals.

Pursuit of Truth

In the following chapters we discuss various models that have been in vogue; so that the reader, having understood the intent of the authors of these models, can observe nature closely and establish, for himself, the truth about the nature of man. And with that, as the ideas on leadership become clear through understanding, one can grow in his abilities as a leader.

And even in the instance where someone has not come across the proofs adequately, it is advisable that one must continue to study the models carefully. In doing this, one can still hope that all may fall in place at some time in the future.

The deep study of the model will also assist the students in developing insight on the ‘applications’ that emerge from the theory/model and they can benefit practically from it. After all, it is not mandatory that a physicist must understand how Einstein reached his famous formula E = Mc² in order to use the same formula as an ‘application’ to calculate the energy yielded by a nuclear explosion. Or, though one does not know how a radio manages to do its magic, it should not stop him from listening to his favorite voice on FM … So, also the theories/models give formulas and applications and it would still be beneficial if one could use such applications and become better leaders in the bargain.

Coming Back to the Common Soul Theory of Leadership

Is the proof for the theory laid out in the Chapters 4 and 5 of this section?

No, the chapters are the elaboration of the theory, so that a model is presented before the reader/student. It is up to the reader to relate the model in real life and see how it all fits.

The student/reader must understand that this model/theory of the Common Soul and the method of Yogyathwa have strong scriptural basis—meaning that is in strong resonance with the findings of wise men across the ages and across the world. Serious thought and analysis of this theory must definitely be a gainful exercise.

It is recommended that:

1. The student must make an earnest effort to correlate the various elements of the Common Soul model to experiences and observations in his own life so as to have a better grasp of the subject … .
2. The student must constantly check the model for internal consistency and satisfy himself that it indeed is all linked up through principles of rationality. Satisfaction on this count will give added impulse to the student to work on the theory with vigor.

    

   Proofs for the Common Soul theory of leadership have not been given in this book. But there are pointers, and using the four proofs progress can be made.

3. In the subsequent chapters there are comparisons with other established streams of wisdom and there from are extracted ‘applications’ of the theory which the students can use even if they don’t understand the theory. When the use of applications yields favorable results in life, then it points back to the theories saying that there may be truth in it. This will therefore oblige the student to make more detailed investigations—an upward spiral of development.
4. It would also help if the reader makes an attempt to study as many leaders as possible, so that the theory and the applications can be tested on known examples.

With this we move on to further exploring the trunk of our majestic leadership elephant … . We shall look into certain models/theories that give deeper insight on Yogyathwa as relevant to leadership … .

Exercises

1. Debate: Leadership has spiritual dimensions (agree/disagree)
2. Discussion: ‘The cow jumped over the moon’—analyse this statement for its scientific data and its poetic value. Is its use (a) rational (b) admissible … . ?
3. The following hypothesis is made in the metaphysical sphere: ‘Better performers tend to see their work as ‘happening’ rather than ‘doing’ it themselves’. Discuss how will you go about proving this hypothesis and to whom?
4. From the point where a teacher suggests a hypothesis in the metaphysical sphere to a student, to the point where the student finally accepts the validity of the ‘law’, enumerate, in general terms, all the important processes that may/will happen as the story unfolds. Discuss the relative importance of each process. What are the points at which the students can fail … . ? Discuss the encouraged/discouraged behavior at every such point.