Lesson 24. Application in National Development and Human Civilization.

I. FROM THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE NATION: WHEN SCALE CHANGES BUT PRINCIPLE DOES NOT.

In the preceding lessons, we have successively applied the Law of the Fulcrum across many different levels of life.

From the human being. To the family. From the organization. To education, medicine, governance, and reconciliation.

Each time the object of study changes, the outward form of the system may change. Yet one fundamental question remains unchanged:

Where does the Fulcrum of the system lie, and in what direction is it guiding the entire energy of the system?

This is precisely the point that allows us to step up to a larger scale: the nation and human civilization.

1. A nation is also a system.

A nation is commonly viewed through familiar elements: territory, population, institutions, economy, culture, science, education, natural resources, and social structures.

Yet when viewed from a systems perspective, none of these elements exists in isolation.

They interrelate, influence one another, exchange information, allocate energy, and continuously generate feedback.

The economy affects society. Education affects the quality of human beings. Science creates new capacities. Culture shapes the way people perceive the world. Institutions organize and distribute resources. Human beings, in turn, feed back into the entire system through labor, creativity, choices, actions, and the values they create.

Therefore, a nation is not merely a collection of parts.

It is a dynamic system.

And a dynamic system necessarily possesses a guiding structure.

This is where the Law of the Fulcrum begins to acquire meaning at the national level.

2. Scale changes, but principle does not.

A person can lose balance. A family can lose balance. An organization can lose balance. A nation can also lose balance.

At each level, the external manifestations may be entirely different. Yet if we go deeper into the structure, we can still ask the same question:

What is holding the system in its present position, and what is directing its resources?

That is the question of the Fulcrum.

At the individual level, the Fulcrum may relate to perception, belief, thinking, and the capacity for self-adjustment. At the organizational level, the Fulcrum may express itself through goals, operating principles, and modes of leadership. At the national level, the Fulcrum becomes far more complex, for it simultaneously involves human beings, institutions, the economy, culture, science, education, and the relationships among all components of society.

Yet this complexity does not abolish the principle.

It only makes the correct identification of the Fulcrum more important.

3. From Hong Bang Yi to the Law of the Fulcrum: viewing the nation as a living system.

This is also the point at which we must return to the three-legged system that has been formed throughout the entire work.

The Mission of Maitreya poses the question of the direction and purpose of humanity’s transformation. Hong Bang Yi provides a way of seeing the movement, interaction, transformation, and balance of a system. The Law of the Fulcrum poses the methodological question:

If a system is out of balance or moving in the wrong direction, where must one act so that genuine adjustment can occur?

The three legs cannot be separated.

If one has only purpose without understanding the operating mechanism, purpose easily becomes mere ideal. If one understands the operating mechanism without determining direction, the system may operate very efficiently yet still move in the wrong direction. And if one knows both purpose and mechanism yet fails to find the correct Fulcrum at which to act, change may remain only a wish.

Therefore, when expanding the Law of the Fulcrum to the national level, we are not introducing an isolated theory into the field of national development.

We are continuing a structure already formed:

The Mission of Maitreya — Why is change necessary? Hong Bang Yi — How does a system change and operate? The Law of the Fulcrum — Where must one act so that change can occur?

These are the three legs of the system.

4. The most important question when moving to the national level.

When a nation possesses abundant resources, the first question is not necessarily:

How can we obtain more resources?

For a nation may possess great energy yet still develop in the wrong direction.

Resources may be capital. They may be natural resources. They may be human resources. They may be knowledge. They may be technology. They may be the creative power of millions of people.

But energy by itself does not determine the outcome.

What determines the outcome is how that energy is directed.

This is precisely the content we reached earlier in the Theorem of Information and Energy:

Fulcrum → Information → Energy → Behavior → Result.

When this chain is expanded to the national scale, its meaning becomes even clearer.

A nation may possess vast resources, yet if information is distorted, if the Fulcrum is placed incorrectly, if energy is directed wrongly, then those very large resources may amplify the deviation.

Conversely, limited resources directed correctly can generate value far exceeding their original scale.

Therefore, the fundamental problem of national development is not only:

How much energy is there?

but also:

Where is that energy being directed?

And more deeply still:

Which Fulcrum is determining that direction?

This is where we arrive at the central thesis of Lesson 24:

To change a nation sustainably, one must first correctly identify the Fulcrum of that nation.

And the next question is even more important:

Is the Fulcrum of a nation power, institutions, the economy, or must it ultimately return to the Human Being?

II. THE FULCRUM OF A NATION IS NOT POWER, BUT THE HUMAN BEING.

Once a nation is viewed as a dynamic system, the next question becomes unavoidable:

Where does the Fulcrum of the national system lie?

This is not a question of slogans. Nor is it merely a question of models of state organization.

It is a question about the operating structure of the entire system.

For if the Fulcrum is incorrectly identified, the entire energy of the system may still move with great force, yet the final result need not bring the system to a state of balance and development.

1. A center of power is not synonymous with the Fulcrum.

In a social system, power is a special form of energy.

It has the capacity to mobilize resources, organize action, produce decisions, and drive change.

Yet according to the Law of the Fulcrum, the capacity for strong impact is not the same as being the correct Fulcrum.

A center of power may issue decisions for the entire system.

But the Fulcrum has a deeper function:

It determines the direction in which the entire energy of the system is operated.

This is a crucial distinction.

Power can make the system act. The Fulcrum determines the direction in which the system acts and its capacity for self-adjustment.

If these two concepts are confused, we easily arrive at a model in which the greater the concentration of power, the stronger the Fulcrum is considered to be.

But a strong Fulcrum placed in the wrong position does not make the system better.

On the contrary, it may deprive the entire system of the capacity for self-balancing.

2. When power becomes the Fulcrum.

Let us examine the problem according to systems logic.

If power is placed in the position of absolute Fulcrum, the resources of society tend to orient themselves toward the center of power.

Information flows upward. Commands flow downward. Resources are allocated from the center. The components of the system become increasingly dependent on the decision-making capacity of the center.

In a certain period, this model can produce great efficiency.

For a unified decision can mobilize enormous resources in a short time.

Yet precisely this advantage also contains a danger.

When the entire system depends too heavily on a single center, the capacity for internal self-adjustment may decline.

Feedback information from lower components may no longer reach the Fulcrum fully. Small deviations may accumulate. And when decisions from the center continue to be reinforced by still greater resources, the deviations may also be amplified.

This is a highly noteworthy case of the Law of the Fulcrum:

Great energy cannot correct a wrong Fulcrum.

Indeed, the greater the energy, the greater the possible consequences of the deviation.

3. The correct Fulcrum is not the place that holds power, but the place that awakens the capacity for self-operation.

Here we must return to Axiom 4, which we have already established:

The correct Fulcrum does not coerce the system; it awakens the system’s capacity for self-balancing.

Applied to the nation, this principle produces an entirely different way of seeing.

An effective state is not necessarily one that intervenes in every activity of society. A good system of governance is not necessarily one capable of issuing the greatest number of decisions. A strong nation is not necessarily the one that concentrates the greatest power.

The more important question is:

Does the system create conditions for human beings to self-organize, create, take responsibility, and self-adjust?

If the answer is yes, then the system is beginning to operate in the spirit of the Fulcrum.

For then energy no longer flows only from above downward.

It is released from within society itself.

4. Why must the Human Being become the Fulcrum?

The Human Being is the only component in the national system that both receives information, perceives, transforms information into knowledge, produces action, and receives feedback and self-adjusts.

The Human Being is not merely an object to be managed.

The Human Being is the subject that operates the system.

An economy does not create value by itself without human beings. Science does not discover by itself without human beings. Education does not learn by itself without human beings. Culture does not transmit itself without human beings.

And a nation cannot develop by itself if the human beings within it lack the capacity to develop.

Therefore, when the Human Being is placed in the correct position of Fulcrum, we are not simply saying:

“All policies must serve human beings.”

The deeper meaning is:

All resources of the system must be organized so that the capacity of human beings for self-development is awakened and expanded.

This is a shift from managing human beings to developing the capacities of human beings.

5. “The Human Being as the center” and “the Human Being as the Fulcrum” are not entirely the same.

This distinction must be kept very clear.

If we say:

The Human Being is the center,

we emphasize that human beings are the object toward which development is directed.

But if we say:

The Human Being is the Fulcrum,

we ask a different question:

From where can the system generate development?

The answer is: from the capacities of human beings themselves.

Human beings are not only the destination of development.

Human beings must become the source that generates development.

This is a structural difference.

A system may provide human beings with a great many things yet still make them increasingly dependent. Another system may create conditions for human beings to gain ever greater capacity for self-determination, creativity, and responsibility.

According to the Law of the Fulcrum, the second model creates a more sustainable capacity for development.

6. Yet “the Human Being” does not mean the individual “ego.”

Here another danger appears.

If “the Human Being is the Fulcrum” is understood as:

“Each individual may do whatever he or she wishes,”

then we fall into the opposite extreme.

The Human Being exists within a system. An individual depends on the community. The community depends on nature. The present generation depends on what previous generations have left and at the same time bears responsibility toward future generations.

Therefore, the Human Being as Fulcrum cannot be understood as a separate ego.

It must be understood as the Human Being within the entire network of relationships of life.

This is precisely where the thinking of Hong Bang Yi becomes necessary.

In a living system, no component truly exists in isolation.

Every component exists in relationship. A change at one position may generate feedback at many other positions.

Therefore, placing the Human Being as the Fulcrum does not mean setting human beings in opposition to nature or community.

On the contrary:

It is to place the human capacity for perception and self-adjustment in the correct position so that human beings can live in greater harmony with the entire system.

7. This is precisely the meeting point of the three legs.

Here the three components of the three-legged system begin to converge.

The Mission of Maitreya raises the question of the transformation of human beings and civilization — that is, the question of direction. Hong Bang Yi gives us a way of seeing living systems, relationships, balance, transformation, and resonance — that is, the question of operating mechanism. The Law of the Fulcrum poses the most practical question:

To make the system transform in that direction, where must one act?

And the answer toward which Lesson 24 is gradually moving is:

Not first of all by acting upon power. Not first of all by acting upon matter. But by finding ways to awaken the Fulcrum within the Human Being.

For when human beings change their capacity for perception, their capacity for self-adjustment, and their capacity to resonate with the system, human beings themselves become the source that generates the change of the nation.

8. From “managing society” to “awakening the system.”

This may be one of the most important shifts that the Law of the Fulcrum suggests.

A weak system often requires much external force to maintain itself. A mature system gradually acquires the capacity for self-operation.

Therefore, the higher goal of governance is not to make society increasingly dependent on a controlling center.

It is to create a structure in which:

The more mature human beings become → the better society self-adjusts → the less the system needs coercion → the more energy is released for creativity and development.

That is the deeper meaning of a correct Fulcrum.

The Fulcrum does not act in place of the system.

The Fulcrum enables the system to operate better by itself.

9. A strong nation is a nation of strong human beings.

Yet “strong” here does not mean merely having more money, more technology, or more power.

A strong human being in the spirit of the Law of the Fulcrum is one who:

• has the capacity to perceive;
• has the capacity to think;
• has the capacity for self-adjustment;
• has the capacity to take responsibility;
• has the capacity to cooperate;
• has the capacity to create;
• and has the capacity to generate value for both himself and the system to which he belongs.

When these capacities are awakened on a large scale, the nation no longer needs to rely solely on a single center to generate developmental momentum.

Momentum begins to arise from within society itself.

And only then can we understand more deeply the statement:

A civilization is sustainable only when it places the Human Being in the correct position of Fulcrum.

For placing the Human Being as Fulcrum is not granting human beings unlimited power.

It is granting human beings the capacity to take responsibility for their own development, for the community, and for the entire system of life.

The Fulcrum does not act in place of the system. The Fulcrum enables the system to operate better by itself.

From here we move to Part III, where we address a very important issue: The Human Being is the Fulcrum, yet is not the “ego” of the human being. This is precisely where Central Harmony appears strongly — human beings, community, nature, and future generations must lie within the same structure.

III. THE HUMAN BEING IS THE FULCRUM, YET IS NOT THE “EGO” OF THE HUMAN BEING.

Here we must pause at a question that appears simple yet is in fact decisive:

If the Human Being is the Fulcrum of a nation, how is “the Human Being” to be understood?

If this question is not answered clearly, the proposition “the Human Being is the Fulcrum” is easily misunderstood.

It may be turned into a slogan that elevates the individual. Or worse, it may become a justification for placing the immediate interests of one group above the entire system.

But that is not the spirit of the Law of the Fulcrum.

The Fulcrum is not the place where everything must serve an ego.

The Fulcrum is the place from which the entire system can be directed toward a state of balance and development.

Therefore, when we say the Human Being is the Fulcrum, we must understand the Human Being within the entire network of relationships of life.

1. The Human Being does not exist in isolation.

No human being exists completely separate from the system.

A human being is born into a family. Grows up in a community. Is nourished by a culture. Lives by the resources of nature. Receives knowledge from previous generations. And leaves what he or she creates for future generations.

Therefore, an individual is not a point standing outside the system.

The individual is a component moving within the system.

This is very important.

For if we view the human being only as an independent individual, we easily arrive at a simple notion:

Whatever human beings want, the system must supply.

But if we view the human being as a component of a living system, the question changes:

How can the needs and capacities of human beings develop without destroying the balance of the entire system?

This is the question of Central Harmony.

2. Central Harmony is not equal division among all.

When speaking of Central Harmony, a common understanding may be to find a midpoint between two sides.

But if Central Harmony is merely “splitting the difference,” it is insufficient to resolve the complex problems of a living system.

There are cases in which both sides make concessions yet the system remains unbalanced. There are cases in which one side gains in the short term while the entire system weakens in the long term. There are cases in which the benefits of the present are maximized while the cost is transferred to the future.

Therefore:

Central Harmony is not the equal division of benefits. Central Harmony is finding the correct relationship among components so that the entire system retains the capacity to continue operating.

This is a crucial point when applying the Law of the Fulcrum to national development.

3. Human Being – Community – Nature – Future.

A nation does not consist only of the human beings living in the present.

It also includes:

• community;
• culture;
• nature;
• resources;
• history;
• and generations yet unborn.

These four dimensions of relationship form a structure that we cannot arbitrarily separate:

Human Being ↔ Community ↔ Nature ↔ Future.

The Human Being needs community in order to develop. The community needs nature in order to exist. Nature needs protection from activities that deplete the very foundation of life. And future generations depend on what the present generation leaves behind.

If one component develops by completely destroying another, that is not sustainable development.

It is merely an unbalanced shift from one position to another.

4. This is precisely where the thinking of Hong Bang Yi becomes especially important.

If we view the system according to absolute separation, we easily set problems in opposition:

Human beings or nature. Individual or community. Growth or environment. Present or future.

But a living system does not operate by such absolute pairs of opposites.

The components are both different and interrelated. A change at one position may produce transformation at another.

Therefore, the task of the system is not to eliminate one side.

It is to find the correct relational structure among the sides.

This is the shift from “choosing a side” thinking to “finding the Fulcrum” thinking.

5. The Human Being as Fulcrum does not mean the Human Being stands above nature.

This is a very important distinction.

If we say:

“The Human Being is the Fulcrum,”

and understand it as:

“The Human Being has the right to use nature in any way desired,”

then the Fulcrum itself has been placed incorrectly.

Human beings do not stand outside nature. Human beings are a part of nature.

Therefore, human capacity must be used to understand the laws of nature and live in accordance with those laws, not to deny them.

A civilization may exploit nature very powerfully for a time.

But if that exploitation diminishes the very foundation that sustains life, the system will eventually receive feedback.

That is the Theorem of Self-Adjustment expanded to the level of civilization.

The system will respond.

The only question is:

Do human beings recognize the feedback early enough to self-adjust?

6. Likewise, the Human Being cannot develop by denying the community.

The individual needs freedom. But freedom does not mean separation from all responsibility. The community needs order. But order does not mean the elimination of individual creativity.

This is a typical relationship of Central Harmony.

If the balance tips too far toward the individual, the system may disintegrate. If it tips too far toward the collective, the individual may lose the capacity for creativity and self-adjustment.

The correct Fulcrum does not lie at either extreme.

It lies in the relationship that enables both the individual and the community to develop together.

That is also why, in a mature system, rights and responsibilities must go together. Freedom must go together with the capacity for self-adjustment. Benefits must go together with responsibility. Individual development must go together with the capacity to create value for the community.

7. The present also cannot become the sole Fulcrum.

A civilization often tends to measure success by results that can be seen immediately:

Growth. Income. Output. Technology. Consumption.

But a living system does not exist only in the present.

Each generation receives a system from the previous generation and hands it on to the next.

Therefore, if the present generation consumes all resources to maximize its own benefit, the system may create a paradox:

The success of the present becomes the cost of the future.

According to the Law of the Fulcrum, this is a sign that the Fulcrum of the system is leaning toward one side.

A mature civilization must bring the future into the decision-making structure of the present.

Not because the future can directly participate in decisions, but because human beings of the present must possess the capacity to recognize the consequences of today’s actions for the system of tomorrow.

8. Central Harmony is precisely the capacity to see the entire system.

From here we can understand Central Harmony at a deeper level.

Central Harmony does not tell us to stand between two sides.

Central Harmony requires us to see the whole system.

When we see the whole system, we no longer ask simply:

“Who wins?”

We ask:

“Does this result make the entire system stronger or weaker?”

We no longer ask only:

“Who benefits?”

We ask:

“How long can this value be sustained?”

We no longer ask only:

“What have we achieved today?”

We also ask:

“What kind of system are we leaving for tomorrow?”

That is the shift from object-oriented thinking to systems thinking.

9. And this is when the concept of the “inner Fulcrum” becomes important.

If a nation wishes to develop sustainably, it cannot merely build external control mechanisms.

It must build the capacity for self-adjustment from within human beings.

Human beings must possess the capacity to:

• perceive;
• reflect;
• respond;
• adjust;
• cooperate;
• and take responsibility.

When that occurs, the external Fulcrum has only the task of awakening the inner Fulcrum.

This is precisely the content of Axiom 5:

The external Fulcrum is effective only when it awakens the inner Fulcrum.

If a system can operate only when an external force constantly coerces it, then that system has not yet truly matured.

Conversely, when human beings already possess the capacity for self-adjustment, the system begins to reduce its need for coercion.

That is a sign of maturity.

10. From the individual to civilization: the Fulcrum must be multiplied, not concentrated.

This is perhaps one of the most important consequences.

If the Human Being is the Fulcrum, then the goal of a developmental system is not to create a single stronger Fulcrum, but to enable ever more human beings to become Fulcrums for themselves and to take responsibility for the system to which they belong.

When that occurs:

The individual self-adjusts better. The family balances better. The organization operates better. The community self-organizes better. The nation adapts better. And finally, human civilization acquires a greater capacity for self-adjustment.

This is a process of development from external Fulcrum to inner Fulcrum.

And it is also the process of moving from:

control → self-adjustment → resonance → development.

11. Returning to the three-legged system.

Here the three legs of the work meet again at a deeper point.

The Mission of Maitreya raises the question of the transformation of human beings and civilization. Hong Bang Yi shows that life does not operate through isolated components but through relationships, transformation, and balance within a system. The Law of the Fulcrum indicates that to produce sustainable transformation, one must find the correct position that can direct and awaken the system’s capacity for self-adjustment.

Therefore:

The Human Being is the Fulcrum does not mean the Human Being stands above the system.

The Human Being is the Fulcrum because the Human Being possesses the capacity to perceive the system, to act upon the system, and — most importantly — to self-adjust within the system.

This is the point at which “the Human Being as the center” is raised to a deeper understanding:

The Human Being is not only the object of development.

The Human Being is the subject capable of making development occur.

And when that capacity is placed in harmonious relationship with community, nature, and the future, the Human Being truly becomes a correct Fulcrum of civilization.

“The Human Being is the Fulcrum” is not individualism elevated into a principle. On the contrary, it requires human beings to see themselves within the entire system.

“If a nation wishes to develop sustainably, it cannot merely build external control mechanisms. It must build the capacity for self-adjustment from within human beings.”

IV. THE LAW OF THE FULCRUM AND THE MODEL OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

Once it has been established that the Human Being must be placed in the correct position of Fulcrum of the national system, the next question is:

How will a nation develop if it truly operates according to that principle?

This is the moment when the axioms and theorems presented in earlier lessons cease to remain only at the theoretical level.

They begin to become a method for examining the very concrete problems of a nation.

And the important point is that we are not constructing a “national model” in the sense of imposing a single template.

The Law of the Fulcrum does not provide a formula that every nation must follow identically.

It poses a more fundamental question:

Where is the Fulcrum of the system, where is energy being directed, and does the system possess the capacity for self-adjustment?

From that question, the theorems can be successively applied to the process of national development.

1. The Law of Balance: Development cannot be one-dimensional.

A nation cannot be evaluated by a single indicator.

If the economy grows while social health declines, that is not yet a state of balance. If technology advances very rapidly while education and ethics lag behind, the system may create great capacity yet also greater risks. If resources are exploited for immediate growth while the environment is degraded, the system is transferring cost from the present to the future.

Therefore, national development must be viewed as a multi-dimensional system:

Economy ↔ Society ↔ Human Being ↔ Culture ↔ Science ↔ Nature ↔ Future.

No dimension can develop without limit without generating feedback in the others.

This is precisely the meaning of the Law of Balance when expanded to the national level.

Balance does not mean that all components must be equal.

Balance is when the components can develop at different rates while still retaining the capacity to support one another.

A healthy economy must support human beings. Good education must support the economy and culture. Science must expand human capacity. Culture must keep development from losing direction. And nature must retain sufficient capacity to sustain the entire system.

When one component develops by destroying the others, that is not development.

It is imbalance concealed under the form of growth.

2. The Law of Transformation: Development is not merely addition.

A nation may acquire a great deal more money yet not necessarily more capacity. A great deal more data yet not necessarily more knowledge. A great deal more technology yet not necessarily more wisdom. A great deal more resources yet not necessarily more sustainable strength.

Therefore, genuine development must be a process of transformation.

Resources must be transformed into value. Information must be transformed into knowledge. Knowledge must be transformed into capacity. Capacity must be transformed into action. Action must produce results. And results must become feedback so that the system continues to adjust.

This is precisely the chain we have already constructed:

Fulcrum → Information → Energy → Behavior → Result → Feedback → Knowledge → Self-adjustment → Evolution.

At the national level, this chain shows something very important:

Resources become strength only when directed correctly.

A nation with abundant resources that does not know how to transform them into knowledge and capacity may still remain dependent. A nation with few resources that possesses the capacity to transform knowledge into creative power may generate strength far exceeding what it originally possessed.

Therefore:

The greatest long-term advantage of a nation is not the quantity of resources but the transformative capacity of its human beings.

And once again, the Fulcrum returns to the Human Being.

3. The Law of Resonance: No nation develops through isolated parts.

A nation may have a good education system. A good science system. A good economy. A good culture.

But if those components are not connected with one another, overall strength remains limited.

The greatest value does not necessarily lie in each separate component.

It may appear in the relationships among the components.

A good scientist needs a good education system. Good technology needs an economy capable of application. A creative economy needs capable human beings. A capable society needs a culture that encourages creativity, responsibility, and cooperation.

When those components support one another, a new effect appears:

The whole is greater than the mere sum of the parts.

That is resonance.

And if Hong Bang Yi helps us see the movement of relationships within the system, the Law of the Fulcrum poses the question:

Which point needs adjustment so that the components begin to resonate rather than cancel one another out?

This is a very different approach from merely adding more resources to each part.

Sometimes the system does not lack energy.

It lacks the correct connection among sources of energy.

4. The Law of Central Harmony: Not choosing one side, but finding the correct relational structure.

Here we encounter one of the most difficult problems of national development.

There are pairs of relationships that are often set as opposing sides:

Individual and community. State and market. Growth and environment. Tradition and innovation. Stability and development. Present and future.

If we look only through antagonistic thinking, we are forced to choose one side.

But a living system does not necessarily operate by eliminating one side.

The deeper task is to find the Fulcrum that allows different forces to coexist and transform one another.

The individual needs the community. The community needs capable individuals. The state needs the market. The market needs a healthy institutional environment. Growth needs nature. Environmental protection in turn needs resources from the economy. Tradition needs to be preserved. Yet tradition also needs the capacity to adapt so that it does not become an obstacle to life.

This is precisely the spirit of Central Harmony.

Central Harmony is not standing between two sides. Central Harmony is finding the position from which the sides can coexist and develop together.

And that is also the deepest function of the Fulcrum.

5. The Law of the Open System: A nation cannot develop by closing itself off.

No nation exists in a vacuum.

Every nation exchanges with the world:

• information;
• knowledge;
• technology;
• goods;
• capital;
• people;
• culture;
• and other resources.

Therefore, a nation is an open system.

But an open system does not mean opening without conditions.

A system that wishes to survive must both receive, transform, and reorganize itself.

This is a very important point.

If a nation only closes itself, it may lose the capacity to receive new information and knowledge. If a nation only receives without the capacity for self-organization, it may lose the capacity for autonomy.

Therefore, the problem is not:

Close or open?

But:

How far to open, what to receive, how to transform, and which Fulcrum of its own to retain?

This is precisely where Hong Bang Yi and the Law of the Fulcrum meet very clearly.

The system must be able to exchange with the outside without losing its internal structure of balance.

6. From the five theorems to a principle of national development.

If we place the theorems side by side, we begin to see a fairly clear structure:

Balance prevents the system from leaning to one side. Transformation turns resources into value. Resonance enables components to strengthen one another. Central Harmony enables different forces to coexist. The open system enables the nation to receive new resources from outside.

Yet all five still require one thing:

A correct Fulcrum.

If the Fulcrum is wrong, balance may become the balance of a system moving in the wrong direction. Transformation may turn resources into undesired values. Resonance may amplify deviations. Central Harmony may become formal compromise. And the open system may become dependence.

Therefore, the Law of the Fulcrum is not a theorem standing alongside the others.

It may be viewed as the principle that determines where action must be taken so that the other principles function in the correct direction.

7. The correct Fulcrum changes the understanding of development.

From here we can reframe the question of national development.

Not only ask: How many resources does the nation possess? But ask: How far can human beings transform those resources?

Not only ask: How much power does the state possess? But ask: How far does the system possess the capacity for self-adjustment?

Not only ask: How much has the economy grown? But ask: Does that growth increase the capacity of human beings and of the entire system?

Not only ask: How far has technology advanced? But ask: Does human wisdom possess sufficient capacity to direct that technology?

And finally:

How rapidly can a nation develop without losing its own capacity for self-balancing?

This is the true question of sustainable development in the spirit of the Law of the Fulcrum.

8. The three-legged system once again becomes a guiding structure.

Here the three legs of the work not only explain but begin to become a method of thinking about national development.

The Mission of Maitreya poses the question: Toward what does humanity wish to transform?

Hong Bang Yi poses the question: Through what relationships does a living system transform?

The Law of the Fulcrum poses the question: To produce that transformation, where must one act?

The three questions join into a chain:

Purpose → Principle → Point of action.

Or in the language of the entire work:

Mission → Hong Bang Yi → Law of the Fulcrum.

This is the three-legged system that prevents the application of the Law of the Fulcrum from becoming a collection of developmental slogans.

It requires every application to answer three questions:

Where do we wish to go? How does the system operate? And where must we act so that the system transforms itself in that direction?

9. From this appears a new definition of national strength.

If we look according to the entire structure above, national strength cannot be measured solely by scale.

A truly strong nation is one that possesses:

Capable human beings. A system capable of connection. Resources directed correctly. Information that can become knowledge. Knowledge that can become capacity. Deviation that can become feedback. Feedback that can become self-adjustment.

And above all:

A system capable of self-development without continuous dependence on external coercive force.

That is a deeper form of strength than material strength.

It is the capacity for self-organization and self-adjustment of a civilization.

10. An important shift: from “developing the country” to “developing the capacity for self-development.”

This may be one of the most important conclusions of this section.

A policy may produce growth. A project may produce a construction. An investment may produce a resource.

But if after those interventions end the system returns to its former state of dependence, then that development has not yet created a new Fulcrum.

Development at a deeper level must create:

the capacity for self-development.

Good education does not merely produce people with degrees. It produces people capable of continuing to learn. Good science does not merely produce an invention. It produces the capacity to continue exploring. Good governance does not merely solve one problem. It produces the capacity to detect and solve subsequent problems. A good economy does not merely produce profit. It produces the capacity to continue creating value.

And a sustainably developing nation does not merely attain a good state.

It must possess the capacity to generate the next better states by itself.

That is when the Fulcrum has entered the interior of the system.

11. The formula of sustainable development.

From the entire analysis above, we may provisionally express a principle:

Correct Fulcrum → Human beings awakened → Resources directed → Components resonate → System self-adjusts → Sustainable development.

This is not a mechanical formula.

It is a chain of relationships.

And this very chain of relationships shows why the Fulcrum does not act in place of the system.

The correct Fulcrum only creates the conditions for capacities that already exist within the system to be awakened and coordinated with one another.

Here we can begin to look beyond a single nation.

For the greatest problems of the present era increasingly transcend the borders of individual nations.

And when the scale of the system expands from nation → humanity, the question of the Fulcrum must expand accordingly.

That will be the next step:

If a nation is an open system, then all of humanity is also an open system. Where, then, does the Fulcrum of human civilization lie?

Development is not merely attaining a better state. Development is creating the capacity to generate the next better states by itself.

V. FROM THE NATION TO HUMAN CIVILIZATION.

If a nation is an open system, then humanity cannot be a collection of nations existing in complete independence.

Nations exchange with one another in economy, science, technology, energy, culture, people, and information.

The great problems of the era also increasingly transcend national borders.

Climate change. Energy. War. Artificial intelligence. Biotechnology. Resources.

These problems reveal a reality:

Humanity is becoming an increasingly tightly interconnected system.

And when the system expands, the question of the Fulcrum must also expand.

1. The Fulcrum of human civilization cannot be merely power.

If at the national level placing power as the Fulcrum can reduce society’s capacity for self-adjustment, then at the global level that danger is even greater.

A single center of power cannot resolve all the differences of culture, history, interest, and developmental conditions of humanity.

Therefore, the Fulcrum of civilization cannot be merely:

• military strength;
• economy;
• technology;
• or the power of one nation or group of nations.

Those are all energies of the system.

But energy is not the Fulcrum.

The question must return:

Toward what is that energy being directed?

2. From “the Human Being” to “the Human Being within the whole of life.”

At the civilizational level, the concept of the Human Being must also expand.

It is no longer merely:

“the human beings of one nation.”

It is:

the Human Being within the human community and within the entire system of life on Earth.

This is precisely where the thought of Central Harmony becomes especially important.

Human beings need to develop. But that development cannot be separated from nature. Nations need their own interests. But those interests cannot be completely separated from the common interests of humanity. The present generation needs to develop. But it cannot take the future as the price to be paid.

Therefore:

The Fulcrum of civilization is not the private interest of any single component, but the capacity to maintain and develop the entire system of life.

3. Is the capacity of humanity increasing faster than the capacity for self-adjustment?

This may be one of the greatest questions of the era.

Human beings now possess capacities never before known:

• the capacity to act on a global scale;
• the capacity to create extremely powerful technologies;
• the capacity to alter the living environment;
• the capacity to intervene deeply into biology;
• and the capacity to create increasingly powerful systems of intelligence.

Yet the capacity to produce change and the capacity to control the consequences of change do not necessarily increase at the same rate.

This is precisely the paradox warned of by the Law of the Fulcrum:

The greater the energy, the higher the requirement for the Fulcrum.

If the capacity of humanity increases while the capacity for self-adjustment does not keep pace, even small deviations may produce consequences on a very large scale.

Therefore, the problem of civilization is no longer merely:

What can we do?

It must become:

Do we possess sufficient wisdom to know what should be done, how far, and when we must self-adjust?

4. Technology cannot become the Fulcrum of civilization.

This is a particularly important issue in the present era.

Technology can generate enormous energy.

But technology does not itself determine the purpose for which that energy is used.

AI can process information.

But AI does not itself determine the entire system of values that humanity wishes to pursue.

Technology can expand human capacity.

But the more capacity expands, the greater the responsibility human beings must bear for the direction in which that capacity is used.

Therefore:

Technology is a lever. It is not the Fulcrum.

The Fulcrum must still lie in the capacity for perception, responsibility, and self-adjustment of the Human Being.

This is the view that prevents us from falling into two extremes:

One extreme is fear of technology. The other is the absolutization of technology.

The Law of the Fulcrum places technology in its correct position:

Technology amplifies energy. The Human Being must determine the direction of that energy.

5. From a civilization of conquest to a civilization of self-adjustment.

If we look back at history, a very large part of the civilizational process can be described as:

Expansion of capacity → exploitation → control → conquest → further expansion.

But when the capacity of humanity has reached a global scale, this model begins to reveal its limits.

For the Earth is not an unlimited resource.

And humanity itself cannot stand outside the system upon which it acts.

Therefore, a new stage of maturity for civilization may have to be:

From conquest to resonance. From control to self-adjustment. From pure exploitation to development together with the system of life.

This is the transformation from a civilization that uses energy to a civilization that knows how to direct and self-adjust energy.

6. Returning to the three-legged system.

At the scale of humanity, the three legs of the work remain the same:

The Mission of Maitreya poses the question: Toward what does humanity need to transform?

Hong Bang Yi poses the question: How does the entire system of life move, interact, and balance?

The Law of the Fulcrum poses the question: Where must the Human Being act so that that transformation becomes reality?

The three questions finally converge on one principle:

To change the direction of civilization, one must first change the Fulcrum of civilization.

And that Fulcrum is not a new center of power.

It must be:

the Human Being who possesses the capacity for perception, responsibility, self-adjustment, and resonance with the entire system of life.

That is the shift from a civilization of capacity to a civilization of self-adjusting wisdom.

VI. FROM A CIVILIZATION OF CAPACITY TO A CIVILIZATION OF SELF-ADJUSTMENT.

Here we can look again at a very great paradox of the era.

The capacity of humanity is increasing at an unprecedented rate.

But is the capacity of humanity for self-adjustment increasing correspondingly?

This is not merely a philosophical question.

It is a question about the long-term existence of civilization.

1. The stronger the civilization, the higher the requirement for self-adjustment.

A system of small capacity may tolerate a certain number of deviations.

But when the energy of the system increases, the same deviation may produce far greater consequences.

A stronger technology may produce greater benefits. But it may also produce greater risks. A larger economy may produce more wealth. But it may also accelerate the rate of resource exploitation. A stronger nation may protect its interests better. But if it lacks the capacity for self-adjustment, that strength may also produce greater conflict.

Therefore:

The greater the strength of the system, the higher the requirement for the capacity for self-adjustment.

This is the natural expansion of the Theorem of Self-Adjustment to the civilizational level.

2. Error is not the greatest problem.

No living system is completely free of deviation.

The problem is not:

Whether there is error or not.

But:

When there is error, does the system recognize it and self-adjust?

A mature nation is not a nation that never makes mistakes.

It is a nation that possesses the capacity to:

detect → receive feedback → transform into knowledge → adjust → continue developing.

This is precisely the chain we constructed from Lesson 14:

Fulcrum → Information → Energy → Behavior → Result → Feedback → Knowledge → Self-adjustment → Evolution.

At the civilizational level, this chain becomes even more important.

For a civilization cannot avoid every error.

But it can learn not to repeat errors on an ever larger scale.

3. A mature civilization does not need perfection.

This is a point well worth noting.

If we demand that a nation or a civilization be perfect before it can be considered developed, that is an unrealistic standard.

A living system is always in motion. Always subject to fluctuation. Always encountering new conditions.

Therefore, a sustainable state is not a state of stillness.

Sustainability is the capacity to change without losing the capacity for self-balancing.

This is precisely the meeting point of:

Balance → Transformation → Feedback → Self-adjustment → Evolution.

A mature civilization is not a civilization that does not change.

It is a civilization that knows when to change and knows how to adjust when it goes off course.

4. The correct Fulcrum creates the system’s capacity to learn.

A system with a correct Fulcrum will not fear feedback.

For feedback is no longer regarded merely as opposition.

It becomes information that helps the system know itself.

This is one of the deepest meanings of the Theorem of Self-Adjustment.

If the Fulcrum is wrong, feedback may be regarded as a threat. If the Fulcrum is correct, feedback becomes a source of knowledge.

Therefore:

The capacity to listen to feedback is itself a sign of the health of the system.

A nation that knows how to listen to society has a greater capacity to adjust. An organization that knows how to listen to people has a greater capacity to evolve. A civilization that knows how to listen to the feedback of nature and of itself will have a greater capacity to endure.

5. A new measure of civilization.

From the entire argument above, we may propose a different way of looking at the concept of “civilization.”

Not only measure by:

• GDP;
• technology;
• military strength;
• levels of consumption;
• scale of urbanization;
• or the quantity of resources a society controls.

But also ask additional questions:

Are human beings developed in the capacity for self-perception? Does society possess the capacity for self-adjustment? Does the system possess the capacity to transform feedback into knowledge? Do the components possess the capacity to resonate rather than cancel one another out? And most importantly: does today’s development increase the capacity for self-development of tomorrow?

If the answers are increasingly “yes,” that is a sign of a civilization that is maturing.

6. This is precisely where “the Human Being is the Fulcrum” reaches its fullest meaning.

The Human Being is not the Fulcrum in order to dominate the system.

The Human Being is the Fulcrum in order to perceive the system and help the system self-adjust.

This is a fundamental difference.

The more mature human beings become, the more refined the Fulcrum becomes.

There is no need for greater coercion. There is no need for greater control.

There is need for:

deeper understanding → more correct direction → faster feedback → better self-adjustment.

That is a process of maturation of the individual, the nation, and civilization.

7. And once again, the three-legged system converges.

Here the three legs of the work may be viewed as a complete structure:

The Mission of Maitreya — determines the direction of transformation of human beings and civilization. Hong Bang Yi — helps us see the structure of movement, relationship, balance, and transformation of the system. The Law of the Fulcrum — indicates where action must be taken so that the system can self-adjust and develop.

The three legs do not replace one another.

Each answers a different question.

But when placed together, they form a structure:

Purpose → Principle → Method.

And from that we may arrive at an important conclusion:

A civilization does not mature merely because it possesses greater capacity. It matures when its capacity for self-adjustment increases faster than its capacity to produce change.

“A civilization does not mature merely because it possesses greater capacity. It matures when its capacity for self-adjustment increases faster than its capacity to produce change.”

VII. CONCLUSION: THE FULCRUM OF A CIVILIZATION.

Throughout Lesson 24, we have moved from a very simple question:

Where must a nation place its Fulcrum if it wishes to develop sustainably?

And the answer has gradually appeared not as a slogan, but as a consequence of the entire system constructed in the preceding lessons:

A nation can develop sustainably only when it places the Human Being in the correct position of Fulcrum.

Yet the Human Being here is not an “ego” standing outside the system.

The Human Being exists in relationship with:

community – nature – culture – history – future generations.

Therefore, placing the Human Being as Fulcrum does not mean allowing human beings to exploit everything according to their wishes.

On the contrary, it is to place the capacity for perception, responsibility, and self-adjustment of human beings in the correct position so that the entire system can operate more harmoniously.

1. From the nation to civilization.

At the national level, the correct Fulcrum helps:

• resources to be directed;
• human beings to be developed;
• components to resonate;
• the system to receive feedback;
• and the capacity for self-adjustment to increase.

At the civilizational level, that principle becomes even more important.

For the capacity of humanity is growing ever greater. Technology is growing ever stronger. Information is growing ever more abundant. The capacity to act upon nature is growing ever deeper.

Yet precisely for that reason, the requirement for the capacity for self-adjustment is also growing ever higher.

The greater the energy, the more correct the Fulcrum must be.

This is one of the most important warnings of the Law of the Fulcrum for the future of humanity.

2. Development is not greater control.

Through the sections already analyzed, we can look again at a familiar notion of development.

Development is not necessarily:

greater control, greater exploitation, greater accumulation, or possession of more technology.

Deeper development is:

Human beings possessing higher capacity for self-development. Society possessing better capacity for self-adjustment. The components of the system possessing greater capacity to resonate. And civilization possessing the capacity to correct error before deviation becomes crisis.

Therefore:

The pinnacle of development is not making the system more dependent on a controlling center, but making the system increasingly capable of self-operation and self-perfection.

That is precisely the spirit of the statement we established from the beginning of the lesson:

The Fulcrum does not act in place of the system. The Fulcrum enables the system to operate better by itself.

3. Looking again at the three-legged system.

Here the role of the three components in the entire work becomes clearer.

The Mission of Maitreya poses the question of the direction of transformation. Hong Bang Yi helps us see the structure of movement, relationship, balance, and transformation of the system. The Law of the Fulcrum answers the methodological question:

To make the system change in that direction, where must one act so that the system itself can transform?

The three legs form a unified structure:

Purpose → Principle → Method.

And when that structure is applied to national development and civilization, we realize that:

It is not enough to have a good goal. One must understand the system. It is not enough to understand the system. One must find the correct Fulcrum. It is not enough to find the correct Fulcrum. One must awaken the capacity for self-adjustment within the system.

Only then is the process of development complete.

4. The Fulcrum of the future.

Perhaps this is the final question that Lesson 24 wishes to leave:

Where will humanity place its Fulcrum in the coming century?

If the Fulcrum is power, civilization will continue to seek control. If the Fulcrum is matter, civilization will continue to seek accumulation. If the Fulcrum is technology, civilization will continue to seek expansion of capacity.

But if the Fulcrum is placed in the Human Being who possesses the capacity for perception, responsibility, self-adjustment, and resonance with the entire system of life, then the capacity of civilization may turn in a different direction:

Not conquest in order to exist, but understanding in order to coexist. Not control in order to develop, but self-adjustment in order to develop sustainably. Not acting in place of life, but creating conditions for life to exercise its own capacity for self-perfection.

5. Closing Lesson 24.

From the individual to the family. From the organization to the nation. From the nation to humanity.

The scale of the system grows ever larger, yet the fundamental question remains unchanged:

Where does the Fulcrum lie?

And the answer of the Law of the Fulcrum becomes ever clearer:

To change a system, one need not act upon everything. One must find the correct Fulcrum.

A sustainable nation is not a nation that possesses the strongest single Fulcrum.

It is a nation that knows how to awaken the Fulcrum within every human being.

A mature civilization is not a civilization that possesses the greatest capacity to control the world.

It is a civilization that possesses the capacity to self-adjust so as not to lose itself.

And perhaps that is also the deepest meaning of the entire journey we have traveled through these 24 lessons:

The Fulcrum is not the place where power is concentrated.

The Fulcrum is the place where life recovers its capacity for self-balancing.

Therefore, the ultimate goal of development is not to create a system so strong that it never needs to change.

It is to create a system sufficiently awake to know when change is needed, sufficiently wise to know in which direction to change, and sufficiently capable of self-adjustment for that very change to become a step of evolution.

A civilization is sustainable only when it places the Human Being in the correct position of Fulcrum.

And when the Human Being knows how to place himself within the entire system of life, that Fulcrum is no longer merely the fulcrum of an individual, a nation, or a civilization.

It becomes:

the Fulcrum for the capacity of life itself to self-adjust and evolve.

“The Fulcrum is not the place where power is concentrated. The Fulcrum is the place where life recovers its capacity for self-balancing.”

It is the condensation of almost the entire journey we have constructed: Balance → Transformation → Resonance → Central Harmony → Open System → Feedback → Self-adjustment → Evolution.

The Fulcrum for the capacity of life itself to self-adjust and evolve.

Please continue to follow the next lesson: DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF THE LAW OF THE FULCRUM BY MASTER PHẠM HÙNG SƠN.

THE LAW OF THE FULCRUM – The Axioms and Theorems of a System of Central Harmony.

PART V. VERIFICATION.

Lesson 25. The 24 Narrative Essays as Verifications of the Law of the Fulcrum.

Purpose.

Not to rewrite the narrative essays, but to analyze them as case studies, thereby verifying the axioms, theorems, and consequences of the entire system.

Thank you for following. With warm regards. From Tây Ninh.

BÀI ĐĂNG TRONG BLOG.