Article
Shermon Cruz1,2
1Ph.D. Candidate, Sustainability Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia
2UNESCO Chair on Anticipatory Governance and Regenerative Cities, Northwestern University, Laoag City, Philippines
Abstract
This article concludes a three-part research series exploring river ontologies and epistemologies within urban landscapes. Through the philosophical constructs of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar’s Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT) and Neohumanism and employing Causal Layered Analysis (CLA), the study reimagines the intricate connection between rivers and cities. According to Sarkar, rivers are not merely hydrologic assets or entities, they are the backbones of human civilization: serving as chroniclers of history and shaping language, culture, spirituality, and ecology. PROUT envisions rivers as shared resources managed through decentralized, rational and cooperative methods to enhance collective well-being and ecological fairness. Neohumanism broadens this perspective ethically and spiritually, advocating for a connected and empathetic relationship with rivers as sacred entities, worthy of our affection, reverence, and stewardship.
The study critiques dominant technocratic and anthropocentric paradigms that commodify rivers and sever the relational bonds between communities and waterways. It proposes instead a transformative future scenario, The River of Dharma, in which river–city governance is participatory, ecologically grounded, and culturally regenerative. Through the recognition of Indigenous knowledge frameworks, the re-establishment of ecological cycles, and the nurturing of a spiritual bond with rivers, this endeavor outlines pathways towards equitable, sustainable, and relational urban–river futures. Drawing from the author’s Global South positionality and deep engagement with Sarkar’s philosophies, the article contributes to decolonial futures thinking by foregrounding rivers as relational agents at the intersection of history, ecology, and spiritual evolution. The text provides an ontological and epistemological shift for academics, practitioners, and policymakers aiming to rejuvenate urban river systems as spaces of community, stewardship, and cultural flourishing.
Keywords
PROUT, Neohumanism, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, Urban-River Futures, Causal Layered Analysis
Introduction
This is the concluding segment of a three-part research series and intends to wrap up an in-depth investigation into the understanding of river systems in urban environments. In the series, I set out to uncover how rivers and cities are intimately entangled when viewed from a diversity of epistemic lenses. The earlier articles explored how modernist science, Indigenous knowledge, colonial, decolonial, and transcolonial perspectives spawned new anticipatory imaginaries: one, as modern features of the urban fabric, and second, as living entities forging the future of cities (Cruz, 2025; Cruz, 2024).
For this piece, I situate my inquiry into river–city futures within Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar’s Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT) and Neohumanism, using Causal Layered Analysis to reveal the deeper narratives, structures, and worldviews shaping the evolving relationship between rivers and urban environments. The paper does not treat PROUT, Neohumanism, and Sarkar’s philosophy as separate systems but as interrelated expressions of one integral framework: PROUT as its socio-economic manifestation, Neohumanism as its ethical and moral compass, and Sarkar’s Tantric ontology as the grounding core that unites both through dharma. This differentiation of functional emphases rather than separation clarifies how the river is positioned across these dimensions: as a socio-economic common, an ethical and moral relation, and an ontological expression of consciousness and flow. This framing allows a deeper interrogation of how each lens shapes assumptions about what rivers and cities are and can become.
This inquiry also undertakes an ontological analysis of the epistemic lenses explored, examining how they inform our understanding of river–city futures. Such analysis is crucial for uncovering deeper layers of meaning and opening space for a more heterogeneous understanding of transformed urban–river relationships.
In 2002, I set out on a journey to study and volunteer, spending a year at Ananda Kuranga, one of Sarkar’s Master Units in Nagcarlan, Laguna, Philippines. Living and working there became more than just volunteering—it was an immersion into a way of life. The Master Unit felt like a living laboratory where I could test myself and experience Sarkar’s socio-economic philosophy firsthand. Each day revealed what it meant to embody PROUT and Neohumanism in simple, practical ways, making his ideas less abstract and more a part of how I lived, related, and grew. This formative experience later became a cornerstone of my academic journey and foresight practice, both deeply inspired by the works of P.R. Sarkar.
Drawing from his broad philosophical insights, I developed my master’s thesis in public administration, which explored the connections between spiritual consciousness, leadership approaches, and the societal perspectives of legislators in my province of Ilocos Norte. Today, I continue this thread of inquiry from a Global South perspective shaped by decolonial values. In doing so, I seek not to make universal claims but to offer a reflected and situated lens for exploring river–city relationships, critically engaging with literature and applying Causal Layered Analysis to imagine possible futures for urban rivers.
Key questions guiding this article include: what new river–city futures emerge when seen through Sarkar, PROUT, and Neohumanism frameworks? How might these perspectives help us rethink river–urban relationships? In what ways do PROUT and Neohumanism challenge mainstream urban development and open possibilities for alternative river–city futures? How can varying ontological and epistemological views help us reconceive the very essence of rivers and cities? And importantly, what scenarios—the deeper narratives, ontologies, and metaphors—can be revealed through CLA to expand our understanding of river–city relationships and their possible futures?
To pursue these questions, I employ CLA as a methodological lens. CLA is particularly suited to this inquiry because it surfaces epistemologies and ontologies—often implicit and taken for granted—making them explicit and re-embedding them within scenario development. Paraphrasing Inayatullah (2004), CLA extends analysis vertically from the litany to myth/metaphor, rendering epistemological assumptions, ontological commitments, and guiding metaphors visible, and then reintegrating them into scenario work. In doing so, CLA offers analytical depth while bridging epistemology, ontology, and scenario building, allowing multiple ways of knowing to shape how we imagine and construct river–city futures.
Ontological Foundations
Any substantive discussion of PROUT and Neohumanism must begin with an understanding of PR Sarkar and his views on rivers. Thus, I will address this a bit extensively and broadly.
By most accounts, Sarkar was a polymath, having spoken and written prolifically on human society and on a wide range of subjects across both the arts and sciences (Prout Research Institute, n.d.). He can be viewed through various lenses: as a guru, social philosopher, linguist, historian, composer, and leader of social movements, among others. While his ontology is deeply rooted in Tantra and prioritizes knowledge structures that outline the self, nature, others, society, and the transcendental, Sarkar’s discourse addressed humanity universally, within and beyond the Indian tradition (Inayatullah, 2002). His most notable contributions encompass essays and discourses on intuitional science, linguistics, cultural studies, music, moral philosophy, cosmology, biopsychology, microvita, social cycle theory, PROUT, and Neohumanism. Sarkar described himself as an unwavering optimist, equating optimism with life itself (Sarkar, 1979). He further asserted that this optimism permeates all atoms and particles across the vast cosmos (The Quarterly Review of Historical Studies, 1998).
At the heart of Sarkar’s thought lies Tantra, the foundation of his ontology. Dating back around 15,000 years, Tantra is not a religion or sect, but a spiritual science dedicated to freeing humans from lethargy and stasis. Sarkar (1959) described it as an intuitional science that awakens the kulakuńd́alinī—the inner divine energy—to unite with the Supreme Consciousness. In this sense, Tantra underpins his broader philosophical system, offering a transformative path that integrates personal and collective efforts to transcend limitations and realize the full scope of human potential (Maheshvarananda, 2012). This ontological view provides us a foundation for understanding Sarkar’s socio-philosophical frameworks:
- The whole cosmos is a manifestation of consciousness (Brahma) (Sarkar, 1955).
- Human beings possess within them dormant divinity (Kulakuńd́alinī) (Sarkar, 1959).
- Reality emerges from the continuous interplay between consciousness (Purusha) and the dynamic creative energy (Prakrti) (Sarkar, 1955).
- The purpose of existence is to achieve harmony between the individual consciousness and the universal or cosmic consciousness (Parama Purusha) (Sarkar, 1959).
- The subtle planes of existence, including the physical, psychic, and spiritual realms, are all real and interconnected. (Sarkar, 1955).
Table 1. The ontology and epistemology of Tantra according to PR Sarkar.
| Aspect | Tantra according to Sarkar |
| Ontology | Reality is essentially spiritual; the universe and the individual are expressions of the same Supreme Consciousness; human beings possess an intrinsic divine potential (kulakuńd́alinī) awaiting realization. |
| Epistemology | True knowledge comes from intuitional realization through disciplined practice (sádhaná); intellectual knowledge is secondary to direct spiritual experience. |
Table 1 outlines Sarkar’s understanding of Tantra’s main principles. Ontologically, Tantra views reality as spiritual, with both the universe and individuals emerging from Supreme Consciousness and holding dormant divine energy (kulakuńd́alinī). Epistemologically, Tantra claims true knowledge comes from intuitional science and spiritual practice (sádhaná), with intellectual knowledge supporting direct experience.
PROUT and Neohumanism Philosophical Base
Sarkar’s extensive work on the PROUT philosophy encompasses about 1,500 pages and is largely gathered in the 21-volume series “Prout in a Nutshell,” which thoroughly addresses his socio-economic theories. Although P.R. Sarkar first proposed PROUT in 1959, he significantly expanded on its concepts while incarcerated from 1971 to 1978 (Proutglobe.org, 2013). His principles on Neohumanism are chiefly conveyed in the pivotal book “Neo-humanism: Liberation of the Intellect,” which was published in 1982 (Maheshvarananda, 2012).
Essentially, PROUT and Neohumanism are an economic model and social paradigm inspired by spiritual perspectives and ecological values. It offers practical solutions to socio-economic problems, advocating a philosophy beyond materialism that views resources as a shared cosmic inheritance (Inayatullah, 2017). PROUT’s five fundamental principles are:
- Limits on individual wealth. Individuals should not amass significant material wealth unless society consents, guaranteeing that resources benefit everyone.
- Maximum and rational use of resources. All resources, whether material, intellectual, or spiritual, should be utilized effectively and justly to benefit everyone.
- Development of individual and collective potential. Both individuals and communities ought to have their physical, mental, and spiritual abilities thoroughly nurtured and encouraged.
- Balanced utilization. Rational allocation of resources and capacities is essential to ensure that no single domain be it material, intellectual, or spiritual exerts undue dominance.
- Progressive and adaptive utilization. Utilization must adjust over time, adapting to various locations, situations, and changing requirements to foster ongoing social advancement.
While PROUT establishes a structure for justice, balance, and well-being, Neohumanism deepens this vision by embedding it within a philosophy of universal love and ethical responsibility. Sarkar extends humanism beyond humanity, redefining it as a love that embraces all living beings—plants, animals, and the natural world (Bussey, 2025). He calls Neohumanism a “philosophy of love for all created beings of the universe” (Sarkar, 1982). It critiques the narrow boundaries of nationalism, sexism, speciesism, capitalism, and racism, advocating instead for an expanded consciousness rooted in care for life in all its forms. Neohumanism is based on these five core tenets:
- Universalism. Expands love and care beyond narrow boundaries like race, nation, religion or species, embracing all beings including inanimate entities as part of one cosmic family.
- Liberation from narrow sentiments. Seeks to free human consciousness from dogmas and limited identities that divide and harm, promoting a rational, inclusive worldview.
- Interconnectedness of all life. Rooted in the yogic tradition, it emphasizes the profound interdependence between all forms of life and the environment, calling for harmony and respect for the entire web of existence.
- Deep ecology and ecological ethics. Nature is not seen as a resource to exploit but as sacred and alive. Neohumanism fosters ecological consciousness, recognizing the intrinsic value of the Earth and all ecosystems.
- Holistic human development. It redefines what it means to be human — not just a rational or economic being, but a spiritual, ethical, and relational one, whose highest calling is love, care, and service to all beings.
Sarkar presented Neohumanism more than two decades after formulating PROUT, offering the philosophical grounding essential for transforming human awareness from narrow, fragmented regional sentiments into a broader, universal outlook. In this sense, Neohumanism serves as the ethical and spiritual foundation that supports and completes PROUT’s socio-economic vision (Bussey, 2025). Conversely, PROUT can also be understood as the practical expression of Neohumanism, translating its universal ethic into concrete socio-economic structures and policies (Inayatullah, 2017).
Having briefly examined PROUT and Neohumanism, we are now prepared to turn to Sarkar’s reflections on rivers. Here, his philosophical insights meet ecological realities, as he uses rivers to illustrate the deep connections between geography, culture, and consciousness. Analyzing this allows us to explore how rivers shape human identity, collective memory, and civilizational trajectories, while also opening space to imagine alternative river–city futures.
Rivers as Bedrocks of Civilizations
PR Sarkar’s civilizational framework employs river ecology to demonstrate how geographical features—such as river stages and confluences—influence language, identity, mental development, and spiritual progress. He argued that each river bend signifies a shift in human expression, shaping both linguistic patterns and metaphysical orientations (Sarkar, 1985). Sarkar’s analysis of rivers further decodes place names, traces linguistic and colonial histories, and highlights cultural–ecological interactions, including how flooding and river shifts affect urban growth.
While much of his work focused on Indian rivers such as the Ganges and Yamuna, he also referenced historical rivers like the Thames (Sarkar, 1986). A search for “rivers” in the P.R. Sarkar Electronic Edition yields 367 river-related discourses, underscoring the centrality of rivers in his thought.
According to Sarkar (1986), rivers offered humanity life itself in the form of water. Drawn first by this basic need, people clustered along riverbanks and, over time, for deeper reasons: to exchange, to connect, to build, to imagine, and to uplift the soul. Until the invention of wells, rivers were the very sites where human relations, ethics, responsibilities, and collective life first took shape and evolved into civilization. Water, he argued, served as a conduit for prana-shakti—an essential and subtle life force that transformed static matter into living entities (Sarkar, 1989). Sarkar emphasized that rivers, while offering both benefits and challenges, were also crucial in shaping societal structures and cultural identity. They defined early civilizations’ territorial and political landscapes and served as essential arteries for transportation, administration, and cultural exchange long before the advent of modern roads (Sarkar, 1986).
He further lamented that the decline of rivers often paralleled the downfall of civilizations, marked by cultural amnesia and the erosion of historical memory (Sarkar, 1985). Sarkar observed that human civilization itself naturally emerged from riverside settlements, where proximity to water not only sustained life but also catalyzed cultural synthesis and differentiation (Sarkar, 1985).
Rivers as Ethnolinguistic Ecosystems
Sarkar likened these civilizational processes to the very flow of a river: the hill stage symbolizing the rise of original civilizations with simple languages and cultures; the plain stage where sub-civilizations converge, giving birth to diverse dialects; and the delta stage representing the height of civilization, where streams of culture and knowledge integrate into complex, vibrant forms, enriching language and fostering intellectual growth (Sarkar, 1986).
In his essay River and Civilization, Sarkar demonstrated that language and civilization are intimately connected to river dynamics. He argued that as rivers flow and merge, so too do dialects and vocabularies. Distinct dialects arise within each river basin, while linguistic fusion occurs at confluences. The complexity of riverine environments, he noted, reflects the psychological and cultural growth of communities, with each river bend becoming an ethnolinguistic melting pot that shapes not only geography but also the languages, customs, and thoughts of its inhabitants (Sarkar, 1982).
Sarkar regarded rivers as living antiquities – repositories of languages, texts and cultural memory. For indigenous communities, river names reflected their natural qualities and embodied local heritage. Colonial renaming, by contrast, erased this deep relationship, distorting both cultural identity and ecological balance. Sarkar (1986) thus called for the restoration of indigenous place names, seeing it as essential to recovering memory, dignity and harmony with the environment.
Yet for Sarkar, rivers carried meaning far beyond culture and economics. They embodied dharma meaning the intrinsic nature or sustaining essence of life, beings, and the cosmos. This broader vision naturally opens to a deeper spiritual dimension or sacred pathways, woven into cosmology, ritual, and human consciousness itself.
Rivers from a Spiritual Perspective
In Vedic and Tantric traditions, rivers are sacred and integral to spiritual texts and geography (India Geographies, n.d.). The Sanskrit “nadi,” meaning river, is linked to deities and spiritual practices. In Ayurveda and yoga, “nadi” means channels of energy flow in the body. It symbolizes the connections between the physical and metaphysical world. Rivers in Hindu scriptures embody divine purity and spiritual power. Hindu rituals view bathing in the Indus River as soul-purifying. Like the Ganga and Yamuna, rivers in the Puranas, Mahabharata, and Ramayana hold deep mythological, symbolic, and cultural significance (Rao, 2008; Dubey, 2024).
Rivers as Civilizational Agents
In his writings and discourses, Sarkar described rivers as powerful forces shaping human life: witnessing the rise and fall of civilizations, guiding settlement and culture, and embodying the spiritual journey toward unity and transcendence. He also saw them as ecological forces that sculpt landscapes and sustains survival. Spiritually, they were symbols of impermanence and renewal in the eternal cycle of existence. For Sarkar (1986), rivers transcend mere hydrological phenomena; they are life-sustaining forces embedded into the fabric of civilization.
As such, he implicitly suggests that rivers are catalysts or agents of civilizations. They both nurture and sustain humanity’s destiny. They personify a relational existence that transcends temporal and material resources. They support ecological and societal cycles, providing nourishment, cultural and spiritual benefits. They are crucial for maintaining the natural elements essential to sustain life.
Table 2. Comparison of the dominant anthropocentric-industrial view with PROUT, Neohumanism, and Sarkar’s holistic insights on rivers: contrasting worldviews, governance, ethics, and cultural roles.
| Aspect | Dominant View | PROUT View | Neohumanism View | Sarkar’s View |
| Worldview | Rivers as exploitable utilities serving urban-industrial growth. | Rivers sustain decentralized, self-sufficient societies. | Rivers express universal life and balance. | Rivers shape material and spiritual civilization. |
| Knowledge Systems | Technocratic and managerial expertise focused on control, engineering, extraction. | Values local ecological wisdom. | Rivers hold cultural, ecological, and spiritual knowledge. | Blend of ancient wisdom and science. |
| Power Dynamics | Centralized control by states, corporations, and technocrats. | Advocates cooperative, local control. | Empowers respectful, caring communities. | Opposes exploitation; promotes stewardship. |
| Cultural Hegemony | Rivers marginalized as industrial corridors; cultural ties eroded. | Rivers central to livelihoods and cohesion. | Rivers symbolize diversity and unity. | River confluences as sites of cultural and linguistic synthesis. |
| Human-Nature Relationship | Humans dominate and manage nature; rivers as objects. | Rivers as commons for collective welfare. | Sacred beings deserving care. | Ecological ethics: harmony with rivers. |
| Identity and Being | Rivers irrelevant to modern urban identity. | Shape regional identities and ties. | Embody planetary belonging. | Rivers ground historical belonging. |
| Epistemic Violence / Historical Consciousness | Suppression of indigenous and local histories tied to rivers. | Rivers shape cooperative, inclusive histories. | Hold plural, suppressed narratives. | Rivers as carriers of civilizational change. |
| Economic Structure | Extractive economy; rivers as infrastructure for industry, commerce, and real estate. | Support sustainable, equitable systems. | Protection ensures future welfare. | Basis for balanced prosperity aligned. |
| Agency and Sovereignty | States and corporations as primary agents over rivers. | Empowers local communities. | Affirms human and nonhuman agency. | Rivers enable self-reliant development. |
| Perception & Future Assumptions | Rivers as increasingly scarce, contested resources. | Central to cooperative futures. | Pathways to ecological and spiritual evolution. | Rivers guide civilizational blending progress. |
| Dharma | No spiritual or ethical relation; rivers as inert, utilitarian objects. | Cooperative socio-economic duties grounded in ecological justice. | Reverence for rivers as expressions of cosmic order. | Rivers mirror the dharmic journey: from origin to union with the ocean (liberation). |
Table 2 contrasts four perspectives on rivers: the dominant technocratic, extractivist, and anthropocentric view alongside PROUT, Neohumanism, and Sarkar’s philosophy. Each row examines aspects such as worldview, knowledge systems, power dynamics, cultural significance, and identity with Dharma as an additional category. The dominant view reduces rivers to industrial assets, privileging centralized control while eroding ecological and cultural ties. PROUT reframes rivers as foundations of decentralized and cooperative communities, rooted in local wisdom and collective well-being. Neohumanism extends this further venerating rivers as sacred beings that embody universal balance and global interconnectedness.
Sarkar integrates these threads, portraying rivers as both material and spiritual agents that shape human destiny and mirror the dharmic journey from origin to union. Table 2 reveals rivers as contested yet transformative forces—sites of knowledge, culture, power, and dharma—capable of guiding humanity from fragmentation toward unity, and from survival toward renewal.
From Commons to Cosmos
Table 3 outlines a comparative matrix of Sarkar, PROUT, and Neohumanism, positioning rivers within distinct yet interconnected philosophical frameworks that contest dominant utilitarian discourses.
For Sarkar, rivers are living entities whose flows embody both material and spiritual evolution. They serve as witnesses to civilizational rise and decline, shaping ecological, cultural, and linguistic landscapes while symbolizing impermanence and renewal. PROUT extends this vision into socio-economic practice by treating rivers as commons essential to decentralized and cooperative development, sustaining regional economies and fostering cultural cohesion. Neohumanism broadens the frame further, grounding rivers in an ontological ethic: as sacred manifestations of cosmic consciousness, they command reverence, compassion, and ecological responsibility.
In summary, these perspectives recast rivers as civilizational agents rather than inert resources. They offer an alternative epistemic lens that resists technocratic and extractivist paradigms, emphasizing instead the relational, cooperative, and ethical dimensions of human–river relations. In urban contexts, this triadic framing reveals rivers not as marginal infrastructures but as loci of cultural synthesis, ecological balance, and spiritual practice. Such an integrated vision calls for a paradigm shift in governance—from anthropocentric control toward stewardship rooted in dharma, cooperative justice, and planetary belonging.
CLA of River–City Futures
Based on these foundational philosophical principles, the next step is to employ Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) to expand and deepen our understanding of river–city futures. While Sarkar, PROUT, and Neohumanism highlight rivers as living, sacred, and cooperative agents of civilization, CLA as a method provides us a structured lens for transformative inquiry. By working across its four layers—the litany of new anticipatory imaginaries, the systemic structures that sustain them, the worldviews that legitimize them, and the myths and metaphors that shape collective imagination—CLA reveals the cultural, historical, and epistemological dimensions that shape the future of rivers in urban settings. This stratified methodology facilitates the recontextualization of prevailing narratives and the generation of scenarios that pave the way for regenerative, collaborative, and ethical futures in river–city interactions.
Table 3. Rivers as Relationships: Sarkar, PROUT, and Neohumanism in Urban Contexts
| Aspect | Sarkar’s View | PROUT View | Neohumanism View |
| Basic Definition of Rivers | Living entities intertwined with history, culture, ecology, spirituality, and impermanence. | Vital resources essential for sustaining decentralized, cooperative socio-economic units. | Sacred manifestations of universal life; dynamic expressions of interconnectedness and balance. |
| Root Assumptions | Rivers shape and reflect both material civilization and spiritual evolution; their flows mirror human destiny and impermanence. | Rivers must serve collective welfare, ecological balance, and local self-reliance; resource governance should be cooperative and just. | Rivers have intrinsic value beyond human use; they are expressions of universal consciousness deserving reverence and ethical care. |
| Human Relationship with Rivers | Humans co-evolve with rivers; civilizations emerge, mature, and decline along their banks; rivers demand respect and stewardship. | Humans must act as cooperative custodians, nurturing rivers as commons for future generations. | Humans must relate to rivers as sentient beings, cultivating compassion, empathy, and harmony with nature. |
| Key Notion of Rivers | Rivers as witnesses and carriers of civilizational change, blending cultures and shaping ecological and social landscapes. | Rivers as commons and lifelines sustaining regional economies and cultural cohesion. | Rivers as teachers of interdependence, diversity, and spiritual unity. |
| Key Metaphors | “River of life”; “boat of compassion”; “confluence of civilizations”; impermanence and renewal as mirrored in river flow – instructing humanity in impermanence, renewal, and the rhythm of existence | The river as a commons orchard—where diverse exchanges sustain collective prosperity and shared purpose. | The river as the mirror of the soul-reflecting the journey from ego to expansion, from self to cosmos. |
| Rivers within Urban Landscapes | Urban centers as stages where river civilizations blend and mature (e.g., Bengal as finality of blended deltaic civilizations). | Urban rivers must be protected as ecological and social commons; decentralization ensures rivers serve local needs. | Urban rivers are loci of spiritual practice and ecological consciousness; cities should honor rivers as part of the planetary family and promote harmony with them. |
To fully grasp the transformative potential of CLA, it is first necessary to examine the dominant trajectory that continues to inform river–city relations. This default scenario, which I call masters of the universe, illustrates the persistence of technocratic and extractive paradigms that commodify rivers and prioritize control over care. It serves as a stark reminder of what is at stake if prevailing assumptions remain unchallenged.
Masters of the Universe
Given the current trend, rivers are degraded, polluted, and increasingly disconnected from the communities that once depended on them. Large-scale dams, irrigation schemes, and flood-control projects continue to fragment ecosystems, displace livelihoods, and reduce rivers to mere infrastructure (Lapniten, 2021; Beck, 2012). Pollution renders waterways unsafe for recreation and erodes their role as cultural commons (Matthew Sykes, personal communication, August 6, 2025). Climate change intensifies this fragility, bringing more destructive floods and prolonged droughts to urban regions (Pizzorni et al., 2024).
Governance continues to be divided and exploitative: rivers are often treated as resources for property and financial gain, while territorial conflicts and conflicting interests take precedence over ecological stewardship (Opperman, 2014). These priorities are further reinforced by regulatory frameworks, leading to heightened inequality, social tensions, and increased resource exploitation (McLaughlin Mitchell, 2024).
Here is a worldview that positions humans as masters and exploiters of nature. Rivers are seen not as living systems but as objects to be extracted, engineered, and owned. The outcome is what can be described as the masters of the universe: a paradigm of domination, alienation and control. It increases social harm and forecloses regenerative possibilities.
Against this backdrop, we can now imagine an alternative river–city futures grounded in stewardship, cooperation, and dharmic renewal. What follows is a transformed CLA scenario that brings into focus pathways toward river–city dynamics that are just, sustainable, and spiritually grounded. Figure 1 shows an urban river transformed into a vibrant, dharmic civic-ecological commons. The river draws the community to the water for activity and contemplation, highlighting coexistence and kinship among people, nature, and the built environment. It is revitalized through community presence, recreation, and a contemplative spiritual atmosphere.
Figure 1. The River of Dharma. A regenerated river where people and nature thrive together,
reflecting harmony, community, and spiritual kinship. AI-generated image created by the author using MidJourney (v6), 2025.
The transformed CLA presents the River of Dharma scenario as one possible reimagining of river–city futures. This scenario does not claim to be a definitive endpoint but rather illustrates how Sarkar’s spiritual ontology, PROUT’s cooperative-decentralized framework, and Neohumanism’s ethic of universal love can inform a regenerative alternative future.
The River of Dharma
This reimagined future of river-centered cities illustrates how Sarkar’s spiritual ontology, PROUT’s cooperative and decentralized economics, and Neohumanism’s ethic of universal love converge to reframe rivers not just as ecological or economic assets, but as civilizational agents. In this world, rivers are sacred commons and adaptive living systems that shape, sustain, and guide societies materially, culturally, and spiritually. They are recognized as essential contributors to civilizational advancement, reminding humanity that prosperity lies not in domination but in harmony with natural rhythms. Cities thrive by reconnecting to rivers, remembering their pasts, and sustaining their vibrancy; prosperity is defined not by extraction but by balance with the living flow.
Litany
In this future, news reports no longer describe rivers as degraded waterways or polluted drains. Instead, rivers are restored as the pulsating core of urban life (ArchDaily, 2024). The city thrives not in opposition to the river but in harmony with it: seasonal flows are marked by public festivals, ecological milestones are celebrated as civic achievements, and community rituals reinforce the river’s role as both cultural memory and ecological lifeline (Wantzen et al., 2023).
Rewilded wetlands absorb floods and safeguard urban settlements, demonstrating that river health underpins the resilience of the civilizational city (Landscape Performance Series, n.d.). In schools and public squares, children learn from elders who share stories of river renewal, while artists and musicians draw inspiration from its flow, embedding ecological awareness into the city’s cultural identity. Markets along swimmable rivers offer produce grown on revitalized floodplains. Festivals, rituals, and daily practices reinforce rivers as living commons, embedding ecological responsibility into the civic imagination.
Framed as a civilizational city, rivers are central lifelines of cultural, ecological, and spiritual life. Contrary to the modern industrial city which is based on resource extraction, control, and isolating humans from their environment, the civilizational city flourishes by harmonizing its urban development with the natural cycles and currents of its river systems. It is “civilizational” because the river does more than sustain the material foundation of the city; it nurtures identity, memory, and meaning.
The civilizational city draws its vitality from the river. They gauge success not merely by economic growth but by how well cities can maintain harmony between humans, rivers, and the broader ecosystem.
Systems
The systemic architecture of the civilizational city stems directly from its epistemological shift: when rivers are known as kin and co-creators of civilization, institutions, economies, and designs must reflect reciprocity and care rather than control. Governance is polycentric and commons based. Basin councils convene Indigenous leaders, women’s cooperatives, scientists, artists, spiritual practitioners, entrepreneurs and government actors, as co-stewards. Their legitimacy comes not from sovereignty over territory but from embodying the worldview that rivers are living commons whose flows sustain civilizational continuity (Whanganui District Council, n.d.; Rivers are Life, 2024).
Economic life reflects this shift in thinking. Rather than extractive markets, prosperity is shared through forms of “river equity”—community fisheries, regenerative farming on floodplains, and industries that rely on water while renewing it in turn. When rivers are treated as shared heritage, the logic of exploitation gives way to practices of distributive justice. Wealth does not accumulate in one place but moves, much like the river itself, sustaining both livelihoods and ecological health (Dombroski et al., 2018; Rafuse, 2025).
Urban planning also shifts within this worldview. Here, cities are imagined as riverscapes rather than landscapes, their architecture and infrastructure aligned with the rhythms of flowing water (Wantzen et al., 2023). Wetlands and green corridors double as ecological buffers and cultural gathering places. Along the riverbanks, ceremonial grounds, gardens, and art spaces weave spirit and culture into everyday urban life. In this vision, the city is no longer apart from the river but an extension of it—a living organism that learns, adapts, and regenerates with its waters.
Finally, at a planetary scale, the worldview of rivers-as-commons underpins transboundary cooperation. The global river commons movement institutionalizes rivers as shared civilizational heritage, fostering agreements that transcend national borders and reflect humanity’s collective duty to safeguard the flows that sustain life (Petersen -Perlman et al., 2017; Moving Rivers, n.d.).
Strategically, these systems are not simply technical arrangements; they are the institutional embodiment of a new epistemology. The civilizational city known as the River of Dharma endures by flowing with, not against, the river.
Worldview
The River of Dharma scenario represents an epistemological shift from anthropocentric mastery to relational knowing. Here, rivers are no longer seen as inert objects to be measured, engineered, or controlled, but as living systems that shape knowledge, culture, and meaning. The idea of riverscapes makes this shift tangible: cycles of flood and renewal are understood not as disruptions to suppress but as sources of cosmology, ritual, and identity (Vazhayil & Wantzen, 2023; Allan, 2004).
This shift in knowing resonates with Sarkar’s ontology, which suggests that civilizations endure not through extraction but by harmonizing with nature’s flows (Sarkar, 1989). In this view, rivers are not just backdrops but epistemic agents—co-authors of history and civilization who shape languages, practices, and shared imaginaries. Civilizational renewal is thus tied to epistemic renewal: to see rivers anew is to reimagine what it means to know and to become as a civilization.
Metaphor
The River of Dharma flows as the current of civilization. It does not hurry toward conquest but moves with patience, shaping valleys of memory and opening deltas of possibility. Its floods call societies to humility, its droughts to restraint, and its confluences to the strength that comes from diversity. The river whispers that justice, compassion, and renewal are not abstract ideals but living currents felt in every bend, every tide, every return to the sea. To journey with the river is to journey with the cosmos, carried forward not by mastery but by trust in the flow.
In this vision, the river serves as a civilizational compass, reminding societies that true prosperity arises through balance. Its floods and droughts reflect impermanence, warning against hubris and excess. Echoing this, Kabir’s words— “The river that flows in you also flows in me” (Poet Seers.org, n.d.)—and the Māori saying, “I am the river, the river is me,” (Whanganui District Council, n.d.) capture an epistemic kinship that binds human identity and civilizational destiny to the river’s flow. The River of Dharma, then, becomes more than a metaphor: it is a call to civilizational renewal, guiding humanity toward balance, compassion, and unity with the wider cosmos (Sarkar, 1985; Pagey, 2025).
The CLA analysis shows that the future of rivers is inseparable from the future of the city and civilization itself. It makes explicit Sarkar’s vision of rivers as civilizational agents. Viewed through the layers of CLA, the dharmic city takes shape as a civilizational model where rivers sit at the heart of regenerative governance, ecological resilience, and the ongoing renewal of society. Table 4 contrasts the “Masters of the Universe” path—polluted rivers, fragmented extractive governance, and a domination mindset—with “The River of Dharma,” where rivers are restored and treated as kin through polycentric stewardship, regenerative economies, and an ethic of reciprocity and renewal.
Table 4. Causal Layered Analysis contrasting dominant and transformed imaginaries of river–city futures through the lenses of Sarkar, PROUT, and Neohumanism.
| CLA Layer | Dominant Scenario (Masters of the Universe) | Transformed Scenario (The River of Dharma) |
| Litany | Degraded, polluted, disconnected; floods/droughts worsen; rivers reduced to infrastructure. | Restored, swimmable, biodiverse; rivers as lifeblood of the civilizational city, central to culture, identity, and resilience. |
| Systems | Fragmented, extractive governance; profit-driven management; disputes and degradation. | Polycentric basin councils; global river commons; regenerative economies; river-centered urbanism sustaining continuity. |
| Worldview | Humans as masters; rivers as exploitable resources; domination culture. | Relational knowing; rivers as kin and epistemic agents; civilizations endure through ecological and spiritual alignment. |
| Metaphor | “Masters of the Universe” — domination, control, collapse. | “The River of Dharma” — flow, covenant, renewal; civilizations guided by justice, reciprocity, and sacred trust. |
Ontologies of River–City Futures
This three-part inquiry has shown how rivers, when viewed through multiple epistemic lenses, open new horizons for imagining urban futures. The CLA analysis contrasts dominant and transformed imaginaries while also revealing the deeper ontological ground from which these futures emerge. Table 5 shows that each carries distinct assumptions about what rivers are, how humans relate to them, and their roles in urban and civilizational life.
Table 5. Core ontologies of river–city futures across seven worldviews, comparing how each defines rivers, human relationships, urban roles, and underlying assumptions.
| Ontology | Rivers Are | Human-River Relationship | Urban Role | Ontological Core |
| Modern Science | Systems, data flows | Managers, Engineers,
Administrators |
Infrastructure | Mechanistic Dualism |
| Indigenous | Kin, Ancestors, Spirits | Relational, Reciprocal | Cultural and spiritual centers | Relational, Cyclical |
| Colonial | Resources, Assets | Conquerors, Exploiters | Extractive corridors | Hierarchical Dualism |
| Decolonial | Plural relational beings | Restorative stewards | Sites of cultural resurgence | Multiplicity & Repair |
| Sarkar | Civilizational, Spiritual agents | Co-evolving partners | Wellsprings of memory, dharma | Consciousness-based |
| PROUT | Commons for all | Cooperative custodians | Engines of local well-being | Rational-ethical stewardship |
| Neohumanism | Sacred beings | Ethical companions | Realms of spiritual awakening | Universal love and respect |
All ontologies are historically and socially situated
While these ontological perspectives frame rivers in diverse and sometimes opposing ways, it is worth acknowledging that worldviews are never fixed. They emerge in particular historical and social contexts, shifting with the dominant intellectual and material forces of the time. Foucault (1977) reminds us that each class constructs its own truths, while Gramsci (1971) points out that every era is marked by the prevailing intellectual current. Sarkar (1959) goes further, suggesting that ontology itself is bound to history, unfolding through the rhythms of the social cycle. In this view, ontologies are neither neutral nor timeless but evolve as different groups gain influence (Sarkar, 1959; Inayatullah, 2002). Sarkar describes this movement in terms of the recurring dominance of four archetypal classes: the Shudra or Worker, tied to survival and labour; the Kshatriya or Warrior, who asserts power through valor and conquest; the Vipra or Intellectual, shaping ideology, religion, and meaning; and the Vaeshya or Capitalist, whose focus is accumulation and trade.
Each phase brings its own way of seeing truth and authority, leaving a distinct mark on how societies and rivers are understood and governed. Under colonial and capitalist dominance, rivers are cast as resources to be exploited; the scientific–technocratic lens privileges rationality and control, often suppressing myth and memory; while Indigenous traditions emphasize communal care, reciprocity, and spiritual kinship. As class cycles wane, their roles often distort, threatening dharma by disrupting balance. For Sarkar, this pattern is a civilizational diagnosis: the treatment of rivers mirrors the state of collective consciousness—pollution and neglect reflect decline, while reverence and protection mark renewal.
If ontologies are likened to river currents, some may cleanse and others pollute, yet all eventually converge, shaping the wider flow of history. Ontologies, then, must continually evolve to sustain balance, nurturing both ecological integrity and spiritual depth in how rivers are understood.
At the same time, I remain cautious. To compare ontologies risks flattening them—reducing Indigenous, PROUT, Neohumanist, or Sarkar’s spiritual perspectives to neat categories within academic or policy frames. These perspectives are not merely philosophical alternatives, they unsettle dominant paradigms, mend fractured ways of knowing, and point toward pluriversal futures grounded in reciprocity, interconnection, and care.
When the River Speaks Back
But what if we reframed the view? What if cities are no longer the rightful custodians of rivers? What if reimagining futures means decentering the city envisioning instead river-first cosmologies, where the river is not an object to be studied but a subject to be engaged in dialogue? What might such a shift reveal about the city that surrounds it? What if our research moved to the rhythm of river time—its flow, its pauses, its cycles of change? How does the river meet your body, your movement, your identity, your memory? And what must we unlearn, heal, and re-relate to restore or perhaps to realize our river of dharma? The question becomes deeper: which ontologies liberate rivers, and which ones continue to subjugate them?
In Sarkar’s view, rivers are considered sentient manifestations of living energy. They are not mute nor inert backdrops of cities or civilization. To say the river speaks is not merely poetic or metaphorical rather it articulates an emerging regenerative epistemology, one that invites us to listen to rivers as agents of meaning and guides for regenerative governance and design. This aligns with the Civilizational City Model derived from the CLA analysis above, where polycentric councils and river commons institutionalize relational ways of knowing. The river speaks if we choose to listen for example by interpreting hydrological patterns, biodiversity changes, and community narratives as the river’s forms of expression.
Practically, emerging cases demonstrate how this epistemology is being explored. The Superflux project “Nobody Told Me Rivers Dream” investigates ecological and embodied intelligence in rivers through large language models, ecological wisdom, and Indigenous knowledge, suggesting how technology might deepen rather than diminish our dialogue with nature (Anab Jain, 2025). This emerging intersection of AI, art, and ecology begins to reconfigure perception flipping our relationship with rivers and expanding how we sense, know, communicate and imagine them.
Similarly, in Aotearoa New Zealand, the Whanganui Māori recognized the Whanganui River as a legal person with the rights, powers, and duties of a human being. For the Whanganui iwi, the river possesses both physical and spiritual properties with its own personality, consciousness, and life force. Their declaration, “I am the river, the river is me,” embodies a relational ontology that challenges Western dualisms separating humans from non-humans and the belief that the river’s voice is inaudible to us (New Zealand Geographic, 2024). In this worldview, communication with rivers is not metaphorical but embodied, an exchange rooted in kinship, care, and reciprocity.
Conclusion
Rejuvenating our future through rivers involves aligning our consciousness with dharma—a moral, spiritual, and ecological framework long obscured by commodification and exploitation. Informed by Sarkar’s perspective, PROUT principles, and Neohumanistic spirituality, this article urges a fundamental shift in how we approach river–city interactions. As I contemplate the river of dharma, it dawned upon me that it is not the river that flows through the city, but rather the city that resides are nurtured within the womb of the river. In this context, Sarkar reminds us that every civilization begins and ends with water, and to forget this is to forget ourselves and our existential purpose.
The ontologies presented here trace a critical terrain where contestation and possibility converge. Sarkar’s ontology integrates these strands, framing rivers as civilizational agents that shape both material and spiritual evolution. These ontologies are not only conceptual; they are also directional. They influence our collective imagination and shape the context of our conversation that forms public policy, innovation, strategy and governance. The river futures we envision will flow along the currents of the ontologies we embody. Sarkar reminds us that all ontologies are products of their time, continually evolving and that ontological healing is, in essence, also civilizational repair.
As scholars, our role is not merely to compare these ontologies without bias but to consider, as citizens and advocates on which ontologies could free the river, and which repress it, which meanings guide us toward dharma, and which lead us astray into adharma. The river does not simply flow before us—it courses through us. As Sarkar might remind us in one of his Dharma Cakra (DC) gatherings, a socio-spiritual assembly and dialogue, to respect the river is to nurture life itself.
Acknowledgements
My heartfelt gratitude goes to the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia, and the UNESCO Chair on Anticipatory Governance and Regenerative Cities at Northwestern University, Philippines, for their invaluable support in making this work possible. I am especially thankful to Marcus Bussey, Sohail Inayatullah, Judelyn Cruz, Ferdinand Nicolas, and Liza Nicolas, whose guidance, support and commitment to building sustainable and transformative futures have been indispensable to this journey. To my guru, PR Sarkar, for his profound wisdom and enduring inspiration, which continue to guide my path toward service and the pursuit of a more just, creative, compassionate and regenerative world.
References
Allan, J. D. (2004). Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35(1), 257–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.120202.110122
ArchDaily. (2024, April 5). Re-naturalization of urban waterways: The case study of Cheonggye Stream in Seoul, South Korea. ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/1020945/re-naturalization-of-urban-waterways-the-case-study-of-cheonggye-stream-in-seoul-south-korea
Beck, M. W., Claassen, A. H., & Hundt, P. J. (2012). Environmental and livelihood impacts of dams: Common lessons across development gradients that challenge sustainability. International Journal of River Basin Management, 10(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2012.656133
Bussey, M. (2025). Neohumanism, yearning and becoming: Essays on education and spirituality. Neohumanist Education Publications. https://nhepublications.gurukul.edu/product/neohumanism-yearning-and-becoming-essays-on-education-and-spirituality/
Cruz, S. O. (2024). Flowing through time: An epistemological and ontological examination of river futures within urban landscapes. Journal of Futures Studies, 29(2), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202412_29(2).0002
Cruz, S. O. (2025). The tale of three futures: Conquest, reverence or reconciliation? Journal of Futures Studies, 29(2), 77–94. https://jfsdigital.org/the-tale-of-three-futures-conquest-reverence-or-reconciliation/
Dombroski, K., Healy, S., & McKinnon, K. (2018). Care-full community economies for sharing. Community Economies Research Network. https://www.communityeconomies.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/Dombroski%20Healy%20Mckinnon%20Care-full%20Community%20Economies%20for%20sharing_0.pdf
Dubey, A. (2024). Rivers in Vedic literature: Symbolism, significance, and cultural impact. Gyanshauryam: International Scientific Refereed Research Journal, 7(4), 33–38.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers.
Inayatullah, S. (2002). Understanding Sarkar – The Indian episteme: Macrohistory and transformative knowledge. Brill.
Inayatullah, S. (2017). Prout in power: Policy solutions that reframe our futures. Proutist Bloc India Publications.
Inayatullah, S. (2004). The causal layered analysis (CLA) reader: Theory and case studies of an integrative and transformative methodology. Tamkang University Press.
Inayatullah, S., Mercer, R., Milojevic, I., & Sweeney, J. (Eds.). (2022). CLA 3.0: Thirty years of transformative research. Tamkang University Press.
India Geographies. (n.d.). Sacred rivers in Indian culture. India Geographies. https://indiageographies.com/sacred-rivers-in-indian-culture/
Jain, A. (2025). As AI increasingly mediates perception, how might we see the world differently? [LinkedIn post]. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/anabjain_as-ai-increasingly-mediates-perception-how-activity-7379062273266585600–ZhU
Landscape Performance Series. (n.d.). Cheonggyecheon Stream restoration project. Landscape Architecture Foundation. https://www.landscapeperformance.org/case-study-briefs/cheonggyecheon-stream-restoration-project
Lapniten, K. (2021). The river will bleed red: Indigenous Filipinos face down dam projects. Mongabay. https://news.mongabay.com/2021/02/the-river-will-bleed-red-indigenous-filipinos-face-down-dam-projects/
Maheshvarananda, D. (2012). After capitalism: Economic democracy in action. InnerWorld Publications.
McLaughlin Mitchell, S. (2024). Cross-border troubles? Interstate river conflicts and intrastate violence. Political Geography, 111, Article 103109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2024.103109
Moving Rivers. (n.d.). River commons. Moving Rivers. https://movingrivers.org/river-commons/
New Zealand Geographic. (2024). River language. New Zealand Geographic. https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/river-language/
Opperman, J. (2014). A flood of benefits: Using floodplains for climate resilience. The Nature Conservancy. https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/Freshwater/HabitatProtectionandRestoration/Documents/A%20Flood%20of%20Benefits%20-%20J.Opperman%20-%20May%202014.pdf
Pagey, U. (2025). River carves its path. The Economic Times.
Petersen-Perlman, J. D., Veilleux, J. C., & Wolf, A. T. (2017). International water conflict and cooperation: Challenges and opportunities. Water International, 42(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2017.1276041
Pizzorni, M., Innocenti, A., & Tollin, N. (2024). Droughts and floods in a changing climate and implications for multi-hazard urban planning: A review. City and Environment Interactions, 24, Article 100169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2024.100169
Poet Seers. (n.d.). Kabir. Poet Seers. https://www.poetseers.org/the-poetseers/kabir/
Prout Research Institute. (n.d.). About. Prout Research Institute. https://prsinstitute.org/about/
Proutglobe.org. (2013). 1978 India Today interview: P. R. Sarkar. Prout Globe. https://proutglobe.org/2013/08/1978-india-today-interview-p-r-sarkar/
Rafuse, E. (2025). Building community care collectives beyond neoliberalism and capitalism. Public Intellectuals Project. https://publicintellectualsproject.humanities.mcmaster.ca/articles/building-community-care-collectives-beyond-neoliberalism-and-capitalism/
Rao, B. (2008). Sacred rivers of India. Oxford University Press.
Rivers are Life. (2024). River revelries: Celebrating urban waterways through community festivals. Rivers are Life. https://riversarelife.com/articles/river-revelries-celebrating-urban-waterways-through-community-festivals
Sarkar, P. R. (1955). What is this world? In Ananda Marga: Elementary philosophy. Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1959a). Human society (Parts 1–2). Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1959b). Tantra and its effect on society. In Discourses on Tantra (Vol. 2, Electronic ed., version 9.0.21). Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1979). Dynamicity and staticity. In A few problems solved (Part 3). Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1982a). All bask in the glory of Shiva – 2 (Discourse 7). In Namah Shiváya Shántáya. Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1982b). Rivers and civilizations of Bengal – 1. In Bengal and Bengalees (Part 1). Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1982c). The liberation of intellect: Neohumanism. Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1985a). Áṋka to Ád́hya. Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1985b). Gondwana and the river civilizations of Bengal. In Bengal and Bengalees (Part 1). Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1985c). River valley civilizations. In Histories along the way. Ananda Marga Pracaraka Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1986a). River and civilization – Excerpt B. In Shabda Cayanika (Part 8). Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1986b). River and civilizations of Bengal – 2. In Bengal and Bengalees (Part 1). Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1986c). River and civilization. In A few problems solved (Part 5) / PROUT in a nutshell (Vol. 2, Part 9, Electronic ed.). Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (1989). Water conservation. In Ideal farming (Part 2), PROUT in a nutshell (Vol. 4, Part 17) [Compilation], & Proutist economics [Compilation] (Electronic ed., version 9.0.21). Ananda Marga Publications.
Sarkar, P. R. (n.d.). Vibration, form and colour. In Ananda Marga ideology and way of life in a nutshell (Part 4) [Compilation]; Bábá’s grace [Compilation]; Subháśita Saḿgraha (Part 3) (Electronic ed., version 9.0.21). Ananda Marga Publications.
The Quarterly Review of Historical Studies. (1998). The Quarterly Review of Historical Studies, 38, 101. Institute of Historical Studies. https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=WzxQAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
Vazhayil, A. M., & Wantzen, K. M. (2023). Yamuna: A goddess in distress. In K. M. Wantzen (Ed.), River culture: Life as a dance to the rhythm of the waters (pp. 241–260). UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54677/GTGJ9247
Whanganui District Council. (n.d.). Te Awa Tupua – Whanganui River settlement. https://www.whanganui.govt.nz/Community-and-Places/About-Whanganui/Our-District/Te-Awa-Tupua-Whanganui-River-Settlement
Wantzen, K. M., Tharme, R. E., & Pypaert, P. (2023). Life as a dance to the rhythm of the waters: An analysis of current trends and suggestions to restore river culture. In K. M. Wantzen (Ed.), River culture: Life as a dance to the rhythm of the waters (pp. 1–22). UNESCO Publishing. https://doi.org/10.54677/NIGG2511