Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Can Yoga Trump Politics?

Well, it seems America has safely got past both political parties' conventions. What a time we live in! The voices of America are at fevered pitch, shouting irrational imprecations from all sides. It seems the Western world is having a spasm of liberal regrets; our egalitarian principles strained under the dark clouds of fear, envy, violence, and hatred as if uninvited "guests" are attempting to crash the gates of a formerly decorous and homogeneous "party." The civil niceties of public debate, once secure in white shirts and club ties, have abandoned themselves to the jostling rainbow crowd! (ok, a slight exaggeration: democracy has always been messy, noisy, and rancorous!) Globalism, once the great "white hope" of liberalism (free trade, freer movement of peoples) is now under attack for it is seen to benefit the few at the expense of the many and at the cost of legitimate national interests.

A yogi is committed to the summons of Patanjali (of the "Yoga Sutras") to seek the calm center within: where likes and dislikes, opinions and emotions, subside into the bliss beneath all seeming.

On the left, the yogi finds "ira" (the upward moving channel in the astral spine--associated with inhalation) which can be expressed outwardly, as the power of love and compassion; on the right, the "pingala" channel (downward moving away from outward involvement--cause of the exhalation), expressing non-attachment and acceptance of the law of karma! Mercy and justice: two sides of a coin. 

What's a yogi to do?

Paramhansa Yogananda aligned himself with the (political) party of Abraham Lincoln! He declined to express his thoughts, except as "concerned," regarding FDR: the father of social security, progenitor of how government can help people in need, and, in later decades, manifested as Welfare entitlements; more recently, Obamacare! Yogananda put it this way (as many have also): while it's fine and good to feed someone hungry, it is better to give him a job and better yet an education.

Jesus Christ, too, actually said these words: "The poor ye shall have always...." Yet the Bhagavad Gita avers that the yogi feels "the pangs of sorrow and joy of all men." When Jesus Christ stated that "those who have, more will be given; to those with little, what they have will be taken away" one might think his words were a plank in the Republican platform! In all fairness, yet apropos in any case, is Paramhansa Yogananda's explanation for Jesus' strange sounding words: those who put out energy will receive energy back in spades; those who do not, will lose what little they have. Or, as one hears so often with a twang and a smile, "Da Lord helps dems who helps demselves!"  And Jesus also said that as often as we feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, etc. we do it to Him!

How, ever, can a yogi reconcile these seemingly opposite principles and precepts?

Life would be unbearable if we did not believe in and understand the law of karma: cause and effect. If one cannot believe that he can improve his life, he will sink into despair. Spiritually as well as materially, one must put out the effort and the energy to lift ourselves. Even if, in the end, and in response to our efforts, help comes from "above" (whether divine or governmental), no one can put us through school against our will; no one can make us healthy against our will; no one can do an excellent job except ourselves. The cycle of initiative creates a magnetism that draws a universal and supportive response--from whatever source(s). This is the basis for yoga (and meditation) itself. [Dogmatic Christians sometimes excoriate yoga practice as being presumptuous citing St. Paul, "Not by works alone...but by grace." Common sense and experience show us, however, that by our efforts we can attract success: material AND spiritual!]

And thus we find (yet again and again), how the truth lies, often hidden, in the middle. The art of compromise is the art of life itself. Mercy and justice must, like Queen and King, rule together the kingdom of the body politic.

The party lines of both parties have their own, internal justifications, even as they possess their own delusive, unexamined biases or agendas. On just a few of the issues being shouted consider such pairs of opposites as:

America, as any other country, must have control over who enters it. Yet we benefit from the influx of other peoples. At the same time, and given the chaos and hatred in the world, we surely have a right to exclude those who intend or would do us harm.

In the past two centuries, successful groups of immigrants have integrated into the culture of America by learning our common language and respecting and integrating some of our (better) customs even as they honor and preserve their own.

Other industrialized countries surely by now, a half century after the last world war, and decades after the so-called "fall" of communism, ought to contribute to the cost of their own defense (assuming they do not, for I don't really know the facts.)

America's many adventures into places like Vietnam, central America, Afghanistan, and the Middle East have been less than successful and too often self-serving, peppered with the all-too-often corruption of values that war provides opportunities for. Even if you believe that we "meant well," violence begets violence and should be employed sparingly and with mercy. That we have ignited a push back, and even hatred, in playing the "Great Game," is hardly surprising.

Examples of what I view as our past mistakes (owing perhaps to our hubris, naivete, or hidden, self-serving motives) include: while it was our duty to track down Osama Bin Laden, did we really have to take on the Taliban (we still haven't won that war); Saddam Hussein! What a tragedy that under the guise of "weapons of mass destruction" we convinced ourselves (as a nation and our entire Congress) to go after the guy. Countless, endless and continuing suffering has been the result. Never mind the billions or trillions of dollars of added national debt. Was this adventure to finish what the (then) president's father didn't? Was it to secure oil that subsequent years have shown we don't actually need?

Vietnam, as with Iraq, Afghanistan and other adventures, had for its failing that the locals didn't want our "help" (destroying their country and their people). In most cases, in fact, they haven't "deserved" being rescued, having their own scores to settle with each other. Yes, it's hard to watch others suffer under corrupt regimes, I agree.

Communism fell for three reasons: one, the West had the strength to confront it on its own terms, making war a poor choice for both sides; two, our very prosperity and freedom (our ideals) are in tune with righteousness and with the age in which we live and thus proved far too magnetic; and three, it was based on false (and godless) precepts. If we had applied these principles to contain and confront the injustices of Saddam, Bin Laden, Ho Chi Minh and others, while yet offering an attractive alternative to their suffering peoples (providing aid, refuge, education etc.) we would have won the only thing worth winning: people's hearts and minds.

Of course we must defend ourselves from those who hate and who attack us, yet have we examined honestly the reasons we are so hated? On the other hand, do not the peoples of other nations vote with their feet in wanting to come here, even if they, like ourselves, take issue with the political or military past actions or policies of our country?

And yes, Hillary, we should be hopeful and positive! Our nation and its ideals give to us strength in righteousness, prosperity in our creative energies, and joy in our freedoms. "Greatest nation on earth" is rather boastful for my tastes, but the influence of America, for better or worse, upon the rest of the world is undeniable. The lure of success and freedom is irresistible. These are our strengths. We should live them here at home, first; their example is, and has always been, the beacon of light and hope to others. But they, like we, must earn their freedom by their own self-effort.

I prefer compassion over the strict justice of karma but I question how much and how long western societies can offer extensive and liberal safety nets and entitlements in the face of the energy, creativity, and ambitions of other nations who are "coming up" and who, as a result, are equalizing prosperity around the world. Our standard of living is, so I am told and so it seems to me, declining as that of other nations is rising. It all has to balance out (to zero). Do entitlements help people or do they force a resented dependency upon them?

I'm certainly in favor of the idealistic society that enjoys prosperity and health for all but the question here is the issue of "idealistic." How productive must an economy be to afford the "ideal" safety nets? Even if it were to be achieved, would the result itself prove to be "idealistic?"

You see, in the final analysis, it is not governments that create a prosperous, secure, and healthy society, but individuals: their hard work; creativity; initiative and ability to work together for the common good. Government acts as a moderator and fulcrum that provides protection, justice, and balances the seemingly opposing interests of people or groups of people with shared interests. (Think the classic capital vs labor!)

If a nation becomes so materially successful that it can offer the perks of universal health care and guaranteed minimum income, well, fine but these things, like personal health, are never guaranteed and must never eclipse self-effort and personal responsibility for one's life. 

And, they have their own cost. Becoming dependent on government largess and the promises of politicians is a recipe (long-term) for revolution: for passivity breeds resentment and there is no joy in it beyond going to sleep or enjoying an uneasy comfort. By contrast, initiative, even in the face of hardship or disadvantages, may take courage and commitment, but in putting out energy for self-improvement we experience confidence, satisfaction and joy. I remember an Ananda T-shirt years ago with the slogan: "Energy and Joy go Hand in Hand."

As a yogi for whom the lessons of India's beloved scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, is taken to heart one of its initial precepts is that we must fight the "battle of life." Sublimating our lower, passive nature into an upward flow of energy towards Self-realization: this is the hue and cry of Krishna to those waking up to life's realities. It's message does not include pretending we can attack everyone else's injustices around the world using brute force.

Returning now, for a moment, to the current elections, we yogis do not separate the "energy," the intention, or the consciousness of the individuals who seek to represent us from their stated aims. The message cannot be separated from the messenger. The extent to which "the end justifies the means" is forever humanity's dilemma. Voting for character (nobility, compassion, universality, acceptance, intelligence and goodwill) should be the ideal yardstick by which we weigh our minuscule role as voters. Both Republican and Democrat ideals are, in principle, true and worthwhile: each holding the other in check. I'd rather have a president with intelligence, goodwill and integrity, regardless of political affiliation because in our country effective power (I prefer "influence") is subject to checks and balances and requires compromise. 

Life, being by its nature "dual," a mixture of good and evil vying constantly for supremacy, demands that we remain ever awake to do what is right and just, as well as merciful. Would that prosperous nations place more emphasis on helping other lesser fortunate nations even as we protect ourselves from their destructive tendencies. A new "Marshall Plan" would do this ravaged planet some good and there would be work aplenty: from healing nature to healing wounds and educating minds, there is no lack of positive outlets for humanity's creative energies. It is not hunger or ill health that is life's scourge so much as lack of a creative and productive outlets for one's energies. I think of the millions of under employed and unemployed youth worldwide and despair for the lack of opportunities to engage their imagination, creativity and commitment. And yet, there is SO much to be done: reinventing agriculture; enlightened self-interest for business; holistic education; educated and self-care driven health care, nothing less than a revolution in both life style and consciousness awaits the awakening of our courage and wisdom.

Whether donkey or elephant, we must share this nation and this planet and so let's look for the positive and the truth in one another's firmly held precepts even as we commit ourselves to living our ideals. Personalities are but stand ins for the consciousness that animates them.

Joy to you,

Swami Hrimananda


Friday, February 6, 2015

Congressional Gridlock: Is there no solution?

Imagine a group of people gathered together to deal with an important task but who could not decisively agree on any action. What would they do? Assuming going home is not an option, you might say, "Intelligent people compromise." And you would be right, BUT........that's not the reality in the U.S. Congress (or, for that matter, around the world in numerous conflicts).

In the west when faced with decisions we think: "Either-or." In the east, where ratiocination is more intuitive, they are more likely to think: "Both-AND."

On a political decision, one might say, "We must live within our budget and we must leave people to be free to help themselves." Another might counter, "But we must share what we have and help those in need."

Either-or thinking makes no solution possible. Both-and thinking admits that each has a valid point of view and therefore, how can we find a middle path?

If the middle is compromise, well, never mind because it's obvious our Congress isn't inclined to be either rational or open to different points of view.

Is there an ALTERNATIVE? I think so.

What if the both-and (right brain) members of Congress proposed something like: "Let's each try our approach and see how they actually work." "Huh? How?" you ask.

We have what we call "red" and "blue" states, don't we? We also have a long-held premise that grants to the individual states a degree of autonomy and independence. We see that the federal government administers certain laws or policies such as in areas of health and education by parsing out to the states a degree of latitude of implementation, often on a sharing or matching basis (for funds). Well, let's take that a few steps further and have a win-win!

Let's take one extremely controversial and important issue in our country: health care. It's a complicated issue, too, isn't it? What if Congress passed only broad-reaching goals and policies, leaving the red and blue states to experiment with different forms of health care for an experimental window of time (5 to 10 years?). Wouldn't the results of each's approach(es) speak for themselves? It could even just stay that way, assuming it works to the satisfaction of both sides. Simple, well, no, but what is there about health care in this country, including Obamacare, that is simple?

We need creative solutions to major problems. By breaking it down and giving latitude to simultaneously work out independent and locally sensitive solutions, we could all gain by one another's experience.

Our pluralistic society seems to guarantee there's little meaning to the term "majority." Sure, right now the Republicans "control" Congress. But by how much of a margin of percent? A president can, I believe, even win the election with less than the popular majority vote. In any case the margin of winning is almost numerically insignificant in major races and votes. It is most certainly an insignificant reflection of the "will of the people," for the people are clearly divided on most every important matter! Worse still, this is not likely to change in hundred years. Only in the unfortunate event of a major war or other disaster are we likely to have a sufficiently united sentiment on anything nationally.

We must therefore find new ways to accommodate our plurality. We already have long established, at least in principle, and largely in practice, the ability for people and groups of a wide variety of lifestyles and beliefs to accept one another and leave one another in peace. Let's, therefore, extend our cultural gains further. It requires no changes in law; just a change in attitude as to what's possible and good!

Though with less confidence (and less knowledge of the facts), I can at least imagine that even immigration policies could reflect the legitimate needs of individual states. I know that sounds outrageous, but think it through. Why couldn't INS work cooperatively with various states to implement certain policies in a way that takes into account the needs and attitude of a given state and its residents? I think this could be implemented, even if to a limited degree, for the benefit and harmony of all.

At the risk of digressing, consider this: the giant Soviet empire broke apart into smaller units. This trend of fragmentation of the bigger into the smaller is happening all over the world. People want; nay, demand freedom. And this trend is only just beginning. And we started it all!

We certainly don't want another civil war or to divide our nation but we are the world's authority (imperfect as we are) on co-existence, tolerance, respect and compromise. (Sure we have a long way to go, but, heavens, look around at other nations.)

Our strength has been, in part, the recognition by the Founding Fathers of the need for check and balance, and specifically, for the federal government to be held in check by the states. The states have certainly taken a back seat during the 20th century and that was fine, then. But now, the pendulum is swinging back the other way. With the internet, travel, and general other freedoms, we want to do it "our way." We want to "occupy" our space. Yet, our problems are so large, we can't do it only alone. No one state or nation, e.g., can mitigate globe warming, what to mention national issues such as health care, immigration, infrastructure or education.

But if we cooperate, we can do anything! And by cooperation I don't mean "one size fits all." Rather, we need "co-processing power": working together yet also independently. Both-And is NOT the same as compromise. Compromise leaves no one satisfied, often offering pale, limpid solutions instead of bold and creative ones. Rather, both-and says "Let's each be given some latitude to try out our ideas."

In fact, what's staring us in the face, causing some to drool, is the ability of an authoritarian state (yes, China) to get things done! Is THAT what we want? I don't think so.

To preserve our freedom, I would say we have no real choice. Everyone could be a winner and a player with a vested interest in positive outcomes. Most leaders, yes, even in Congress, are sincere but they are deeply divided and benefit from do-nothingness. Pluralism must therefore extend to governance. It's really that simple.

A tall order? No, not really. I think Americans might even be ready for a shift in consciousness in this direction.

Well, a bit far from the subject of meditation and "living yoga," but there you have it. A soap box.

Nayaswami Hriman





Saturday, August 18, 2012

What’s Wrong with Democracy?



Plenty, but no one’s come up with anything better except an improvement in the integrity of both a nation’s people and its leader. And that, in fact, is my subject today.

Yogis talk in terms of duality: the constant ebb and flow and fluctuation between polar opposites. We humans are so accustomed to this that we don’t tend to give it much thought: daytime, nighttime, activity, rest, work, relaxation, sickness, health, war and peace, and on and on. I doubt very few humans step back from this unceasing play to wonder if “There’s something fishy going on here?” Most hope and work for the best and try to get over the worst, but rarely consider that perhaps, in the long run, both good and bad add up to a big, fat ZERO.

What’s this have to do with democracy? Well, nothing, and, well, everything? J My spiritual teacher and friend, Swami Kriyananda (founder of Ananda and by now well known direct disciple of Paramhansa Yogananda, author if Autobiography of a Yogi), has pointed out that no government is necessarily better than the people who run it and the people are governed by it.

Consider (and I’m no historian or constitutional expert) that the original structure of the 13 colonies of America was much more a republic: only certain people could vote and senators were elected by state legislatures. If recall correctly, the electoral college had far more influence and a role than it does today.

“We the people” constituted a great fewer people (in terms of race, gender, and social status) than we consider it to be today in 2012.  In the early decades of democracy many aristocrats (and others) could not believe that the common man could be trusted to have an intelligent and ideal-guided say in his government.

But let us, as Americans, step back and consider some of the glaring shortcomings of our political system:
1.       How many of our voting citizens vote intelligently and with due consideration of all sides of complex issues? How many vote merely upon superficial characteristics of looks, mannerisms, professed religion, race, gender, or party affiliation? How many voters participate as involved citizens at any level (local or national)? How many citizens are blatantly prejudiced in their views? How many of us, checking the boxes on our ballots, have no idea whether so-and-so is the right person?  The biggest fallacy we possess in our country’s self-image is also our greatest strength: a belief in the equality of all people (despite common sense!). In extending the franchise to all, we have simultaneously debased its value.

2.       Democracy turns the majority into the “rule.” Prejudicial treatment of minorities is a plague that roams the earth and haunts democracy at its roots. Protections for minorities are the obvious solution but those protections are ultimately rooted only in the conscience of the majority, as the history of the United States and evolution of civil rights (both laws and attitudes) are a glaring testimony. Just because the majority thinks one way doesn’t make it true, right, moral, or wise. Truth is not something that gets elected. I would go so far as to say most people are wrong (or biased) most of the time, especially where their self-interest is involved.

3.       Leadership requires vision and vision requires both courage and charisma. Since a politician in a democracy must pander to the whims of the voting citizenry, great leaders are rare because the very political process requires one to bow and scrape to moneyed and voting interests. Such interests are, almost by definition, short-sighted, far from “enlightened”, what to mention courageous and self-sacrificing for the greater good of all.

4.       Thus the very concept of “representation” tends to push the expectations towards mutual self-interest and, in the extreme, what is commonly referred to as “pork barrel.” (“You vote for me and I will bring you favors.”) Not wanting to disappoint the expectant rabble, a politician must resort to lies or half-truths, postponing the day of fiscal or other reckoning off past at least the next election, if not the next generation.

5.       Compromise is necessary even between intelligent and high minded individuals, what to mention the diverse plurality of representatives of America’s very wide spectrum of people and interests. The art of compromise suggests a view to long-term goals and an innate respect for others. But the long-term view inherent in maturity and wisdom is itself compromised by the clanging dinner bell of re-election.

6.       Compromise fails, however, when faced with national or international crises, not all of which involve war. Economic crises, trade relations affecting thousands or millions of jobs, global warming, pandemics, nuclear proliferation and any number of countless issues may and do arise that require vision and decisiveness  from those in leadership positions. The paralysis of party politics, always with eye to the popular vote, emasculates the integrity and courage of many a leader and representative. Thus it is that the polarization in today’s politics is oft decried but rarely challenged by elected officials. The result is paralysis in key challenges facing our nation. The ultimate result of making no real decision is that, in time, the decision will be made by other nations, other interests, or objective circumstances — with potentially undesirable results.

7.       But if one is tempted to look with wistful eye upon a benign dictatorship, one doesn’t have to look very far to discover that there aren’t any. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Fearful citizens may cry out for decisive action to quell their fears but in so doing they will unquestionably lose their freedom. The result may even be, either way, rebellion or hardship, and more likely, both.

8.       Thus our so-called democracy vacillates between pandering to self-interest and selling our freedoms in return for security. What we clearly lack in our country today is a practical and personal idealism.

So, where am I going? Is this just a carping session? Well, I mean, is there more to it than that?

Yes, of course. The point is that it is not so much the system of government that determines its effectiveness but the consciousness of the society itself, overall. Now, we yogis would add to the “karma” of the nation, as well. For example, America was founded in a very specific way with a very specific intention and conscious affirmation of freedom for all. However imperfect it was then and has been ever since, the impact of those conscious intentions (courageously expressed against great odds) has been the impetus (read: the “karma”) that has influenced and affected the relative degree of success of this great experiment in democracy. The founders of this country balanced recognition of allegiance to God and to truth with an impersonal and nonsectarian view of that truth. How far we have come from such a bold, expansive, and inclusive faith!
What then are the qualities of leaders and citizens that, in terms of today’s culture, would seem necessary to produce a government and a society that yields the greatest good for the greatest number?

John F. Kennedy said it well and now most famously when he challenged Americans to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Nothing worthwhile and enduring in human lives and history is accomplished without sacrifice and cooperation with others of like mind. Therefore we need to encourage and support leaders who do not flinch from reminding us of this basic truth in life. This means not flinching from difficult choices and challenging facts and circumstances. It means outlining a plan of action that, while subject to the compromise and consensus process inherent in our system of government, nonetheless reveals foresight, courage, and vision. No such plan will fail to challenge entrenched interests or beliefs. The corollary is a citizenry that understands that entitlements, benefits, and so called “pork” must be earned by self-effort and not dispensed like the proverbial free-lunch.

More attention must be given to meritocracy rather than entitlement; to helping others help themselves rather than doling out charity. Charity cannot be legislated. It is gift of free-will from the heart and is best left to those individuals and organizations better suited to expressing and channeling and inspiring such acts. Rather than robbing one set of people (thereby generating only resentment and avoidance, if not evasion) to support another set (who may be tempted, or forced, to accept such charity as a way of life and their own degraded self-definition) let’s inspire and encourage one another (through appropriate tax and social incentives) to be compassionate and to do that which is right to do.

Let specific industries take the lead to form associations for self-regulation. Such oversight must, of course, include government, consumers and labor interests and must be subject to the overall review of legislative and executive bodies. Let us bring decision making from the ivory tower of Washington D.C. down to the level where it is implemented. There can be broad over-arching goals and policies crafted at the national level but their implementation should work with the creativity and dedication of those responsible for executing those policies.

The law of duality requires a balancing of interests, especially between national and local governmental bodies. Some issues in society (health care, energy, transportation, safety, individual rights) demand national policies, but even these can be broad and directional. There application in local settings will naturally vary and will require the creative and positive participation of state and local government, business, non-profit, and individuals.

One of the great strengths and curses of American democracy is the two-party system. Talk about the law of duality, eh? The two parties have a stranglehold on American politics and make a mockery of one-man, one-vote choices.  One should be able to vote on the basis of merit not party. I think some states allow this, but I am not certain how this works, given that none of the party system is incorporated into the Constitution.
What is the meaning of a president and party that wins by a mere 1% or less of the vote? It can’t mean much. If winner takes all we can have government policies that nearly half of the country doesn’t support while the other choice, a coalition government, including a divided Congress, could mean nothing worthwhile is accomplished.

In the end, I cannot help but feel that if the country as a whole is not clear on its direction, it is better to proceed slowly than to push citizens beyond what they can accept. What this means is that external circumstances (economic, e.g.) or nations may force our hand. But, then, that’s the choice citizens have effectively made based on either their indecision or lack of inspired or practical options offered by those seeking public office.

In the case of sharply polarized issues such as, in American life today, gay marriage or abortion, it is similarly incumbent upon a society to move slowly and incrementally, not satisfying anyone, unfortunately, but avoiding unnecessary rancor at least to the extent possible. It takes time for cultures to take on new attitudes. Usually at least a generation or two is needed. Wise leadership leads but doesn’t drive, sometimes even going a step or two backwards, before advancing.

So we have this duality between compromise, which includes incremental change, and decisiveness, which includes a vision for new and fresh directions. “Patience,” it has been well said, “is the quickest route to success.” Democracy is messy and in many ways inefficient. But the key to success in national life is maturity in personal life.

Training in responsible citizenship and leadership should become universal, applied to everyone in general and to elected and public officials specifically. Cooperation should replace ruthless competition as the model in government and business alike. A business can emphasize quality or service, and a politician can emphasize creative solutions. Isn’t this preferable than wasting resources on beating one’s opponent down?

Every public servant should be schooled in the art and science of good government and personal, ethical behavior. The consequences of failure, too, should be clear and transparent. I believe the same should be true, to some degree, to responsible positions in business. Both are a privilege and a responsibility. There should be an element of self-sacrifice for a greater good. Excessive compensation or personal accumulation is anathema to the essence of effective leadership, in any field.

For, you see, it is consciousness that ultimately determines the course and fate of nations and individuals. A lousy political system, yes even a dictatorship, compromised of high-minded, honest, serviceful people will bring greater happiness and prosperity to a nation than a “pure” democracy comprised of selfish, self-seeking voters and elected officials.

Our system is a good as it gets, so far as we can know at this time in history. But a return to universal ideals must be re-affirmed and practically applied.

Blessings to you,
Nayaswami Hriman

Thursday, January 19, 2012


More Government or Less Government? Democrats or Republicans? How About Both-And? Obama, you listening?

Americans are engaged in a great debate. Should the government take an active and larger role in solving our problems, or, should it step aside, pay off its debts, and give people and the marketplace greater scope?

This debate has polarized and paralyzed both the national dialogue and the collective will to deal creatively and boldly with challenges facing our country, and the world.

Distrust and dislike of a central government was layered into the very fabric of our country’s beginnings. But in the over two hundred years since that time we have granted to the federal government powers one would be hard pressed to suppose the founding fathers had in mind.

So in essence we have come to a crossroads: not only in the sheer size and complexity of the challenges we face but in whether we continue on the trajectory of big government leading and protecting us all or whether we go on alone.

My spiritual teacher, Swami Kriyananda, has inculcated in me and thousands the idea of “both-and,” rather than “either-or.” So I’ve come to approach issues with an eye to see how two things which, on the surface seem incompatible, might, in fact, be two sides of the same coin.

On the one hand, the issues we face collectively — such as energy sources (their cost, their impact, their availability), ecological degradation and sustainability, terrorism, trade imbalance, excessive public and private debt, decline in the quality, affordability, and accessibility of education, cost and access to affordable health care, just to name some of more obvious ones — require national (and even international) consensus and will to address on the level and with the magnitude sufficient to enable change, while, on the other hand, our central government is more or less bankrupt, inefficient, and by definition, heavy handed because so big and so tangled with special interests.

In addition, many people, left and right, recognize that creative solutions come from individuals or small groups of people working cooperatively together. Government-imposed one-size-fits-all ends up pleasing no one and annoying everyone.

We are hard upon the horns of a dilemma whose origins lay in the shift of consciousness taking place on our planet today. (I say “today” but this has been an evolving and shifting process: two steps forward, one step back, another step sideways.)

We see the debate spilling into the very symbol of the level playing field towards which this shift is moving: the internet. Control and censorship of the internet by governments of east and west (north and south) is attacking the heart of the freedom of information and self-expression symbolized by the internet.

We see in the U.S. Congress the paralysis resulting from a minority holding a majority hostage. In other circumstances based on democracy the fear is that the prejudice of the majority tramples upon the legitimate interests and rights of minorities!

A new paradigm is needed if the deadlock between the power of institutions and the freedom individuals is to be broken. I’m not saying there’s some silver bullet here but the shift in consciousness will continue and if wholesale chaos and destruction and suffering is to be minimized (it will not likely be avoided), something must “give.”

In the “Occupy” movement taking place around the world we see this struggle quite visibly: we see how a small number of people have the power to bring down an entire government; we see how entrenched institutions respond brutally to protect their interests with no regard for the rights and safety of individuals.

The bigness that is rich and powerful is, for its very bigness, vulnerable. Great changes in world history have always been initiated by small groups of people whether in science, the arts, religion, business, or politics.

How then do we accommodate the bigness that is needed to solve big problems and the individual initiative which is the real source of creative solutions? One way of expressing the both-and principle as a solution is see and support what is in fact a reality: the steady move away from competition and towards cooperation. Cooperation requires the willingness and ability to see reality from another point of view other than your own. It is the ability to see that self-interest can be expansive and that “narrow self-interest” is, indeed, just that: constrictive and self-defeating. It is the ability to think long-term and not just short-term.

America is at the cross roads of long-term vs. short-term. And solution is both-and, because what is good for us long-term is in fact good for us short-term. We here complaints that responsible ecological behavior is bad for jobs and that unsustainable ecological policies and practices is bad long-term policy. We need to learn to think more expansively than that. We can look for the job potential, for example, in industries and jobs related to sustainable practices. That idea is not new but it has been slow to be accepted, thus far.

Much of the impulse for big-government solutions would be transmuted if smaller groups (governments, business, organizations, and individuals) would participate in cooperative solutions, with some latitude to creatively apply the general solution to their own environments or regions. In this way government doesn’t necessarily have to get “bigger” but work “smarter” by working together with others.

National policy on, say, health care can achieve broad consensus and direction at the national level, setting overall goals and parameters but leaving the next level of particulars to the next level, presumably states. In many ways this has been going on for years, but not necessarily consciously, consistently or with harmony.

But while all of this thus far seems sensible (I hope it does to you!), what defeats progress in the realm of the body politic is the heat of self-interest generated by the desire for re-election and the popularity and money-driven process we call democracy.

Now I’m not about to suggest a benign dictatorship, so just relax. But our body politic needs leaders who will re-affirm the importance of dialogue, compromise and respect for differing views.

I don’t care for the fact that a vocal minority in Congress, strident with their own and evidently unrealistic and impractical ideology can hold the nation hostage in the face of such challenges and crises. But I don’t know enough about the details of the elective process or congressional decision making to suggest anything meaningful.

But I do sense that there is a large body of citizens who find the paralysis frustrating and the negativity distasteful. To citizens of intelligence and goodwill who want to see our country express its fundamental ideals and creative energy there is the “strong arm” of voting and participatory action that can flex its economic and idealistic muscle in steering the political debate towards compromise and positive action.

While I’ll never be a presidential advisor, and while I have the luxury of an opinion without the responsibility of bearing the consequences of it, I would, if asked, suggest our current president (President Obama) be the magnanimous one to make whatever concessions are necessary to pass legislation appropriate to the national issues we face.

If the public finds the result weak-willed he can obviously blame those who diluted his own stated goals and objectives in order to accomplish the compromise. The naysayer minority can crow if their modifications achieve success as they claim. But if not, they will have to take the blame. And if it works, we should all rejoice, for that is process we call democracy.

Someone “up there” has to act like a grown-up. Someone has to act in a mature way. Let re-election be based on those who serve national not merely local or narrow self-interests. If I am defeated because I didn’t bring back enough pork, then, g-darn-it, I don’t want your vote or the job!

This leads us to what motivates those seeking public office: again, we have to return to our ideals: public service, not self-interest. Why have we for so long tolerated or winked at the unethical and often immoral behavior of people in power? Is it because they “buy us off” with pork?

Ironically, here is both-and again because serving the public interest is, and I believe provably can be, the means by which our representatives can find themselves elected time and again. It’s the down and dirty pork politics that causes the voters to waffle and throw the bums out and replace them with new bums.

None of this can happen without inspired and moral authority and leadership. As distant as that may seem, there are many such individuals in our country. They are simply not recognized or supported. And where does this come? From the grass roots. This is where faith groups and similar groups of people with high ideals should speak and act.

You can see that it is a “vicious” (or “victorious”) cycle: leadership effects individuals and individuals draw out quality leadership. Yes, you guessed it: both-and.

It’s like thinking big with your feet firmly on the ground. Stand tall and you can for miles. It’s not that difficult but we need to have “eyes to see, and ears to hear.”

For much of our country's relatively brief existence, we've made the cultural error of holding fast to the mantra of self-interest (think Adam Smith) but seeing it too literally and too narrowly. The idea that each person acting out of self-interest is some kind of self-adjusting “mechanism” bringing the greatest good to the greatest number is flawed unless we understand that “self-interest” means “expansive” (or “enlightened” and intelligent) self-interest. Both-And.

Blessings,

Nayaswami Hriman




Tuesday, December 28, 2010

A New Year is Upon Us!

A New Year is soon upon us. In my life, celebration of New Year's Eve has never been of particular interest to me. Nor yet New Year's resolutions. (I go for slow, steady, and sustainable when it comes to lifestyle choices--generally, anyway.)

Perhaps you, too, however, feel that this year, 2011, is not one to be as casual about. I feel a sense of urgency about my personal life and about the world around us. For me, personal life includes the Ananda Community where I live and the activities and things we do here.

In general what I feel is needed is strength and commitment. Our nation, as a whole, has wandered (many feel), adrift from its principles and sinking in a soup of diversity, differences, and conflicts of opinions and lifestyles. Ok, so this will probably always be true. But, not always.

There have been times of crises, threat, or celebration in which even this great nation of diversity has spoken, united in a cause, feeling, or direction. (A small victory in this direction, considered as such even with those who didn't agree with the action taken, was seen in the recent flurry of productive activity undertaken by our "lame duck" Congress.)

But this sense of "We need to get things done" I hope and pray may spread throughout our nation and, cooperatively and harmoniously, with others around the world as well. For me, and that's as much as I can handle, I want to make this New Year's something meaningful. I've never in my life felt this way about New Year's resolutions.

I see the need around me for standing up for what's right; for rising above our own troubles and problems, our smallish likes and dislikes; and, participating in relationship with others of like mind irrespective of personal convenience. As a life cycle "thing," and being now 60 and surrounded by much the same, the temptation is to fuss about one's aches and pains, regrets and affirmations of personal limitations.

But regardless of life cycle, the time in our nation and on our planet is for bold, courageous, and creative action in cooperation with others. Ironically, cooperation, not unlike its more limiting cousin, consensus, can easily work AGAINST getting anything done. But on this planet with the challenges we face, there simply is no choice. We can't (and shouldn't even try) to FORCE others to conform or shape up, neither by legislation nor by coersion.

As I said at our Christmas banquet to those assembled, I think the time has come for cooperative, intentional communities to be more visible as examples of a new way to live. The crushing forces of globalism and the paralyzing mental and emotional impact of being aware of the suffering of others all around the planet, require (and inspire) us to take meaningful, personal action to exercise the muscle of will power and personal initiative lest we fall into a pit of despair or inertia.

So, for each of us, I encourage you to take seriously the opportunity of New Year's to reflect and to commit to personal self-improvement activities, and to cooperation with others of like mind to express your idealism. Paramhansa Yogananda encouraged his disciple (and Ananda's founder) Swami Kriyananda to "Make your ideals practical." America has a solid and positive history of community involvement, giving, and high ideals.

As a nation we need to affirm and reclaim our ideals and to refine our understanding of the concept of freedom. Freedom is not entitlement; it is responsibility. Voting, for example, means for the good of all and for what is right, not merely what benefits you and your personal interests. Without the guiding light of high ideals made practical by personal action, we will lose our freedom, our intelligence, and our heart expanding compassion for the needs of others.

Blessings and a blessed New Year to all!

Nayaswami Hriman