I've taken a break from writing for a few weeks and this article is a non-sequitur, something my goofy mind threw up to me from below. I made the mistake of catching it and chewing on it, so now I have to spit it out. So, here goes.
I believe I've read somewhere that the first corporations in western history were formed around exploration and commerce, viz., the East India Company and its Dutch equivalent. I believe these, like Sir Walter Raleigh, were given a royal charter or permission to trade in the name of and with the protection of their respective governments (in return for wealth and favor, of course!).
In any case, I know enough about state-chartered corporations to know that corporations exist as creatures of law by the various state legislatures. Corporations are deemed "persons" who can be sued and can sue in turn and do various other "corporeal" acts otherwise reserved for human beings.
Our capitalist culture has some of its philosophical roots in Adam Smith's hypothesis that individual self-interest operates for the good of all. From this comes the idea that competition is a good and efficient mechanism for the allocation of goods, services and scarce resources. An entire genre of behavioral philosophy, culture and psychology was given birth from this premise which was given a mighty push by precepts derived from evolutionary biology, aka, "survival of the fittest." Class warfare and, in general, materialism as the greatest good for the greatest number all owe their social legitimacy to the basic idea that struggle and competition bestow benefits of economic efficiency and prosperity upon society.
Not long ago (2010) there was a United State Supreme Court ruling that more or less lifted the limits previously imposed upon corporations in respect to their contributions to political campaigns. I think it was a free speech question but I assume it is predicated on the legal premise that corporations, are "persons" (and thus entitled to free speech).
Many sincere people around the world are concerned that corporations, especially those that operate in the global sphere, are in a position to outwit the various governments in whose jurisdictions such corporations conduct business. Some larger than many governments and are far more sophisticated, as they can hide resources by moving them around the globe. Many people and groups with whom I have a natural philosophical affinity accuse global corporations of all manner of deceptive practices and environmental neglect. I am not prepared to comment on any specifics and even if I did I would be quoting other people for I have no personal experience or expertise in these matters. In any case, for my point here today, it's not necessary.
What occurs to me is to reflect that the very existence of the corporate form stems from the social contract: which is to to say, from government "fiat." Without the laws that permit these creatures to even exist, they, well, wouldn't exist and wouldn't "enjoy" the benefits of various legal protections, as you and I do.
If therefore we in society are concerned that corporations have gotten too large and too powerful relative to their historical overseer -- the various levels of government -- then we should modify their privileges. We don't need to argue whether corporations are a person or have rights of free speech. We can perhaps reform their capitalist heart in the following manner:
Their power lies in their ability to raise capital on the stock exchanges around the world. Adam Smith's idea of "self-interest" was, I believe, never intended to encourage or praise rapacious or exploitative behavior. No intelligent person of goodwill would have espoused greed an an instrument of social goodwill!
As a man of the Age of Reason (and Enlightenment), I assume he meant (or should have!) "enlightened" self-interest! I think many corporations, at least in America and Europe, try to hold their corporate employees to a decent standard of integrity and enlightened self-interest; some, presumably, only pay lip service to such ideals. (I'm not in a position to know or say more or less than this.)
Local, state, and federal government agencies don't seem to have enough "police" and economic power to balance the global muscle of some of these corporations. Besides, I, for one, would hesitate to give government more power both in principle and for the fact that "buying" of politicians is one of the key forms of abuse of corporate power. I think that in exchange for having access to the capital markets, these self-same corporations can be made to expand their own, internal decision making to include their natural constituencies. Let me explain:
An economic enterprise utilizes capital, natural resources, and labor. (I added resources to the traditional explanation.) Such an enterprise makes an impact upon society and upon the environment as a result of its commercial activities. To pass an ever increasing number and complexity of laws to regulate a corporation's social and environmental behavior seems, to me at least, to operate under the law of diminishing returns.
But what if the very management of that corporation included persons who represented the interests of employees, vendors, the environment, and the consumer? They need not be given shares of stock because they can, by virtue of the regulatory requirements of the capital markets, be given a voting place on the Board of Directors of each corporation. There's no requirement that a member of a board of directors has to own stock in the company.
The agency overseeing the exchange where the corporation seeks to be listed would have to oversee the selection and behavior of the non-shareholder members of the board, but that seems far less onerous and feasible than passing more laws and giving more police power over such corporations, especially when they conduct activities in other countries beyond the reach of our laws.
What if the board of directors of such a corporation were required to have one-third of their number elected by shareholders in the traditional way; one-third elected by a combination of employees (including so-called contract employees otherwise barred from employee status) and vendors (excluding vendors effectively controlled by the corporation); and, one-third representing social interests such as the environment and consumers? (Government is by necessity a regulator. It is not appropriate to have board representation.)
The employee group of directors together with the shareholder-elected board members would appoint the social group. The stock exchange could set standards for the qualifications and relative make-up for the social group and for the process through which employees and vendors are represented. In some corporations environmental concerns are few while others such concerns are great. For some corporations (exporters or financial entities) there may be few real "consumers." A degree of finesse would be required.
Non-shareholder board members would be required to submit annual reports (publicly available) to the stock exchange that discloses their voting record, their investigative and oversight efforts, and their summary of the corporation's success in its relations and impact upon the groups and interests represented. The corporation would be required by the exchange to make some reasonable allowance for the costs of the oversight by these board members (including suitable staff and access to data), just as allowance is provided for the cost of outside financial auditors. (But more than just auditors are needed for, decade after decade, financial auditors have proven themselves ineffective.)
But what about a director's fiduciary responsibility to look after the interests of the corporation? Well, good question! Remember our definition of "self-interest" (the enlightened version, that is)? The "best interests" of the corporation are achieved when the interests of all stakeholders are taken into account and balanced appropriately. Indeed, the support, approval, and goodwill of employees, vendors, and consumers and the health and well-being of neighbors and the environment help ensure the long-term survival and success of the venture. Naturally, compliance with all just laws is a given, though only a baseline, insufficient in itself, for success.
Up until now I believe outside interest groups (like environmentalists) either make a lot of noise with boycotts and media to crash the party of shareholder meetings or they have to acquire blocks of stock (or both). It takes a lot of "noise" to make anything happen in such an adversarial environment. But with this approach as I propose it, each major corporation will be empowered to consider the greater impact of its actions. Bottom line, short-term profits are no profits at all if they amount to thievery of a sophisticated kind. Rewarding a long-term view stabilizes the economy and society as well.
You might object that such otherwise competing interests might paralyze decision making. Yes, that possibility exists but there are some of us who believe that such corporations are already too large and cumbersome. Enlarging the scope of their interests might exacerbate the slowness of decision making and response, but such is the price for due consideration of legitimate interests in a large and publicly held institution of any kind. Let the race go to the swift. It does now, anyway, doesn't it? Innovation seems to come primarily from the lone wolves and small operators. The one has immense resources (and commensurate responsibilities), the other, flexibility, creativity, and swiftness! (Economically, they need each other.)
What about our concept of "private property." Would such a proposal rob shareholders of their financial interests? Why? It is common for corporations to enlist the counsel of all manner of public figures or esteemed business associates to guide them. There's no requirement that board members or officers be shareholders. Such boards in reflecting a wider scope of interests would be in a better position to resist the pressure to reward officers with obscenely high salaries. (While a separate proposal and subject, I don't see why the privilege of access to capital markets doesn't also justify some basic limits on the ratio of officer salaries to rank and file.)
I would imagine that financial exchanges in Europe would be even more inclined in this direction (if they've not done so already). Perhaps also, Japan. China remains a feral nation (why do we pretend, otherwise?), so I doubt they would do anything more than superficial. Nonetheless, the American financial markets alone are substantial enough still to weather this en-lightening-up.
What I am essentially saying is proposing a broader standard of what constitutes success and what constitutes self-interest. The time is nigh. A corporation that takes a balanced and fair approach to considering the well-being of all of those segments of society (employees, vendors, consumers) and the environment it affects is far more likely to survive, flourish and grow. Substituting long-term success for mere short-term profits, profits, as it were, everyone, including the corporate shareholders who stick with it. The line between speculation and investment lies, in no small measure, on the timeline of one's holding period.
Well, that's as much time and effort as I am willing to put into this subject. Perhaps you'll agree or think it's interesting, or goofy, or even a good idea.
Sayonara dear friends and on to more meditative subjects.....
Nayaswami Hriman, CPA
Friday, May 23, 2014
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Spiritual but not Religious? Is Virtue Enough?
My brother Devin says he goes to the Church of Devin! There must be a lot of people like him. For the many intelligent and sincere people like my brother and including Abraham Lincoln, joining a church is a major compromise of one's integrity and spirituality. But then who will claim to be the equal of Abraham Lincoln (or, ok, my brother)?
(Admittedly: it astonishes me how many people -- otherwise seemingly intelligent, at least in other departments of their lives -- who go to church because their parents did, or for no other reason than habit or to simply not rock the boat. I've spoken to adults who search out a church for the simple reason that they now have children and figure they'd better get them off to some church, even if they don't go themselves! But here I'm not concerned about such meager motivations for church affiliation. For such people I suppose it beats hanging out in a bar or doing nothing at all.)
But, I ask you: are there perhaps some among the growing numbers of "spiritual but not religious" whose claim to be spiritual (while yet unaffiliated ) is but a subterfuge for their indifference, or even hypocrisy? What is a claim if untested by the cold light of day? What are mere beliefs if there's no walk to the talk?
For all the compromises and shortcomings to be found among those serving in any given church or faith, are we humans, as individuals, not replete with compromises and shortcomings in respect to our own personally held ideals and self-image? How often do we err in thought, speech or action? Is not the world itself and most human undertakings a compromise with the ideals that inspired them? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!"
Maybe you still think your mother, your partner or your children are perfect, but the rest of us have learned the hard way that most of our loved ones, including ourselves, fall well short of perfection. We've learn to be accepting, including self-accepting; we've learned to compromise in adult kind of ways, holding to harmony as the higher principle than being right or getting what I want.
Indeed, for those of more sensitive awareness and higher moral aspirations, we may come to realize that it is in the cold light of compromise that avoiding anger and disharmony is both tested and the very razor's edge of our opportunity to learn and grow as spiritual beings. It's rarely about what we think a situation is about. It's about harmony, calmness, kindness, compassion etc. etc. It's about letting go of desires, false expectations, judgement and on and on. It's about being able and willing to accept criticism calmly; be willing to look at ourselves; make corrections or amends where necessary and letting go of what others may think about us, right or wrong. It can also be a lesson in how to stand up for a principle or even oneself with calm dignity, without having to strike back or be defensive.
Public service generally and politics specifically teaches its votaries, at least the ones with integrity, this difficult lesson. Accusations of "selling out" must be faced whenever a compromise for the sake of harmony and modest progress is made.
We all know that it would be better if religion were more spiritual; if religions encouraged their members to seek to know and love God through personal prayer and meditation; to serve God in their fellows with a lot less ego and a great deal more humility, seeking to make this world just a little bit better a place to live in. It would be better if religion empowered individuals to establish a personal relationship with God rather than stand between the individual and God. But, well, I could go on, for religion has its faults like the rest of us, just like school, work, or politics.
Thus I say to those who claim higher ground in being "spiritual but not religious" to reflect on whether their position is simply an easier one for the ego; perhaps even a judgmental one; perhaps even somewhat disingenuous: an excuse not to engage and duck the test to see if you, too, can uphold your claim to spirituality when working shoulder to shoulder with others in the religious trenches. If religion isn't spiritual enough for you, why not jump in and help improve it? The greatest spiritual growth is achieved through relationships. Yes, ultimately our relationship to God, but when was the last time God descended to ask your advice? If we are, as the Bible tells us, "made in (His) image," then maybe God could be right in front of you? Maybe we can see what our spirituality really is if we step up and out and serve others in the name of God and truth! What if our aloof friends make fun of us for capitulating? How will we do, then?
No faith, no dogma, no ritual, no religion will be perfect until you are perfect. By that time, it won't matter. The greatest saints and prophets have always upheld and encouraged others by their example to participate in and commit to whatever outer form of spirituality (aka religion) suits their temperament.
Religion, in theory, has much to offer humanity. Religion ought to be showing humanity the high road of ethics, integrity and love for God and love for God in all. That orthodox faiths leave much to be desired is so obvious that it hurts. How many of those who scorn them are willing to contemplate human history and culture devoid of the uplifting influence of religion. (Yes, much suffering has been inflicted by religionists but that's only one side, only one view. It's easier to critique what was done wrong in the past than to imagine "what if.")
I feel blessed to be part of a meditation and communities movement that is free from centuries of religious institutionalism. I am part of the Ananda worldwide spiritual work of kriya yoga meditation, hatha yoga, and intentional communities inspired by one of the twentieth century's most renowned spiritual teachers, Paramhansa Yogananda (and founded by a direct disciple of his, Swami Kriyananda). So if you consider yourself un-orthodox, there are probably some choices for you, too!
I don't have to have Ananda be perfect because I have gained far more spiritually and humanly (is there a difference?) from serving this work for decades than just living on my own in the world, preoccupied with my own desires and my family's needs. I could not have grown or have been inspired by just going to a Sunday Service each week. True, there are far too many with religious vocations who are egotistical, greedy and sometimes worse, but anyone who holds up the few who have failed as a judgment of the many who have tried, is either ignorant or hiding behind their judgment.There have been great saints and selfless devoted workers in the name of religion down through the centuries.
Now, let me admit of another facet of this diamond: "It may be a blessing to be born in a religion, but it is a curse to die in one!" (To die, spiritually, that is.) This saying, from India, also has its place. Many people "die" spiritually in the coffin of their religious beliefs and rituals. They die due to judging others; they die to compassion and kindness; they die to the need for personal inquiry and introspection; they die to the presence of God within. But until one has walked his talk amidst the clash of egos and shortcomings, who can say he has matured sufficiently to absent himself all together from the effort to serve with others spiritually?
The history of humanity reveals our need for others and our innate social nature. By cooperation with others, we can achieve greater safety, prosperity, health and creative engagement. How can this not be also true in the realm of spiritual growth: the human activity we call religion (organized spirituality)? If God is One, and we are children of the One Light, we cannot know God who is All by turning our backs on others and refusing to share and serve that Light.
Common sense and self-honesty would serve the "spiritual but not religious" well; add a dash of humility, too. We can think we are spiritual because we have a vegan diet or see all faiths as the same (disdaining all of them, no doubt, at the same time) while we recycle our compost but haven't lifted a sincere prayer for another person in decades, if ever. Feeding the poor is not a substitute for seeking to know and love God. This is the error too many Western churches have made. Mother Teresa saw her savior, Jesus Christ, in the "poorest of the poor." She wasn't trying to solve the issue of poverty.
In Paramhansa Yogananda's life story, Autobiography of a Yogi, he shares these somewhat "tough" truths in a message to those (both churches and individuals) who think that serving humanity is a substitute for seeking, knowing and loving God first and foremost. Speaking of the woman saint in India, Ananda Moyi Ma, he wrote that she "offers her sole allegiance to the Lord. Not by the hairsplitting distinctions of scholars but by the sure logic of faith, the childlike saint has solved the only problem in human life -- establishment of unity with God. Man has forgotten this stark simplicity, now befogged by a million issues. Refusing a monotheistic love to God, the nations disguise their infidelity by punctilious respect before the outward shrines of charity. These humanitarian gestures are virtuous, because for a moment they divert man's attention from himself, but they do not free him from his single responsibility in life, referred to by Jesus as the first commandment. This uplifting obligation to love God is assumed with man's first breath of an air freely bestowed by his only Benefactor."
A vague belief in God, or being a good person, liking warm puppies, concern about global warming or helping elderly people across the street may be virtuous but it is not spiritual in the sense of one's level of consciousness. Absence of ego, love for God, and upliftment into transcendent states of joy, unconditional love, abiding calmness, and the absence of anger, and the presence of natural moderation and simplicity in one's habits, these are just some of the hallmarks of spiritual consciousness.
The world today needs divine power and inspiration born of the attunement of individuals of courage and commitment channeled into action, into prayer, meditation and devotion. Having a latte on Sunday morning may be pleasant enough, but it will not satisfy our soul's need to "know, love and serve God" (quoting my childhood exposure to the "Baltimore catechism").
And if this fails you, check out the "Church of Devin." I suspect he can use a few followers. :-)
Blessings to all,
Nayaswami Hriman
(Admittedly: it astonishes me how many people -- otherwise seemingly intelligent, at least in other departments of their lives -- who go to church because their parents did, or for no other reason than habit or to simply not rock the boat. I've spoken to adults who search out a church for the simple reason that they now have children and figure they'd better get them off to some church, even if they don't go themselves! But here I'm not concerned about such meager motivations for church affiliation. For such people I suppose it beats hanging out in a bar or doing nothing at all.)
But, I ask you: are there perhaps some among the growing numbers of "spiritual but not religious" whose claim to be spiritual (while yet unaffiliated ) is but a subterfuge for their indifference, or even hypocrisy? What is a claim if untested by the cold light of day? What are mere beliefs if there's no walk to the talk?
For all the compromises and shortcomings to be found among those serving in any given church or faith, are we humans, as individuals, not replete with compromises and shortcomings in respect to our own personally held ideals and self-image? How often do we err in thought, speech or action? Is not the world itself and most human undertakings a compromise with the ideals that inspired them? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!"
Maybe you still think your mother, your partner or your children are perfect, but the rest of us have learned the hard way that most of our loved ones, including ourselves, fall well short of perfection. We've learn to be accepting, including self-accepting; we've learned to compromise in adult kind of ways, holding to harmony as the higher principle than being right or getting what I want.
Indeed, for those of more sensitive awareness and higher moral aspirations, we may come to realize that it is in the cold light of compromise that avoiding anger and disharmony is both tested and the very razor's edge of our opportunity to learn and grow as spiritual beings. It's rarely about what we think a situation is about. It's about harmony, calmness, kindness, compassion etc. etc. It's about letting go of desires, false expectations, judgement and on and on. It's about being able and willing to accept criticism calmly; be willing to look at ourselves; make corrections or amends where necessary and letting go of what others may think about us, right or wrong. It can also be a lesson in how to stand up for a principle or even oneself with calm dignity, without having to strike back or be defensive.
Public service generally and politics specifically teaches its votaries, at least the ones with integrity, this difficult lesson. Accusations of "selling out" must be faced whenever a compromise for the sake of harmony and modest progress is made.
We all know that it would be better if religion were more spiritual; if religions encouraged their members to seek to know and love God through personal prayer and meditation; to serve God in their fellows with a lot less ego and a great deal more humility, seeking to make this world just a little bit better a place to live in. It would be better if religion empowered individuals to establish a personal relationship with God rather than stand between the individual and God. But, well, I could go on, for religion has its faults like the rest of us, just like school, work, or politics.
Thus I say to those who claim higher ground in being "spiritual but not religious" to reflect on whether their position is simply an easier one for the ego; perhaps even a judgmental one; perhaps even somewhat disingenuous: an excuse not to engage and duck the test to see if you, too, can uphold your claim to spirituality when working shoulder to shoulder with others in the religious trenches. If religion isn't spiritual enough for you, why not jump in and help improve it? The greatest spiritual growth is achieved through relationships. Yes, ultimately our relationship to God, but when was the last time God descended to ask your advice? If we are, as the Bible tells us, "made in (His) image," then maybe God could be right in front of you? Maybe we can see what our spirituality really is if we step up and out and serve others in the name of God and truth! What if our aloof friends make fun of us for capitulating? How will we do, then?
No faith, no dogma, no ritual, no religion will be perfect until you are perfect. By that time, it won't matter. The greatest saints and prophets have always upheld and encouraged others by their example to participate in and commit to whatever outer form of spirituality (aka religion) suits their temperament.
Religion, in theory, has much to offer humanity. Religion ought to be showing humanity the high road of ethics, integrity and love for God and love for God in all. That orthodox faiths leave much to be desired is so obvious that it hurts. How many of those who scorn them are willing to contemplate human history and culture devoid of the uplifting influence of religion. (Yes, much suffering has been inflicted by religionists but that's only one side, only one view. It's easier to critique what was done wrong in the past than to imagine "what if.")
I feel blessed to be part of a meditation and communities movement that is free from centuries of religious institutionalism. I am part of the Ananda worldwide spiritual work of kriya yoga meditation, hatha yoga, and intentional communities inspired by one of the twentieth century's most renowned spiritual teachers, Paramhansa Yogananda (and founded by a direct disciple of his, Swami Kriyananda). So if you consider yourself un-orthodox, there are probably some choices for you, too!
I don't have to have Ananda be perfect because I have gained far more spiritually and humanly (is there a difference?) from serving this work for decades than just living on my own in the world, preoccupied with my own desires and my family's needs. I could not have grown or have been inspired by just going to a Sunday Service each week. True, there are far too many with religious vocations who are egotistical, greedy and sometimes worse, but anyone who holds up the few who have failed as a judgment of the many who have tried, is either ignorant or hiding behind their judgment.There have been great saints and selfless devoted workers in the name of religion down through the centuries.
Now, let me admit of another facet of this diamond: "It may be a blessing to be born in a religion, but it is a curse to die in one!" (To die, spiritually, that is.) This saying, from India, also has its place. Many people "die" spiritually in the coffin of their religious beliefs and rituals. They die due to judging others; they die to compassion and kindness; they die to the need for personal inquiry and introspection; they die to the presence of God within. But until one has walked his talk amidst the clash of egos and shortcomings, who can say he has matured sufficiently to absent himself all together from the effort to serve with others spiritually?
The history of humanity reveals our need for others and our innate social nature. By cooperation with others, we can achieve greater safety, prosperity, health and creative engagement. How can this not be also true in the realm of spiritual growth: the human activity we call religion (organized spirituality)? If God is One, and we are children of the One Light, we cannot know God who is All by turning our backs on others and refusing to share and serve that Light.
Common sense and self-honesty would serve the "spiritual but not religious" well; add a dash of humility, too. We can think we are spiritual because we have a vegan diet or see all faiths as the same (disdaining all of them, no doubt, at the same time) while we recycle our compost but haven't lifted a sincere prayer for another person in decades, if ever. Feeding the poor is not a substitute for seeking to know and love God. This is the error too many Western churches have made. Mother Teresa saw her savior, Jesus Christ, in the "poorest of the poor." She wasn't trying to solve the issue of poverty.
In Paramhansa Yogananda's life story, Autobiography of a Yogi, he shares these somewhat "tough" truths in a message to those (both churches and individuals) who think that serving humanity is a substitute for seeking, knowing and loving God first and foremost. Speaking of the woman saint in India, Ananda Moyi Ma, he wrote that she "offers her sole allegiance to the Lord. Not by the hairsplitting distinctions of scholars but by the sure logic of faith, the childlike saint has solved the only problem in human life -- establishment of unity with God. Man has forgotten this stark simplicity, now befogged by a million issues. Refusing a monotheistic love to God, the nations disguise their infidelity by punctilious respect before the outward shrines of charity. These humanitarian gestures are virtuous, because for a moment they divert man's attention from himself, but they do not free him from his single responsibility in life, referred to by Jesus as the first commandment. This uplifting obligation to love God is assumed with man's first breath of an air freely bestowed by his only Benefactor."
A vague belief in God, or being a good person, liking warm puppies, concern about global warming or helping elderly people across the street may be virtuous but it is not spiritual in the sense of one's level of consciousness. Absence of ego, love for God, and upliftment into transcendent states of joy, unconditional love, abiding calmness, and the absence of anger, and the presence of natural moderation and simplicity in one's habits, these are just some of the hallmarks of spiritual consciousness.
The world today needs divine power and inspiration born of the attunement of individuals of courage and commitment channeled into action, into prayer, meditation and devotion. Having a latte on Sunday morning may be pleasant enough, but it will not satisfy our soul's need to "know, love and serve God" (quoting my childhood exposure to the "Baltimore catechism").
And if this fails you, check out the "Church of Devin." I suspect he can use a few followers. :-)
Blessings to all,
Nayaswami Hriman
Friday, April 18, 2014
Death & Resurrection, & Reincarnation; Did Jesus have a guru? Reflections on Discipleship
The new life of Spring teaches us that life persists even in the midst of apparent death. In the winter, many animals drop from sight, and plants and trees appear as if dead. Yet, come Spring, they return. While a strict materialist would likely refuse to draw any conclusion beyond the biologically observable obvious, the rest of us, not so confined to our own mental processes or limited by a self-imposed incarceration, find in this annual cycle, profit for speculation and "hope that springs eternal."
Biologically, there is no death, only recycling of materials. Psychologically, in human lives, we say "the fruit falls close to the tree." This is a reference to the easily observable and frequent phenomenon that our human offspring bear a notable resemblance in form, attitude and action to ourselves. Whether cycles of success or cycles of abuse, the patterns of living tend to repeat, if not strictly or literally, at least cyclically.
However life evolves, it persists, even when destruction and death are cataclysmic, though the latter is infrequent, fortunately. Looking more deeply, it is fair to ask whether the two are related: is the death of one the necessary prerequisite for the birth of the other?
Imagine if humans simply never died. This earth would be a big, big mess, wouldn't it? If Michelangelo still lived today, how would that impact the creativity and optimism of new and struggling artists? Extended families would be like unto small countries. I don't think it would be "pretty." Extend this to all biological forms and well, gee, need I say more? Have I then, not answered the question in the affirmative and satisfactorily?
To achieve success in business, in marriage, in health, in spiritual growth, someone has "to die." Some sacrifice has to be made. Someone gets "crucified." It is the "way." To make one choice means to turn away from a plethora of other possibilities. It cannot be helped and it is necessary.
The crucifixion of Jesus was necessary for his resurrection just as it is for you and I in ordinary life choices. It was not necessary for his spiritual benefit, but for ours: for the example he gave to us. The spiritual path is too narrow for the ego and the soul to walk it together, hand in hand. Yet this is what most religionists and spiritual seekers invariably do. We want it all. Millions practice meditation and read eastern teachings and find great inspiration but few want to have a guru or even understand what that really means.
A case can made (and my guru, Paramhansa Yogananda taught that it is so) that Jesus had a guru: Elijah (Elias in the Greek). It was to Elias that he called out from the cross. It was Elias that he saw on Mt. Tabor in the transfiguration (along with Moses). It's deeper than that. John the Baptist is the reincarnation of Elias (Elijah). It's the in Bible itself. [Read Micah, 5:2; Kings 1 19:9-15; Malachi 4:5-6 and the New Testament story of the the conception and birth of John the Baptist in Luke 1:15-17.] Jesus tacitly acknowledged Elias' reincarnation as John in Matt 11:13-15 and again in 17:10-11. Read and decide for yourself!
The one downside is that when John was asked whether he was Elias, he denied it [Luke 1:21]. Remember, however, that a few verses later [26-27] he said he was unworthy even to tie Jesus sandals! Whether as John, his former life and role as Elijah and guru to Jesus' [Elisha] was veiled from his consciousness or whether he was being purposely humble to support Jesus' dramatic role in history, and thereby evasive, cannot be known from the text itself but his denial stands in sharp contrast to Jesus' own words.
On the one hand millions, perhaps billions, profess to follow the teachings of one of the world teacher teachers (Jesus, Moses, Mohammet, Krishna, Buddha, etc.) , but do so half-heartedly, while many millions of others refuse to do so. One way or the other the teachings and life example of such great and history-changing prophets are crucified whether by indifference, ignorance, or misuse. In part, this is why world teachers must come again and again and into different cultures, according to the needs of the people and their ability to "hear."
Yogananda put it this way: "Jesus was crucified once, but his teachings have been crucified daily ever since."
One of the few books Yogananda recommended was "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas a Kempis. Yogananda said this book is not just the imitation of Christ, "it is Christ."
Instead, the masses prefer sports heroes, politicians, actors, musicians, singers, and fashion celebrities. Such is the general consciousness of our times. Reason alone, and only a little would suffice, suggests that one who seeks spiritual truths and consciousness should seek it from those who have demonstrated they have it!
Jesus' disciples called him "Master" as Yogananda's disciples did. Not because the guru is the master of his disciples but because the guru has achieved self-mastery, even power over objective nature, demonstrated from time to time in the operation of so-called miraculous powers.
Jesus' life was not to show how great he was but how great we could be if we, too, would "follow Me." It saddens me to see so many sincere students of meditation and yoga philosophy dismiss the disciple-guru relationship as irrelevant to and unwanted in their lives. Their meditation practices, however sincere, would bear fruit more quickly were their hearts open to God in human form. How can we profess to be innately, even potentially, divine if we cannot receive divinity more completely in any human form? In describing the role of Jesus, the first Chapter of John declares "As many as received him gave he the power to become the sons of God." We are not different in kind from Jesus, only in the degree of our Self-realization.
As John the Baptist put it for himself and for each of us, "He (Jesus) must increase but I (John) must decrease." The surrender and death of ego are the price for the resurrection of our soul. God takes human form through the souls of those who are "one with the Father." As Krishna put it in the Bhagavad Gita, O Bharata, whenever virtue declines and vice predominates, I incarnate on earth. Taking visible form, I come to destroy evil and re-establish virtue.
Thus the eternal law of death and rebirth find expression in the soul's discarding the cocoon of ignorance and ego to emerge as the butterfly of the soul. The midwife of this rebirth is God in the form of guru who comes to instruct and to transmit the spiritual power to uplift us from the confinement (darkness) of ego consciousness. "Guru" means "dispeller of darkness."
It is through hardship, effort, trial and tribulation that the soul emerges and takes the helm of the ship of its own destiny. No less than any of the best professional or artistic mentors, the guru wants nothing for himself and has everything to give. As in John 10:10: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."
As we celebrate Easter, the promise of redemption and resurrection, and the life of Jesus Christ (and all the masters who sacrifice in returning to human form), let us also willingly carry the cross of ego transcendence and of our own karmic burdens. Let us do so with joy because we know the path leads to freedom. In taking on our soul's task we don't have to wait for a future reward, because in right action we receive the joy of the soul. The so-called crown of thorns is what the ego wears but the same crown, to the soul, is the symbol of its self-mastery and its royalty as a child of God.
Study the lives of the masters and following one whose footsteps resonate with your own, attune your heart, mind and actions to the "imitation of (the universal, omnipresent and immanent) Christ (in human form)." Imitation means service to the guru's work; study of the guru's teachings; fellowship with one's "gurubhais,", and meditation & prayer according to the guru's way. To marry one person is not to hate all others. Loyalty is the path to success in all endeavors and freedom for the soul. No longer must we shout, "My way, or the highway." To each his own, for all true paths lead to the One and we need (and can) only walk one.
Lastly, in contemplating the first anniversary of my teacher's passing (Swami Kriyananda, April 21, 2013), I would add that few souls will have the privilege to meet and follow a living Christ-like guru. It might take many lifetimes of sincere spiritual seeking to gain that blessing. Thus for most of us, the more readily available spiritual teachers must suffice. In this, I and thousands hold as an honor and a great blessing to have known and "followed" (i.e. served with) Swami Kriyananda, founder of Ananda and direct disciple of Paramhansa Yogananda. In India, members of Ananda put together a tribute of gratitude to "Swamiji" and you might find inspiration in viewing it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?
A blessed and happy Easter!
Nayaswami Hriman
Biologically, there is no death, only recycling of materials. Psychologically, in human lives, we say "the fruit falls close to the tree." This is a reference to the easily observable and frequent phenomenon that our human offspring bear a notable resemblance in form, attitude and action to ourselves. Whether cycles of success or cycles of abuse, the patterns of living tend to repeat, if not strictly or literally, at least cyclically.
However life evolves, it persists, even when destruction and death are cataclysmic, though the latter is infrequent, fortunately. Looking more deeply, it is fair to ask whether the two are related: is the death of one the necessary prerequisite for the birth of the other?
Imagine if humans simply never died. This earth would be a big, big mess, wouldn't it? If Michelangelo still lived today, how would that impact the creativity and optimism of new and struggling artists? Extended families would be like unto small countries. I don't think it would be "pretty." Extend this to all biological forms and well, gee, need I say more? Have I then, not answered the question in the affirmative and satisfactorily?
To achieve success in business, in marriage, in health, in spiritual growth, someone has "to die." Some sacrifice has to be made. Someone gets "crucified." It is the "way." To make one choice means to turn away from a plethora of other possibilities. It cannot be helped and it is necessary.
The crucifixion of Jesus was necessary for his resurrection just as it is for you and I in ordinary life choices. It was not necessary for his spiritual benefit, but for ours: for the example he gave to us. The spiritual path is too narrow for the ego and the soul to walk it together, hand in hand. Yet this is what most religionists and spiritual seekers invariably do. We want it all. Millions practice meditation and read eastern teachings and find great inspiration but few want to have a guru or even understand what that really means.
A case can made (and my guru, Paramhansa Yogananda taught that it is so) that Jesus had a guru: Elijah (Elias in the Greek). It was to Elias that he called out from the cross. It was Elias that he saw on Mt. Tabor in the transfiguration (along with Moses). It's deeper than that. John the Baptist is the reincarnation of Elias (Elijah). It's the in Bible itself. [Read Micah, 5:2; Kings 1 19:9-15; Malachi 4:5-6 and the New Testament story of the the conception and birth of John the Baptist in Luke 1:15-17.] Jesus tacitly acknowledged Elias' reincarnation as John in Matt 11:13-15 and again in 17:10-11. Read and decide for yourself!
The one downside is that when John was asked whether he was Elias, he denied it [Luke 1:21]. Remember, however, that a few verses later [26-27] he said he was unworthy even to tie Jesus sandals! Whether as John, his former life and role as Elijah and guru to Jesus' [Elisha] was veiled from his consciousness or whether he was being purposely humble to support Jesus' dramatic role in history, and thereby evasive, cannot be known from the text itself but his denial stands in sharp contrast to Jesus' own words.
On the one hand millions, perhaps billions, profess to follow the teachings of one of the world teacher teachers (Jesus, Moses, Mohammet, Krishna, Buddha, etc.) , but do so half-heartedly, while many millions of others refuse to do so. One way or the other the teachings and life example of such great and history-changing prophets are crucified whether by indifference, ignorance, or misuse. In part, this is why world teachers must come again and again and into different cultures, according to the needs of the people and their ability to "hear."
Yogananda put it this way: "Jesus was crucified once, but his teachings have been crucified daily ever since."
One of the few books Yogananda recommended was "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas a Kempis. Yogananda said this book is not just the imitation of Christ, "it is Christ."
Instead, the masses prefer sports heroes, politicians, actors, musicians, singers, and fashion celebrities. Such is the general consciousness of our times. Reason alone, and only a little would suffice, suggests that one who seeks spiritual truths and consciousness should seek it from those who have demonstrated they have it!
Jesus' disciples called him "Master" as Yogananda's disciples did. Not because the guru is the master of his disciples but because the guru has achieved self-mastery, even power over objective nature, demonstrated from time to time in the operation of so-called miraculous powers.
Jesus' life was not to show how great he was but how great we could be if we, too, would "follow Me." It saddens me to see so many sincere students of meditation and yoga philosophy dismiss the disciple-guru relationship as irrelevant to and unwanted in their lives. Their meditation practices, however sincere, would bear fruit more quickly were their hearts open to God in human form. How can we profess to be innately, even potentially, divine if we cannot receive divinity more completely in any human form? In describing the role of Jesus, the first Chapter of John declares "As many as received him gave he the power to become the sons of God." We are not different in kind from Jesus, only in the degree of our Self-realization.
As John the Baptist put it for himself and for each of us, "He (Jesus) must increase but I (John) must decrease." The surrender and death of ego are the price for the resurrection of our soul. God takes human form through the souls of those who are "one with the Father." As Krishna put it in the Bhagavad Gita, O Bharata, whenever virtue declines and vice predominates, I incarnate on earth. Taking visible form, I come to destroy evil and re-establish virtue.
Thus the eternal law of death and rebirth find expression in the soul's discarding the cocoon of ignorance and ego to emerge as the butterfly of the soul. The midwife of this rebirth is God in the form of guru who comes to instruct and to transmit the spiritual power to uplift us from the confinement (darkness) of ego consciousness. "Guru" means "dispeller of darkness."
It is through hardship, effort, trial and tribulation that the soul emerges and takes the helm of the ship of its own destiny. No less than any of the best professional or artistic mentors, the guru wants nothing for himself and has everything to give. As in John 10:10: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."
As we celebrate Easter, the promise of redemption and resurrection, and the life of Jesus Christ (and all the masters who sacrifice in returning to human form), let us also willingly carry the cross of ego transcendence and of our own karmic burdens. Let us do so with joy because we know the path leads to freedom. In taking on our soul's task we don't have to wait for a future reward, because in right action we receive the joy of the soul. The so-called crown of thorns is what the ego wears but the same crown, to the soul, is the symbol of its self-mastery and its royalty as a child of God.
Study the lives of the masters and following one whose footsteps resonate with your own, attune your heart, mind and actions to the "imitation of (the universal, omnipresent and immanent) Christ (in human form)." Imitation means service to the guru's work; study of the guru's teachings; fellowship with one's "gurubhais,", and meditation & prayer according to the guru's way. To marry one person is not to hate all others. Loyalty is the path to success in all endeavors and freedom for the soul. No longer must we shout, "My way, or the highway." To each his own, for all true paths lead to the One and we need (and can) only walk one.
Lastly, in contemplating the first anniversary of my teacher's passing (Swami Kriyananda, April 21, 2013), I would add that few souls will have the privilege to meet and follow a living Christ-like guru. It might take many lifetimes of sincere spiritual seeking to gain that blessing. Thus for most of us, the more readily available spiritual teachers must suffice. In this, I and thousands hold as an honor and a great blessing to have known and "followed" (i.e. served with) Swami Kriyananda, founder of Ananda and direct disciple of Paramhansa Yogananda. In India, members of Ananda put together a tribute of gratitude to "Swamiji" and you might find inspiration in viewing it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?
A blessed and happy Easter!
Nayaswami Hriman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)