Showing posts with label states rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label states rights. Show all posts

Sunday, July 10, 2022

America Today and the Spread of Intentional Communities

Hello friends, I have not written a stitch since January this year (2022). Videos have eclipsed writing, or so it might seem these days. Videos are evanescent, however, and require a greater commitment of attentiveness than writing which many people can scan quickly (and then re-read if a deeper interest in the subject is triggered).

There is a video series on Benjamin Franklin by Ken Burns. And the end of Franklin's life, after the Constitution of the United States had at last been ratified by the states, Franklin publishes his views on the compromises that were needed for the states to agree. On the one hand, Franklin acknowledged the value and significance of that document and the intentions behind it; on the other hand, he also acknowledged that the continuation of slavery represented a score that was yet to be settled in achieving the stated goals of American independence.

Thus it is simply a fact that the birth of this nation could only have happened by a delicate balance between the federal government and the states. The consent of the governed is an essential premise in the American system but it is circumscribed by the consciousness of the governed. Democracy works poorly if the citizenry and its leaders are corrupt, selfish, and deeply biased or divided, unwilling to compromise and cooperate. In the face of chaos and paralysis, a natural impulse is to want a strong and authoritative leader. We see this in the history of Rome. We see it today.

China's leader, Xi Jinping, touts the efficiency and material success of his nation on the basis of its authoritarian system. Other nations too, it has been said, are now weakened democracies inclining to favor 


authoritarian leaders. The founders of America acknowledged both explicitly and implicitly that the great American experiment would only work with an educated and somewhat enlightened body politic. If society devolves into violence and conflict, the need for safety, security and authority will obviously arise like a tsunami to inundate personal liberties, freedom of speech and much more. 

One of America's great treasures is its diversity and our acceptance of it. At the same time, the push back in fear and rebellion to that diversity constitutes one of the greatest threats to that diversity. Yet it must be also admitted that this diversity itself may pose, or appear to pose, a threat to freedom if, for no other reason, decision making and consensus is paralyzed. I believe that history and biology suggest that diversity is an advantage and a benefit but the perception that it is a threat is a very real threat in itself.

Humanity faces many objective challenges but the greatest challenge is the personal and subjective challenge of consciousness. Fear triggers a return to more primitive responses of "fight or flight." Too rapid changes in society and on the planet are triggering large scale fear-responses owing to mass migrations, technological change, climate change, and economic insecurity and inequality.

Historically, humanity has lived under brutal and authoritarian conditions of one type or another. So it is natural that that many see centralized authority as the remedy for insecurity or chaos. Though while the middle ground of peace and harmony is certainly yearned for, as a practical reality it's never been hardly more than a dream. I admit that a dream bubble did seem to exist for some Americans for a few years (think 1950's) and it has been somewhat true relative to most of the rest of the nations of the world. But, in any case, this bubble of light, if ever did exist, is rapidly fading into the dusk of increasing civil unrest and divisiveness.

A new paradigm is trying to be born. It could be said to have started with the founding of America but its birth was flawed and contained defects born of the consciousness of its times. It still has a long way to go but its characteristics are increasingly clear, attractive, and recognizable. Its salient features are embedded in the America self-image and include freedom to act, opportunities to realize one's cherished dreams, scope for individual initiative and creativity and acceptance of personal responsibility. These qualities tend to extend into a respect for the rights of others and an inclination to cooperate with others. 

In the history of America the shortcomings of its citizens to manifest these characteristics resulted in struggles around the evils of racism and exploitation. A strong national (federal) response to these shortcomings has been the remedy of choice. Since the end of the Civil War, the power of the central government has grown more or less steadily.

But those very salient characteristics are at odds with a strong central authority. Nationalized solutions to social injustice and inequality have the potential to stifle individual initiative and self-responsibility even if some people feel they keep at bay the extremes of wealth and poverty.

This earth is a school, not a resort or paradise. So nothing I might suggest is intended to be a solution. It is, rather, directional. Based on the insights given to us by Paramhansa Yogananda (and including the wisdom of his guru, Swami Sri Yukteswar, and the views of Ananda's founder, Swami Kriyananda), I believe humanity, led largely by America, is stumbling uncertainly but surely towards manifesting more clearly, if imperfectly, those salient characteristics of individual freedom and initiative.

Individual initiative when guided wisely naturally inclines toward respect and cooperation especially where others of like-mind are concerned. Freedom is infectious; cooperation, rewarding. It is, after all, one way of describing the universal Golden Rule, is it not?

"Left" represents compassion. "Right" represents justice. Compassion should be expressed wisely lest it devolve into enabling the very conditions it seeks to remedy. Justice without compassion favors the status quo. The division between "left" and "right" is a false one, promoted on the basis of ignorance and/or self-interest because, in truth, each have their place and their voice in public and private life.

Nothing can stop the increasing commingling of races, religions and cultures that is taking place in the twenty-first century and no country more than America is experiencing this process at a faster clip. Diversity is here to stay and, as such, will only grow.

What then are its consequences? Diversity can seed innovation and creativity but it can also spread confusion and chaos. The admixture of diverse lifestyles and values might propel some to seek their own "kind." But by "kind" I do not mean the further establishment of ghettos or segregation. Such are physical barriers and such barriers are steadily eroding. Instead, the true "races of humanity" divide along the lines of consciousness, not outward appearance or culture. 

Division of any kind will generate some level of competition or conflict but I'd rather not dwell on that. Instead, my point of emphasis is contained in the fiery words of Paramhansa Yogananda in July of 1949 when, at a Beverly Hills garden fundraising party, he suddenly and inexplicably "sowed into the ether" the prediction that intentional communities would (someday) "spread like wildfire." 

Given that the term "wildfire" is far more threatening than promising (especially in the western states of America, including California where he spoke those words), I have to assume that the spread of communities will come at a time of and as a result of great chaos and conflagration. If this is so, then so be it!

Books have been written on the problems of modern America and the shortcomings of her people. I see no need to emphasize these. Suffice to say, we have lost touch with the simple joys and skills of living in harmony with nature, with one another and with higher values and divine consciousness.

America's resilience and ethos of self-reliance needs to be elevated to include cooperation with one another and cooperation with higher values and consciousness. As the title of a Sunday Service reading at any Ananda temple puts it: "Self-reliance vs self-reliance." We are part of a greater reality. We are not, except by choice or ignorance, separate from the world around us, both natural and divine.

The halting progress towards affirmation of individual initiative is occurring in many ways: the internet, for example, is a symbol and a tool for flattening the hierarchy of information (admittedly also spreading false information); education, of course has been the symbol of progressiveness since the 19th century; the paralysis, indecisiveness and corruption of values of the central government is pushing the pendulum of power back to the states in a motion reminiscent, for better or worse, of the days of the Constitutional battles. Even smaller jurisdictions, like cities, are taking on global issues like climate change. 

The individual is the key to change. Intelligence alone, whether artificial or rational, is not enough. Inspiration and courage, linked with intelligence and reason, are crucial.

De-centralization coupled with voluntary cooperation will be the gold standard of future civilizations (living up to the name of "civil"). It will take centuries for this new paradigm to emerge clearly and successfully, though it will always be imperfect.

But small intentional communities will be the basis for this shift in human consciousness in the direction of increasing awareness. The path however is strewn with the brambles of war, famine and catastrophe: the necessary price of progress given human consciousness at this time. Those of us with the prescience to "do it now" will silently serve many to come and in the process bring to ourselves an aura of magnetic protection. 

Such communities will run the gamut of form and spirit but the Ananda communities are inspired by Paramhansa Yogananda whose powerful words that day in July 1949 have prompted us to declare Yogananda the "father" of the communities movement. The higher the ideals upon which a community is founded and more vigorously its adherents strive toward them, the greater will be its impact. Ananda communities are based on prayer, meditation and service and are guided by principles of cooperation, respect, simplicity and moderation. 

But whether social, ecological and/or spiritual, the spread of communities is just beginning and, to quote the words of a children's' song, "Nothing can stop my progress."

Ever-new,

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