Monday, May 26, 2014

Elements of Meditation: What You Need to Know (and Do)!

I have just completed leading this year's Meditation Teacher Training at the Institute of Living Yoga (part of Ananda Sangha in Bothell, WA). Many insights flow from nearly fifty hours of in-class practice and discussion of meditation among those who meditate. So it seems fitting to offer some basic thoughts about meditation. There are so many techniques that it can be overwhelming. I will attempt to summarize the process in its own natural flow from physical, mental to spiritual or, described slightly differently, from relaxation, to focus, to expansion of consciousness.

The Goal. It's so easy to be so caught up in the details of a meditation technique and routine that we forget the goal.

1.    Physical. To relax and retreat and withdraw from physical activities and involvement with the world around us and from the constant input of the senses.
2.    Mental. To release the mind from its ceaseless self-preoccupations and sense impressions so that it can be purely Self-aware, present, and mindful.
3.    Spiritual. To achieve a state of wholeness, of Being, of completeness. In such a state we feel connected and it is natural to feel loving toward all and to experience Life as conscious Joy, Love, and Peace.

The Practice. The practice, or the Way, follows the lead of the goal and the goal is embedded in the Way.....in this "Way" the goal is not necessarily outside or beyond ourselves, nor is outside or beyond the Way, but within both.

1.    Physical. The goal, being embedded also in the body, must be stimulated and its memory reactivated. The body is sub-conscious. It operates on its own, somewhat independent level. We "use" the body and its functions for our own purposes, but it otherwise is designed to function largely on its own. Thus stopping all outer activities and jumping into our meditation asana (seat) is not normally how we begin. Instead we engage, activate, stimulate and awaken the body with some kind of mindful movements. Traditional yoga postures, Tai chi, and similar exercises are well known and highly recommended. Newer and in some ways more to the point, are the Energization Exercises such as we teach at Ananda. These were discovered and refined by our guru, Paramhansa Yogananda. You can see them demonstrated here, online at https://www.youtube.com/embed/XPNSEq1VTOM All such movements should be practiced with a meditative and mindful attitude in order to be effective.

2.    Mental But, first a word from our "sponsors":
1.    Focusing the mind inwardly and away from day to day preoccupations requires effort and purpose. It is essential to stimulate the desire for meditation, and, even more to the point, desire for the GOAL of meditation. Thus the traditional emphasis on devotion. For us to take any kind of action there has to be a need. A need implies something we don’t yet possess. This is true even if all the world’s teachings on meditation say that the goal is within us! Odd, isn’t it? This feeling of lack effectively creates an “I-Thou” relationship between the meditator and the goal of meditation. The feeling or surge of the “I” toward the “Thou” is called devotion, or perhaps the divine romance. “Thou” can be personal (guru, God, deity) or impersonal (peace, oneness, love) but, in the beginning, what we seek is necessarily “other.”

2.    It seems odd to define devotion but perhaps we could call it the internal, upward surge of the sincere seeker to achieve a state of Being transcendent of his own, separate ego awareness. There is, in other words, a directional aspect of meditation even if the goal, when realized, is already present at the heart of the complex outer matrix of our consciousness. Something of this intangible goal must already be within us, even if only dimly remembered; otherwise, we would not put out the effort to seek what we don't know. We necessarily begin with our ego awareness which is uncomfortable with its separateness (something is lacking). It seeks the full-filled state of Being. When the two becomes One, we find the One has always been, and, is here and now. But, why quibble? Meditative effort lies on the razor's edge between doing and being. It's a little like trying to remember a person's name: it's right there on "the tip of my tongue!"

3.    Intention and prayer Thus it is that, whether before our stretches or at the beginning of our sitting, we rekindle that devotion or feeling, that sense of yearning. Devotional chants, will-stimulating affirmations, a prayer, and other internal statement of intention is vital, lest we descend into the pleasant labyrinth of stream of consciousness images while meditating.

4.    Focusing the mind. So, now what? We are charged up but what do we DO? The greatest contribution Indian culture makes to humanity’s humanity is revealing how the breath affects our consciousness and vice versa. Just as with yoga postures, the position of the body can help induce a state of calmness and relaxation, so it is that controlling the breath rate and flow can do the same. But the initial stage of motivation is essential. There are innumerable breath control techniques. Using too many of them is self-defeating and the simplest is often just as good, perhaps better, than the more convoluted ones. One to three such techniques are best for daily use. At Ananda we’ll use one or two breath-control techniques to get centered, and one breath “watching” (non-control) technique to develop a steady, inward focus. In this way we go from ego control to letting go. There is a natural progression as the increasing slowness of breath rate eventually becomes so shallow that it begins to pause and momentarily cease. Rather than having the mind wait passively to enjoy the benefits of increased clarity and concentration, we also give the mind a mantra or affirmation so it too can participate. The mantra, timed with the breath, makes a powerful combination.[1]

3.    Spiritual. In the end, however, all techniques should cease as our heart, mind and consciousness rest in the Self. This can be described in an infinity of ways such as communing inwardly with peace. At first we feel and observe peace and enjoy it. By degrees and with non-effort we become peaceful and the sense of “I” diminishes. The same could be said of communing inwardly with the image or feeling of the guru’s presence; or God in one form or another.[2] Some would say this is a state of negation: stillness, perhaps. Others, expansion: communion, that is. The words are less important than the deep state of relaxation and satisfaction that steals upon us. At the end of our sitting time, we can share our spiritual blessings with healing prayers for others or in asking gently but confidently for guidance in our lives. The efficacy of these closing activities we leave to the higher Mind of Super-consciousness to work out (just as we leave behind techniques in order to receive the cleansing action of inner peace).

Which meditation technique is best? Aren’t there literally dozens and dozens of different breathing techniques and pre-sitting positions and movements? Yes, there are. But just as you don’t marry a dozen people but one, go “a-courtin’” and when you find your soul’s guide, marry and unite “happily ever after.” Once you do it will serve no good purpose to keep looking around.

The journey toward Self-realization cannot be known in advance any more than the rest of your future. It is not ours to say “It is this.” Or, “It is now finished.” We must act with faith and confidence, and also humility and receptivity. A dash of common sense and large dose of communal support, giving and receiving, are also vital, for we are not alone and we are not the first! There are those who know more than we. Be open to their guidance. Support those who support you in your spiritual journey and all will be well.

Begin the day with meditation. Carry on the day in the vibration of meditation. End the day giving it all back in meditation.

Blessings,

Swami Hrimananda!





[1] The more advanced kriya technique system works slightly differently where the kriya technique is the breath control technique and the letting go follows.
[2] To bridge from the doing into the state of being, it is often helpful to use imagery to focus the mind and heart. As the state of Being comes into focus and into our Being, we dissolve the image into Being.

Friday, May 23, 2014

If a Corporation is a Person, Can a Corporation become Enlightened?

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





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