Saturday, March 29, 2014

The Soul's Story of Redemption: Mary Poppins & The Saving of Mr. Banks!

We watched the Tom Hanks movie, "Saving Mr. Banks." I had no idea what to expect and I generally don't watch a movie that I have no inkling of its pedigree. But this was well worth it, and I rarely make movie recommendations.

I think the only aspect of it that might prevent the movie from becoming one of the all time classics is that it is close-to-essential to know the story (and movie), Mary Poppins, starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke (and produced by Walt Disney and first screened in 1964).

If you don't know the Mary Poppins story and movie, well, you can skip this blog article, as I don't want to take the time and space to explain it. 

The lead character, the author of the original Mary Poppins story, "P.L. Travers," is played by Emma Thompson, of Shakespeare play renown. I do not know to what degree the movie, "Saving Mr. Banks," follows the real story of the author but, no matter. 

Why, "no matter?" Because truth is greater than fact. "Saving Mr. Banks" is a story of redemption. In this archetypal genre, such stories have for their truth the reality that we are need of redemption from the past, from ignorance, from delusion. Every great classic story of redemption involves the wisdom and love of another person who aids in the process of releasing the past and finding one's true Self. In the world of spirituality, God takes the form of the guru to lead us home to soul freedom.

This story of redemption is what makes this movie great. Well, ok, not just the story, but the acting, scripting, and, to whatever degree the facts behind it are true, all give it power beyond philosophy or mere intellectual analysis (like I'm doing!).

In this story Travers is a young girl whose father is an alcoholic and his disease destroys him and his career in banking--a career that stifles his creativity and his joy in life. As a young girl she watches her mother's attempted suicide, her father's public humiliation, and finally his death. As a young woman she achieves some financial security from her writings, beginning with the Mary Poppins childrens story that she writes. 

The movie unfolds via flashbacks and fairly slowly, but it crescendos in the realization that her beloved children’s book is her own attempt at redeeming her father, Mr. Banks. It is Walt Disney himself who unlocks the door to her secret. So, too, does her chauffeur (played by Paul Giamatti--leading role in and as "John Adams").

The acting is superb; the lines and music priceless; but the cathartic lesson is timeless. 

As souls we are prodigal; we are lost in the wilderness of our own separateness. The pain of separation, the existential angst, drives us to desperate measures of resolution: including destructive behaviors such as alcoholism, just to name one (of the more popular) of an infinity of ways to "lose our mind." 

Sticking, though loosely, to the story line, Mr. Banks is a free spirit. He loves his wife and his children and the last thing he's good at is buckling down to support them. His free spirit rules him however and soon produces the clash between his spirit and his actions; between his free spirit and the consequences of his own actions in a material world split by duality, a fatal dichotomy is created. 

He resorts, then, to alcohol to ease the stress and anxiety of his nonconforming behavior. But his habit leads him step-by-step down the rabbit hole, and his family suffers with each his humiliation. But he adores his children and especially our protagonist, his daughter.

She, in turn, innocent as a child and not understanding, but experiencing the tragedy of her parents' respective death wishes, despite their love for her (and her siblings), grows up deeply cleaved and soon shuts out the inner child who is playful, imaginative and free. She develops a compulsive personality that is so rigidly and merely factual, that few can abide her presence. Being a lone writer then suits her just fine. She controls the world around her rigidly and makes no accommodation to her own strict rules and perceptions, sparing no expense of the comfort of others.

In time and in her later years, however, the world catches up with her. She has spurned Walt Disney's annual appeals for movie rights but finally succumbs because she is about to lose her home due to financial woes caused by her own need to be perfect (and thus unable to be creatively inspired as a writer).

Well, the rest of this story is simply the story. You'll have to watch it yourself. As Mary Poppins helps free Mr. Banks (in the children’s story) so he can fly his kite, so P.L. Travers eventually is freed from the straitjacket of her rigidly correct and reasoning mind. In short, she finds redemption.

We have then a classic story whereby the spirit which is within us is held ransom by our fears or rejection of the world around us, its expectations of us, and our proper role in it. It is painful to love, to be vulnerable, to be spontaneous. But our free spirit must also remain in touch with Spirit so that it doesn't descend progressively towards a hell of our making: the subconscious, disconnected from the reality of the world around us. We can retain our innocence--which is our soul's eternal joy, untouched by suffering and death--if we seek that innocence at the heart of all that we do; at the heart of all that is dutiful and right for us to fulfill. It is we who create the tension between the "ought" and the "is." Once we view the world as a battle of wills between what we want and what it wants, it’s a fight to the death: the death of our soul.

"Joy is within you" even as you "do as you ought." This is the secret of redemption. The inner joy of which we speak is of God. It is transmitted to us by those souls who have achieved it as a permanent beatitude. Great saints can show us the way to the freedom of the soul. Freedom is not doing what you want, but doing, with joy, what is right.

What a difficult and daily lesson for each and every person who makes the effort to live intentionally, to live consciously, and, better yet, to live super-consciously, in harmony with the Divine Will, with the divine "lila" (movie or play), and in concert with the great script of our life’s dharma.

So, now, you can watch "Saving Mr. Banks."

"Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down."

Nayaswami Hriman


Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Meditation: Is it Just Me, or, Is Anyone Om?

I was re-listening to a recorded talk by Paramhansa Yogananda today while jogging, and he reminded his audience how easy it is to be "out of tune with God" while meditating. It was an odd way to put it and he may have meant more than I could glean from it, but the basic interpretation is one I can relate to: "I can meditate" and that's all I am doing. Let me try that again:

Over the years as I've been in the position to teach meditation, I've reminded folks to not mistake the "path for the goal." I think this is basically what Yogananda was saying. Patanjali (think Yoga Sutras) described "missing the point" as one of the yogi's spiritual traps. It is very easy for those who meditate to focus on the techniques of meditation and never get beyond their own thoughts and preoccupations.

Now this subject is going to take a little work on my part. So let's sit back, take a deep breath and be still.

First: many meditation teachers and students approach meditation as a mindfulness exercise involving just "me" and not "Thee." This is as far as millions of people even intend to go when they meditate. So these folks aren't really in the "game" of this article at all! To paraphrase a Sixties song, "It's my mind and I can do what I want to." (Leslie Gore) So, fine....to quote another Sixties song, "Is that all there is?" (Sinatra) This use of meditation (probably the most common use) is like flossing between the ears. Good mental hygiene with many medical and psychological benefits. End of my article? (You wish!)

This psychological approach may be healthy but I suspect it is difficult to sustain unless the meditator achieves sufficient depth often enough to be desirous of continuing. The simple fact is that meditation takes self-discipline; self-discipline takes motivation; motivation requires necessity. So either one's life is intensely stressful and meditation is a life saver, or, you're likely to be distracted by surfing the net or answering emails or writing blogs, or simply going to bed on time.

Second: traditional use of meditation as a spiritual exercise, including a form of prayer, might be wholly centered on God, Christ, Buddha, Krishna or one of an infinite number of deities or one's teacher. I say "traditional" but I don't say that with complete confidence. Let's simply say, perhaps instead, that when meditation takes a more strictly or more focused devotional form it would be something like that. In this case, too, but for opposite reason, there's no question about "Who's who in meditation." In devotional forms the issue that arises is "When will you come to me?"

The counsel that wise teachers (which includes Yogananda and my own teacher, his direct disciple, Swami Kriyananda) give is that one should be non-attached in meditation and not engage in merchant consciousness, expecting results ("Or, I'll take my cushion and go home!") There's a lovely song, "Keep Calling Him" inspiring the devotee to be steadfast in his devotions whether it takes lifetimes. There's also the thought of "divine impatience" countered by "Patience is the shortest route to God." Now are we getting fuzzy (warm, too?) here?

By impatience we mean that the sense of energy, commitment, zeal and wakefulness of a sort that never gives up is essential. By patience we mean the depth of intuitive knowing that God is always with us and we are ever content in our Self. Yogananda would tell the story of St. Anthony of the Desert. After years of intense prayer and meditation and right on the cusp of his being destroyed by Satan and his minions and calling to Jesus Christ, Jesus finally appears and drives Satan away. Anthony is grateful but chides his Lord asking, "Ahemmm, and, Where were you all this time?" Yogananda would quote Jesus as saying, "Anthony (in a mildly rebuking tone), "I was always with you!" When we meditate with the thought of God's eternal presence we find blissful contentment and waves of grace flowing over us!

Nonetheless, the prayerful and meditating devotee can get discouraged if her entire focus is upon her Lord and he remains ever silent. How many lovers can sustain their love only in silence? In this case the I-Thou becomes one-sided: focused on Thou but Thou art AWOL! Certainly extraordinary bhaktis (lovers of God) will carry on for an eternity, but such devotees are in short supply at this time (of Dwapara Yuga, the age of energy and egoic self-interest).

So, the rest of us are somewhere in between. I assume that many of today's "modern" meditators would identify themselves with the motto, "Spiritual but not religious." Spirituality among this group is somewhat vague and fuzzy, ranging between "feel good" and "feel God," where the emphasis is on "feel." But even among my friends who, like me, are disciples of Paramhansa Yogananda and practitioners of Kriya Yoga, we find the range of intellectual, active, and feeling types.

For example, for years, considering myself more mental than devotional, my emphasis was on my practices (i.e. Kriya Yoga) and the uplifting, calming, and expansive effect meditation had upon me. With steady practice of devotion, including chanting which I love, I gradually became more steady and deep in my comfort with and feeling of and for Yogananda's presence during meditation (and during activity). I discovered from time to time that even with a great meditation, it could be all about having a great meditation and nothing more (devotional, that is)!

Meditation, in other words, can become self-preoccupying. I have often had the sense that some meditators around me (I spend many hours per week in group meditations) are simply sitting there quietly; perhaps contentedly; but essentially "doing nothing": neither striving for depth in meditation, nor offering themselves devotionally to God or guru, nor transcendent of passing thoughts having achieved (or even seeking) a deep state of inner stillness.

In meditation, then, there are several stages:   1) Withdrawal from outer activity;   2) Relaxation, mental as well as physical;   3) Internalization of mental focus;     4) Practice of and concentration upon one's chosen image, state or technique;    5) Having the desire to use one's technique to go beyond it;     6) Achieving a quiescent, inner state of awareness ; and, 7) Achieving upliftment into a higher state of being (than passive quietness).

The active or feeling types all have the same trap: engaging in their respective practices without going beyond them into the very state they are focusing on.

I have concluded after years of practice and teaching that a meditator needs to remind himself to go beyond himself. It's like being "Beside myself" except really, really different, as in "Being inside my Self." When therefore you sit to meditate remind your Self of the difference between your practices and their goal. Always desire and intend to reach your goal, "making haste slowly." Practice with infinite patience and with unstoppable determination. Attempt in every meditation to quiet the heart and breath and achieve a true moment (a moment can be infinite and eternally NOW) of perfect stillness and spiritual wakefulness.

We need the Thou (whether Thou is your practice or Thou is your "God") to replace the "i" and we need to replace the Thou with the I. The one seeks the Other and in the seeking we become ONE.

Are U Won, yet?

Ascending now, au revoir,

Nayaswami Hari-man




Sunday, March 23, 2014

U-Kraine or My-Kraine? What is Right Action?

Russia's re-annexation of the Crimea has stirred up a lot of questions. Putin's counter denunciations of American unilateral actions throughout the world, including Kosovo, reflect their sense of national humiliation over the collapse of the Soviet empire. By all accounts, there are Russians both in Crimea and elsewhere who are proud and ecstatic about the peninsula rejoining "the motherland." Even Mikhail Gorbchev, architect of the Soviet dissolution, was quoted, applauding Russian retaking of Crimea! How differently we humans view what seems like the same circumstances.

Speaking of different views: you probably know that some people in the Middle East deny that the Holocaust ever took place! How many sincere Americans have questioned our own wars of intervention from Vietnam to Iraq, to name a few of our “adventures” into foreign countries. How about the 1950’s and the overthrow of an elected government in Iran favor of the installation of the Shah of Iran with covert CIA assistance (all for national security, of course!) How about American history in re slavery, racism, treatment of native tribes, and on and on? Is there anyone with clean hands?

On “the other hand,” are we Americans really just another chapter of the tale of humans grasping for power? Are we but the mirror image of the evil empire that fell after decades of the Cold War? We just happened to win that one?

What is true? Should the West do more than protest Russia’s unilateral action in Crimea? Should we do more than impose weak-willed, futile sanctions? Is this so wrong an evil that we should go to war? What if Texas wants to secede? Scotland? Northern California?

Abraham Lincoln fought to save the union in his conduct of the American Civil War. He was of course also against slavery. But initially his quest was simply to preserve the union: or, so, at least, he declared it to be, even if, as a consequence, slavery in the south was to be preserved as per the original Constitution. Whatever his thoughts on the matter, the question of a state or region's power to rise up and form its own nation is a darn good question. Some Southerners still fume about the whole thing.

I suppose, musing as much aloud to myself, that there ought to be a compelling moral or ethical reason for a state, province or some minority to secede. Secession must be a bit like disowning one's family to whom natural love and loyalty is otherwise owed. There would need to be, I believe, a case to make of mistreatment of one form or another to permit secession to occur. It shouldn't be merely be prejudice or selfishness in reverse---which, in a sense, the secession of the southern states of America essentially amounted to. What they saw as defense of their way of life was a commitment to the economic and social system of slavery. What they also sensed was the rising tide of northern industrialization that would, in time, eclipse the agrarian south for many decades to come--shifting money and power northward. Both reasons seem far too weak to bolster their case. Industrialization was a simple socio-economic fact for which no rebellion could have thwarted. Secession for this reason would have been futile anyway.

Ukraine, for all the outrage we might naturally feel here in the West, has suffered under its own leaders’ rampant corruption and mismanagement. I don't think I've heard the Russians of Crimea or even eastern Ukraine make accusations of mistreatment at the hands of Ukrainians. Their reasons for rejoining Russia are presumably more cultural and historical than economic or ethical. I am ill equipped to say anything intelligent or well-informed on that issue but I wonder, as many must surely also, what the right and moral response is to the annexation. Certainly wrist slapping sanctions are inevitable, politically, at least. Long term? Well, I can't imagine many Americans think it's worth WW 3!

Are we "just as bad" as the evil empire? Is it all merely a matter of perspective? Yes, and, well, No! Regardless of how poorly or well America may manifest the ideals on which our country was founded, those ideals stand emblazoned for the ages as the standard against which the body politic anywhere on this earth must be measured--including America.

But too many nations, newly formed since the end of WW2, are culturally and politically far, far away from being "in tune" with and ready to make the necessary personal sacrifices to manifest the ideals so eloquently put forth in the Declaration of Independence. How many former holdings of the colonial powers have made a tragic mess of their hard-won freedom?

With Indian independence in 1947 the slaughter was horrific. Genocide is still happening in Asia and Africa, e.g., and is too brutal for most of us to contemplate. Should the colonial powers have held on? Well, what difference does a question like that make at this late date? Conquest necessitates brutality and the imperial empires had run their course and suffered their own fate. The chaos that has resulted from the dissolution of those empires is evidently the price of freedom and the price is evidently very high. The American colonies paid a price for freedom, too.

Who would argue that America should have stayed out of WW 1? WW 2? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Some would; most would not. Doesn't matter now....these things have their own course to run and there's no use in "crying over spilt milk." But, now, with Russia on the loose again? Should countries like America continue to be the world's police force? I say a resounding "Maybe!"

In fact what I feel is needed and is long, long overdue is a kind of "Cooperative Union" of nations of like mind. Not West vs East; not 1st world vs 2nd or 3rd world. But nations whose cultures and consciousness are forward looking, expansive and inclusive, and willing to work together for shared goals that express worthwhile human values and ideals. Is this just another form of interconnected treaties such as existed before WW 1?  I say “No,” because such an alliance would not be focused on mutual defense but would emphasizing mutual support and cooperation: culturally, economically, politically, and yes, if necessary, militarily.

How often has China and Russia defeated the legitimate role of the Security Council because, in essence, we don't share a mutual and cooperate set of ideals? I don't mind that such countries aren't ready for American-style democracy, but their own histories of ruthlessness towards their own people make our capitalistic excesses and self-interested maneuverings look like fist fights among school boys. We don't lack corruption and cronyism and there is much wrong with American life, culture and politics today, but there are certain values we share with other countries around the world (not just in Europe) that make for natural allies. Russia is simply not on our wavelength. Is China? That's more difficult to say because of the fast pace of change in what is generally a positive direction. But right now, my vote is NO.

I don't see how any culture or nation can join such a Cooperative Union if it doesn't possess some form of national transparency and accountability, a directional commitment to rule of law, and a culture working towards greater inclusiveness (within and without) and individual liberties. 

This union would not be allies AGAINST anyone, but constitute countries that can work together without having to deal with obstreperous nations constantly thwarting our efforts out of a lack of essential harmony and consciousness. A cooperative of nations could, then, more responsibly and ethically act from time to time to intercede in global hotspots for the protection and safety of innocent people. Doing so by common agreement would tend to mitigate too strong or too narrow a motivation of self-interest. Such a union would serve as a model and inspiration to other countries.

Well, that's my Sunday night two cents. I hope Ukraine will get their country back together but by golly they are going to have to work for it. They've lost something valuable and I suspect they lost it partly deserving it and partly because it is "in the stars" for Russia to flex its imperialistic muscles and revenge its humiliation. 

Is Russia a threat to peace-loving nations? Yes, no question about it. A friend of mine who has lived for periods of time in Russia told me a story I heard echoed in other forms about a man who was sent to Siberia under communism and to the end, however brutally treated he was, held Stalin in great esteem. Such is the blindness of human beings; such is the power of jingoism, like lemmings over a cliff. If Russians yearn still for empire and glory they happen to be about a century too late. It ain't gonna happen. They will be defeated if they really try to regain their lost empire and they will suffer even more than they have during this last century. It would trigger another world war and suffering would be worldwide but Russia would lose, I believe.

I hope this Crimea thing isn't like Hitler taking little bites of Europe and Lord Chamberlain declaring "peace at last" with each bite, but, we cannot really say for sure at this time, can we?

I don't mind whining a little bit about "Why help other nations who simply hate us?" Where is the boundary between helping and rescuing? We Americans are who we are and have done what we have done, but I think and hope America is learning some discernment, like wise parents eventually learn, that sometimes the kids have to get bruised and battered working through their own issues in order to grow up. We can't do it for them but we can stand ready to help if truly asked because we know that a rescue will merely “enable.”

Blessings to you on a fair Spring Equinox weekend where hope Springs Eternal and the promise of beauty and harmony, like a rainbow, shines before us.

Nayaswami Hriman