Spiritual Evolution and Limited Political Choices (or, How Ayn Rand is Crazy...)

It's almost that time again, isn't it? That time when we get the opportunity to exercise the one definitive right we all have as Americans, the one personal action we can take to have some effect on the nature and direction of our government – namely, to vote...but it's difficult to know how to go about something so temporal in as spiritual a way as possible.

The exercise of our spiritual beliefs and goals when it comes to politics is already a tough enough nut to crack, especially given the myriad constraints of the system we're part of. One such constraint, for example, is that I live in New York, so it doesn't really matter whether I vote or not. The Electoral College system guarantees that the state I live in will send it's votes all in one direction (that's one reason I live here...).

Another constraint of great consequence is that all our votes go in more or less the same direction, being as we have a kind of "Good Cop, Bad Cop" single-party system at present. But as the votes go more or less towards the same pro-corporate (largely pro-military, pro-"capitalist") concerns, our spiritual practices can come to bear in those ways that they go less  towards the same concerns.

Often, when bringing spirituality into play in what have now become largely pop culture contests between two faces on the same mask of Janus, one might hear a sort of twist on Taoism (probably the second verse of the Tao te Ching) – the idea that there is no "good" or "bad,"  there simply is what there is; and while it is true that there are no problems that absolute acceptance won't resolve, this painfully "realistic" axiom is actually suggesting more the point that both the good and the evil go down with the ship – not the idea that it's pointless differentiating between the two.

Here it's good to introduce what's probably the number one rule for maintaining one's spirituality all the time (not just with politics...). About the most troublesome thing a human mind tends to do by default, I believe, is to label everything it perceives (I know my "thought organ" always wants to). It's hard not to look at something and say: That's spoiled; that's pretty; that's unattractive; that's plastic; or whatever may (or may not) apply. This renders the subject into a diminished egoic category – usually a more comfortable, lesser-than entity, rather than allowing the truth about it to be the result of a rather complex personal process of discovery. 

Using what the Hindu call sakshi – that is, becoming an open-hearted, objective (non-labeling) witness to people and events, we can observe characteristics like "good" and "evil" with the insight needed to deal with them with more understanding. We might see those same characteristics at their foundation, as "compassionate" and "angry," for example. Evil does exist always in some form of human egoism, as the deliberate or not-so-deliberate motivation for self-centered gratification of one kind or another – as a selfish entitlement, a righteous justification, or a response to simple fear. 

By avoiding those motivations for our political actions (and the specifics of our present contest), and embracing the intention at the soul of our system, we should vote for what we truly believe in our hearts, regardless whether those principles are supported by a giant political party, a smaller one, or only by the write-in line on your ballot or the box marked "none of the above." For a person on a spiritual path, of course these principles include equality, integrity, ecology, compassion, tolerance, willingness, etc....in short, where there is Love. Let your unencumbered heart guide you.

In our specific system at present there's a peculiar conflation of misunderstandings at work beneath many of the policy justifications coming out of the  "Bad Cop" side of our political system. One is that Darwinism is not really the survival of "the fittest," but instead the survival of the most cooperatively adaptable. The "winners" in that skewed system are limited in their ability to act responsibly by what defines them. Capitalism (especially in a corrupted form) works very well for the institutions of finance, but ultimately not so well for the heart of humanity. We can do better.

That could serve as a general guidepost for cast-ing your ballot – which candidate's policy benefits money, and which benefits people? Or put more simply in a spiritual sense, who's true intention is to benefit the health of the planet, to com-passionately address the needs of the greatest num-ber of people?

Another prevalent mis-understanding is that the underlying logic of philoso-phers like Adam Smith or Ayn Rand is at all sane, given their bases upon presumptions of the ego's self-interest – inarguably the cause of the most destructive insanity at work in our planet's past or present. A more likely possibility is that both of them were deeply spiritually damaged. Not sane.

 For example, Ayn Rand's rejection of altruism in favor of "individual responsibility" simply makes spiritual evolution impossible. There are just too many people that can't cut that particular mustard, and (in my opinion) you simply can't find a spiritual solution while lacking as absolute a sense of compassion as you can possibly manage. Stand back from the planet with a little sakshi, and you can see we are clearly all responsible for one another. After all, we were all originally "communists" – our communal, tribal origins indicate that the whole takes care of everyone in a manner that doesn't reward any member so much that they feel separate from the rest.

When you observe Ms. Rand with sakshi, you see a deeply damaged person, not someone whose philosophy you should base your life decisions on. In a clip from Anthony Baxter's excellent new documentary, You've Been Trumped, Donald Trump's reply to the members of a local Scottish town board when they wanted to know where he got his facts about the ecological and cultural impact of his proposed development on their ancestor's unspoiled lands was: "I AM all the facts you need." That is the pathological disease of human ego, and a pretty decent definition of evil as well. 

In answer to the question: Can things change in the direction of what is better for the planet, and the most people? The "fact" of our current president may actually be all "the facts you need." If you feel limited to picking either the "Good Cop" or the "Bad Cop," I hope that helps your decision.

"It's the metaphysical impulse to transcend the illusion of separateness..."

Joseph Campbell

Making Choices Now : Seeking Love In-Form-ation

"The fact that the mass of a particle is equivalent to a certain amount of energy means that the particle...has to be conceived as a dynamic pattern, a process involving the energy which manifests itself as the particle's mass."

Fritjof Capra

'Muhammed says, "God does not look at outward forms,

but at the love within your love."'

Rumi

Here's a theory about seeing love in everything: We can semi-consciously manifest the real things in our life into being through intention, and the focus of our thoughts and actions. I say semi-consciously because often our egos don't allow us to see the process as part of the larger system of consciousness we fit into, that's constantly creating everything we perceive. That's that damn illusion of separateness again. Our ego insists that we're the sole engineer of our creations, regardless of the uncontrollable circumstances of life's synchronicitous events. Regardless of luck, and karma. Lots of things just happen to us, but if they're good things, we usually want to take credit.

Of course we are responsible for some of it, but often the degree to which our ego takes credit for these otherwise spontaneous acts of creation is the same degree to which we, and the actions we take and things we create, become separated from their positive potential – their actual underlying Source energy – which is Love.

In the way we can "see with our heart," that is, to perceive vibrational energies that constitute people and things (when something doesn't feel right, or resonate), we can simply and directly observe to what degree the energy of ego and fear – the imposition of human will – has influenced those forms. Here, Mother Nature is the constant benchmark.

I'd like to propose that everything comes from Love – like the beautiful wildflower growing through the crack in the blacktop. Those forms that are natural, spontaneous, efficient, and beneficial can be easily discerned from what is forced, unnecessary, wasteful, and destructive. Let's look at the simple examples of architecture, food, and then (God forbid), each other:

The forms of our buildings have always been a direct indication of intent, of the amount of Love expressed in their making. We need shelter. We need purposeful structures, and it's part of our spontaneous creative nature to create them. It's evident in the forms and materials that are used just how much Love has played a part in their construction, in terms of quality and aesthetics, and so to what degree they are beneficial to the world, and to our future.

Some buildings are plain cheap and dangerous. Some display intimidation and institutionality – "Man's Will." Others offer qualities for people to live with and share in. Brick and wood structures, made by hand, crafted from nature's resilient renewables. Buildings with terraces, alcoves, rooms of appropriate sizes for different uses, well-lit and heated or cooled, and done so in an efficient, sustainable way. These could be the rooms in the mansion of the human heart – host to the spiritual energies and exchanges our future depends on.

Buildings made of metal amalgams, glass, and plastic products, whose forms are manifested out of expedient commerciality; or those that offer little or no logical use or comfort and are intended only to stand out as their own statement, or as the statement of their designers, these structures are regressive products of harmful and unnecessary ego and separation – not of Love's evolutionary intention. It's practically impossible for people to function up to their spiritual potential surrounded by so much toxic ego. Better to make your important decisions in the park across the street.

Food is a no-brainer. Everyone knows that Love is the major ingredient in all the tastiest, healthiest food. The forms are pretty obvious. Stick close to nature. This doesn't mean that all prepared or packaged foods are loveless – there's an evolutionary, intuitive trend towards simple natural content. If a prepared food has a shelf-life beyond that of it's natural components, there's little Love in it's making. It's only intended to nourish the bank account of its producer. Don't eat anything that appears to be the result of killing anything – this includes all commercially farmed meat and marine products.

Remember, there's always Love in simple, carefully prepared food. Everything has energy. Food supplies that energy to you. Why not cut out that whole nasty, wasteful process of the corporate dietary hegemony, and just eat food right from the trees, seas, and ground? Cut out the corrupt middlemen. Close that market. It's more enjoyable, and naturally much healthier to be able to eat without the repressed guilt that comes from taking part in a barbaric and destructive system (whether you notice it or not). There's clearly no Love in one approach, and there clearly is a lot in the other.

Lastly, but not leastly, let's look at people. With what the Hindu call sakshi, the non-judgemental witnessing of life, we can see how much Love has gone into the formation of a person from their bearing, expressions, and attitudes. The obstructions to Love that exist in their psyches are reflected in their exterior physical and psychological expressions; as well as in the sometimes destructive, disconnected goals and results of their actions. Some people start out with lots of Love and have no problem showing it in everything they do; others have to find it later, or suffer (and inflict) the consequences. It's no coincidence that the quantity of Love expressed mirrors the level of consciousness attained. That's the spiritual evolution for which Love is the Source.

For those whose separation, self-centeredness, and personal struggle evolves from not having had enough Love in their formation – vain, demanding, withdrawn, or other clearly fearful, damaged people, it is our job to see that they receive enough to help overcome it. Our pets also do this work constantly, providing Love to open our hearts and bring us into balance with The Divine, so why shouldn't we work to assume a similar, transformational grace-in-being to try to aid our fellows return to Source?

Why is all of this so important? Because this world of ours presents us with a very complex set of problems, that won't be easily deconstructed and repaired, so where and how to start is our imperative. At those moments that you are asking The Universe for direction, like right now, The Universe is constantly showing you the path to follow. Follow the outward forms, the evidence, created by Love in all your choices: Where you live and go, in what you eat and wear, in the art and entertainment you take in, and in who you are with and how you behave. And don't worry about anything else. Simplify your life around this most comforting ethos. Follow what makes you feel best – in your heart. Everything else will come from following that lead. Where there is a lack of Love in the forms around you, supply it yourself, or if possible, get help supplying it.

It begins with each of us being where we are, doing what we are doing, and being with who we're with. Ask yourself this: Is this from Love, or is it from Not-Love?...And remember – there's always the gift of being in love...and there's always the power of Love in Being.



Read about concepts like these and much more in: How to Get to Heaven (Without Really Dying), Wisdom From a Near-Death Survivor  from Llewellyn Worldwide available direct on this page, or online. The first book: How to Survive Life (and Death), A Guide To Happiness In This World and Beyond is available the same ways – but ask for it at your local bookstore!

Tales of the Koko Lion, Part 1: The Kickapoo Secret

There's a way of seeing that's available to you when you escape the delusion and artifice of your ego, of who you think you are. A way where there's no need for judgments or comparisons of any kind between yourself and others. When those feelings, those fear-based needs arise, you recognize them as unresolved aspects of yourself, and just release them. What once seemed like such a vital and automatic need to compare and to judge simply dies off of attrition, starved of it's energy. The urge to gossip disappears. You begin to view those who indulge in it with compassion, understanding that they need to reveal their own fear to find some comforting identification with others, to momentarily enhance their picture of themselves, and hopefully get a little relief. Once you can adopt this approach to seeing others, you will rarely be offended by anything.

Without your own crazy horse in the race-- your ego's attachment to an enhanced version of yourself, or the need to defend yourself from some threat of your own creation, those frozen perceptions that created the surface of your personal "reality" thaw out, and like a shell dissolving, the surface of all things and people becomes transparent, and the truth is casually and refreshingly exposed. You can finally see people and things as they truly are-- creations of lives; of thoughts, of fears and hopes.

It's like taking off the dark glasses you've been wearing... at night. And then starting to turn on a couple lights.

You begin to see everything as being simply animated by our common source energy. Actions and objects formed by thought made material. We are all the same stuff, and often, without a clue, directly connected to one another and the universe in every cell, in every moment.

It's a big relief, and very refreshing- to start to view the world that way. And putting it like that seems really simple, doesn't it? Everyone becomes incredibly interesting. But how can we go about attaining such a realistically tolerant way of seeing? Since we already have everything we need to know inside of us somewhere, we can start by delving into the handiest example of the form we all can examine closely and carefully – ourselves. We just need to fearlessly look at ourselves with the same kind of compassion. Like we were looking at someone else.

Certain stories describe us almost entirely, and in my case, one of them is this story of my fairly recent ancestors on my Mother's side. Who they were, and how I unconsciously, on purpose, chose to depict the part they played in forming my peculiar self-definition. As with all my stories, they could be complete and utter fabrications. But they're not. They're true, as well as I know. Sometimes, perhaps, more apocryphal than academic, and just slightly more than loosely documented. And as I said, the names are incomplete, or changed to protect unwilling or fragile participants. So, on with the stories...

At a rather young age by our standards (though oldish by hers), twenty-three or twenty-four, my Great-great grandmother set out of Missouri to cross the Oregon Trail by herself, in the mid 1840s. It was a rare thing for a young lady (one named Churchill, no less) to undertake such an impractically feminist adventure in those days. And though I don't know her motivations, we can surmise that what she wanted very badly was a change of scenery.

As a female she was automatically relegated to second-class status. And being an unmarried, unaccompanied female lowered her status even further – to third, or fourth-class. As such, it was deemed that she ride in "the back of the bus," or in this case, in the back of the wagon train with the other third and fourth-class citizens; wayward misfits, gypsies, and the like. Families of the solid God-fearing "Christian" caste, led by real men of fine American mettle, took their positions at the front of the train. These were the men who made this country, and in many ways the world, what it is today.

Bringing up the rear as well were the American Indians who showed them how to find water, what they could eat along the way, and which direction they should actually go in to conquer "the unknown wilderness" that was the "unexplored" continent to the west. My great-great grandfather was a Kickapoo indian that Ms. Churchill met amongst the others back in the rear of the wagon train.

The Kickapoos are a tribe with origins in the Great Lakes and plains region of eastern Minnesota, northern Iowa, and parts of what is now Michigan, and I suppose that when the wagon train neared The Great Divide, my great-great grandfather felt the need to return to his land and people. Perhaps he wasn't aware that Ms. Churchill was carrying his child. Maybe she didn't know yet, or she knew and didn't tell him. In any case, the universe has since put too much space between us all to know what truly passed between those two people in that natural world so long ago. He went back home. She went on west.

Before the wagon train reached it's destination, she must have felt it imperative to be married for the sake of her unborn child-- the stigma of unwed parenthood being too great an obstacle to overcome. She apparently found the most likely match she could, and sometime before arriving in Eastern Oregon, she married a Basque shepherd named Jordan, who became, in name (my middle name, in fact), my step great-great grandfather. They settled in central Oregon, where you find Jordan creek and Jordan City, and had six more children together. But it was that first-born, half-Kickapoo boy whose grandson, Harry Jordan, met and married my grandmother, Minnie Fletcher. And that was my mother's side of the family.