Do Spirituality And Politics Mix?

[Dover]

"The interface between spirituality and politics exists at the point of love – love for Creation, love for one’s neighbor, love for the planetary environment, love for future generations, love for the plant and animal kingdoms, love for the unity of man. This love is the basis for the new spirituality that will underlie the politics of the future..."

****************************************************

Do Spirituality And Politics Mix?

January 4, 2008 | 12:00 AM (EST)


I still regard myself as a novice when it comes to many aspects of the Buddhist teachings. Having now a ten-year daily meditation practice, and having read quite widely in the literature, I do not yet think of myself as a "student" in the the sense that a true student immerses himself or herself deeply and without reservation in the teachings. I am frankly an amateur of Buddhism. I love the practice and I am persuaded of the wisdom of what the Buddha taught, but I am not ready to turn my life over to the religious aspects of Buddhism. And I do NOT claim authority or complete understanding of the teachings.

That said, I remain in something of a quandary when it comes to politics. The teachings, in my admittedly limited understanding, advocate equanimity, non-attachment and goodwill toward others--even those with whom I disagree most fundamentally. On the other hand, with every fiber of my being, I believe in justice, fairness, mutual tolerance, and the inherent equality of all human beings. I understand that there are differences between us human beings, and honor those differences; but I cannot support the privilege of the very few against the well-being of the many, nor the abuse of power to oppress and subjugate. And when I look around our country and the world in its current state, I see little on the geopolitical front but injustice, unfairness, intolerance, and inequality.

Call me naive, but I want to see a better world, and do what I can to contribute to that betterment. I want to live my life in such a way that it reflects the values I believe in. The practical, realist--Buddhist?--part of me recognizes that there are limits to my capacity to bring about the changes I believe in, and that the best I can do is to make changes in my own life. By becoming, simply, a better person myself, I trust that I am contributing to the wider cause. It's the theory of the butterfly wing and the tempest: even the tiniest action in one part of the universe causes a reaction everywhere. It's what Thich Nhat Hanh, I believe, calls "interbeing."

That thinking, certainly, has its appeal. I have little trouble going along with it. And yet... and yet... cont'd

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-clothier/do-spirituality-and-polit_b_79590.html



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The true change that you must create is not principally in the "system" itself
(or in the parentlike world of competitive egos) but in the ordinary, daily associa-
tions between yourself and other human beings. - Avatar Adi Da Samraj


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


February 6, 2006

SPIRITUALITY AND POLITICS – THE INTERFACE

We live in a world in which spirituality can no longer be separated from politics - not in the sense of diminishing protection of the right to one’s own form of worship, guarded by the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution and by similar laws operating within all democracies. And not in the sense of advocating a particular form of religious belief, for spirituality is not religion. Rather, spirituality's presence creates an understanding that the interface between what is spiritual and what is political involves the moral sensibility that underlies the conduct of government. This moral sensibility must include service to the people and not to the ideal of power. It must include a concern for the wellbeing of the planet, rather than a concern for parochial interests. And it must address as a central focus the issue of human suffering, rather than place this issue on the side so that those who are without are left to take care of themselves.

The interface between spirituality and politics exists at the point of love – love for Creation, love for one’s neighbor, love for the planetary environment, love for future generations, love for the plant and animal kingdoms, love for the unity of man. This love is the basis for the new spirituality that will underlie the politics of the future at a time in which the word ‘politics’ will come to have a new meaning. This meaning will be different than the meaning it has acquired in recent generations, a meaning often associated with elements of scandal, corruption, self-seeking, and guileful behavior. The politics of the future will return to the purity of its true origins. It will represent the people as in the definition of ‘polity’ by Aristotle – described as:

rule by the many, who are neither wealthy nor poor, in the interests of the whole community… the polity or form of government in which all citizens rule and are ruled in turn… in which everyone has a share of political power.

- From: Aristotle - The Politics

There can be no aspiration to this kind of sharing of political power until individuals and society as a whole become transformed in the direction of recognizing their unity with each other, and therefore their love for each other. Only at that time will love become something natural and intuitively felt, rather than something that must be legislated or built into the programmatic content of what individuals espouse in order to win votes. Such love will be based on an understanding of human society as an interwoven whole, one that cannot leave any part of itself out without damaging the wellbeing of the whole. This is a truth that is far from being realized on the stage of political life today. Indeed, the climate of today’s political life in countries around the world is based on the idea of national self-interest, in which ‘my’ interest is different from ‘yours’ and must be protected by laws, treaties, and arrangements which guarantee my safety on all planes - physically, economically, emotionally, and socially.

The element of protection and the need for protection will only disappear when there is a realization of the oneness of man. Only then will the aspiration toward power and toward military might seem completely out of place in relation to the things that are of deepest value. We cannot, with ease, imagine such a time right now, because in so many ways the world is polarized between warring factions. The predominant mood in many places is one of fear. The predominant mode of protection is to attempt to increase one’s military strength. There is lip service given to an understanding of reconciling differences, but, in fact, the forum for such reconciliation, the United Nations, has been of little help in carrying out this task because those who compose this well-intentioned and, in principle, noble body, are imbued with the same limited focus regarding how to deal with threat and fear as everyone else. True negotiation can only take place when there is a true ‘united nations’ – a representative body that can speak for the sentiments of the people they represent, not just of the governments they represent, and that can listen to its members in a way that promotes cooperation, instead of just listening to the members who wield the greatest economic leverage or who speak with the loudest voice.

When the consciousness of man arrives at this awareness of unity, there will be a point at which it will become inevitable to form a social and organizational structure that will be a ‘World Council of Nations’...cont'd


http://www.lightomega.org/NL/2006-02-06.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Beyond Reason ....................................................

Marianne Williamson on Spirituality In Politics

http://www.sitemason.com/files/juReeI/Williamson.mp3

http://beyondreasonshow.blogspot.com/2006/03/spirituality-in-politics-with.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Politics and Spirituality: A Personal Journey

Dan Hamburg is a former member of the U.S. Congress, where he authored the Headwaters Forest Act, a bill that passed the House overwhelmingly. In 1998, he was the Green Party candidate for Governor of California. He is currently the Executive Director of VOTE (Voice of The Environment), a foundation dedicated to creating a progressive political coalition that can challenge the current two-party "duopoly."

http://www.aboutadidam.org/testimonials/politics/dan_hamburg.html





WHOSE HANDS ................

Whose hands are these that plow the soil in fertile valleys of the sun,
Or dig for roots in barren fields, in dusty earth whose time is done,
Whose hands are these that wipe the brow of dying children in their pain,
They are my hands, they are God’s hands, they are our hands.
Whose eyes are these that watch the bombs
that fall in markets filled with life,
Or run in fear from pointed guns that wave and threaten in plain sight,
Or look above for mercy’s help when all seems lost and death is near,
They are my eyes, they are God’s eyes, they are our eyes.
Whose feet are these that dance for joy when fortune’s kiss bestows a gift,
Or walk for miles in search of food so little ones may eat and live,
Or climb inside an armored tank when bullets rain down overhead,
They are my feet, they are God’s feet, they are our feet.

[havocmom]

1. My personal spirituality is a big drive in my political life

Religion, on the other hand, has nothing to do with it.

[Dover]

2. Is it difficult to reconcile the two?... n./t

[havocmom]

6. No. A really life affirming spirituality begets a life affirming philosophy

That gives rise (if the awareness is there and one can objectively observe and then connect the dots) to a political life driven by the need to preserve and encourage those efforts and goals which really are life affirming.

Sometimes that political drive may go against one's own immediate self interest and toward the greater good. That is where it is most spiritual for me.

Political goals and efforts which are mostly self serving seem decidedly UN-spiritual. They are rather base. Attempts to absolve ones self from any negative view (and self delusion) of self serving motives are definitely un-spiritual, and too often hung on the peg of religion.

IMHO and with full admission that I put the good of the greater community above my own most of the time, which may SEEM unnatural, but to me seems completely natural when considered in the larger context of species survival.

But I am blond and given to bouts of incredible stupidity ;)

[cosmik debris]

3. Do superstition and politics mix?

I don't think so.

[More Than A Feeling]

4. "Spirituality" is not a terribly useful concept.

It can be anything from a code word for New Age practices like tarot or crystal healing, to a way for someone to avoid the stigma attached to the word "religion" while being indistinguishable from it, to a distracting way of talking about meaning, importance, beauty, reverence, and awe.

[trotsky]

5. It's a great way to divide people and make compromise harder.

The right wing has been doing it with Christianity for decades. Stake out a political position, find a way to tie it to your beliefs/religion/spirituality, and now it becomes unassailable. Those who oppose you are evil/Satan's agents/anti-spiritual. How does one compromise with Satan? How does one compromise with someone who doesn't believe in "consciousness of man" or karma or whatever the hell new age stuff you're peddling?

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Strange thing is, Clothier's article doesn't mention spirituality once

It's about one man's Buddhism, and politics. Why someone titled it "Do Spirituality And Politics Mix?", I don't know (after all, the next article immediately says "spirituality is not religion").

The meaning of 'spirituality' in the second article seems to be most closely hinted at by this:

The interface between spirituality and politics exists at the point of love – love for Creation, love for one’s neighbor, love for the planetary environment, love for future generations, love for the plant and animal kingdoms, love for the unity of man. This love is the basis for the new spirituality that will underlie the politics of the future at a time in which the word ‘politics’ will come to have a new meaning.

Is that a good working definition of what people in this thread (or this forum) mean by 'spirituality' - a wide, perhaps even universal, love? It would be very handy to know, both for this thread and for the general discussions in R&T.

[More Than A Feeling]

8. As I said, it can mean so many things.

The most respectable definition I could think of would probably relate to what Rudolph Otto called "the numinous"("non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self").

In other words, spirituality could best be described, roughly, as "strong feelings about important stuff that is other than ourselves." But as I said, it can also be tarot cards and crystal healing.:shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. And to give it its due, a piece linked in the 'companion' thread to this

does touch on that:

Genuine spiritual practitioners have been known for failing more often than succeeding in their quest for complete inner freedom, but those that do prevail break through the “veil”, into the realm of numina, or Spirit, which includes the ability to see beyond psychological projection -- into what is, and to live moment to moment from the place of direct experience and being, rather than the indirect, filtered experience known as “mind”.

http://www.geocities.com/annubis33/HistoryofSpirituality/TEXT1.html

But if my mind is indirect experience, and I presume "direct experience and being" does not refer to the physical world (otherwise, it wouldn't be in the least spiritual), then this is the spirituality of the 'different plane' - where I'm not sure there's meant to be any correspondence to the physical world apart from the self. So I can't fit that to the "love for the planetary environment" or plant and animal kingdoms that the other article claims is an interface and a basis.

:shrug: Bof.



http://french.about.com/library/weekly/aa020901g.htm

[More Than A Feeling]

11. If a person is a strict naturalist, then the object can be the physical world

These people think so, at least: www.pantheism.net So does Sam Harris, for that matter. Richard Dawkins devoted the first chapter of his book to distinguishing a naturalistic "spirituality" (a term i still don't like, even as I kinda, sorta explain it *sigh*) that distinguishes Einsteinian "religion" from theism.

That's why this little bugger of a word is so slippery. It can be compatible with the strictest atheism and naturalism, or the most way-out-there woo.

[Evoman]

9. You can mix shit and chocolate, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to eat what results. nt

[Marrah_G]

13. It takes alot of shit to create a beautiful garden.

[Marrah_G]

12. They are harmonious in my life

I am sure both have some influence over the other.