Instance one: A group of 10-12 young men, clad in western clothes open fire in an overcrowded railway station, their apparent motive being to destroy the institutions of freedom and symbols of hope all across the globe.

Instance two:  A little known television actress shots into limelight for having severely beaten up her domestic maid who also happens to be a minor.

Instance three: Polar Bears are drowning in the Arctic Ocean as iceberg continues to melt there at an alarming rate.

Now what do these apparently distinct incidents have in common apart from the portrait of suffering and pain that it establishes? Well in one way or the other all these isolate events establishes one single fact about our world as it stands today, i.e. loss of faith among fellow human beings.

Let us try to elaborate on this fact on the basis of the first instance that we have noted; the issue of terrorism. Now enough has been researched and documented as to what are the forces that drive a human being, who is supposed to be rational, into the violent game of mass human carnage. In this article let us try and examine what has generally been the response of the STATE, a symbol of justice, power and authority in today’s modern civilization, to this issue of terrorism.

Typically the state has given the accused a ‘fair’ trail in the eyes of the law, established beyond a shade of doubt that they are indeed the perpetrators of crime and have meted out punishment in accordance to the severity of the crime committed.

But let us ask ourselves one question honestly and i.e. has this mechanism (of fair trial in the eyes of the unbiased judiciary and the subsequent punishment) been able to tackle the menace of terrorism to the best of our satisfaction? Well the answer is an overwhelming NO. This point to the limitations that our present means has in achieving an end that we all covet. But why has it been so? That is because in order to counter violence our modern institutions propagate counter violence by either sentencing the criminal for a life imprisonment or goes one step further to advocate capital punishment. By doing this we end up playing in the hand of the terrorists as the slain terrorists are portrayed as martyrs who had laid down their lives against the oppressive and tyrant state and it becomes easy for these transnational outfits to recruit fresh blood in order to avenge the death of the besieged.

And that is exactly where the teachings of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi can come to the aid of modern civilization. Gandhiji, throughout his life had advocated Satyagraha wherein he wanted to achieve liberation by actively following non-violence which would eventually lead to a change in the heart of the oppressor.

Taking a cue from this principle let us imagine a hypothetical situation. We have been successful in capturing a terrorist who has been responsible for a terrorist attack on innocent civilians that has resulted in the death of thousands of people. After having proved it beyond any doubts in the court of law let us advocate a different path in dealing with this messenger of death.  Let us take him to the families of all those victims who have suffered irrevocable loss in the death carnage that was masterminded and/or executed by him. Let him see the pains and sufferings in the eyes and faces of all those people whose hopes have been crashed and dashed in this terrible incident. Slowly let the realization awaken in him that there are countless people of the same faith or ethnic identity (that he is trying to establish as superior) who have suffered a massive loss in the ‘noble cause’ that he had devoted himself to.  Finally let him question himself as to how come he attain salvation by being the messiah of devastation to those people who were as much devoted to the same god (or belonged to the same ethnic community) as he was.

It is only this face to face meeting with reality that can help a terrorist to come out of his hypnotism of mass destruction, gradually he will realise that he has only served the purpose of some ill motivated clan of people and has not indulged in any greater good as he was led to believe earlier. By doing this we will be able to strike at the root of terrorism as one of their prime motivators (avenge the killing of fellow brethrens) in luring fresh recruits to join their camp. Moreover the words of a former ‘terrorist’ as a propagator of peace can have far more resonance with those sects of people who are expected to be most vulnerable to give in to the propaganda of the enemies of peace and freedom.

This can be one of the strongest ways of countering terrorism but for that we need to be strong from within. We will need to convince ourselves that non-violence is not passive and not meting out the maximum punishment does not symbolize the weakening of the STATE. Initially it may even appear that by not sentencing the criminals to death we are giving them a free license to execute their agenda. But if we turn back the pages of History we will notice that more often than not non-violence as a weapon of perusal has been fairly successful in achieving its end, provided the protagonists of the same had enough faith in the means to give it a fair run. In 1968, Czechoslovakian civilians nonviolently held Soviet armed forces at bay for a full week and stopped the Soviet leaders from ever subjugating that country and during World War II, Norway nonviolently and successfully resisted Nazi attempts to reorganize its society along fascist lines. Thus we can observe that non-violence has been effective against seeming tyrants at different junctures and there is no reason for us to be skeptic about its effectiveness this time around as well.

But above all, they believed that human beings are essentially good and it is possible to make them see reason, change their heart; they never lost faith in fellow human beings.

Another moral dilemma that inflicts the middle class (at least in the developing nations like India) is the issue of domestic help. Little young boys and girls are made to clean our clothes, wash rooms, take care of the child in the house (who might well be of the same age as the help) and we employ them on the allegedly noble pretext of augmenting her family’s miserable income, a roof over her head and giving her two square meals a day. Of course, for all these privileges we provide, we do not hesitate in ‘disciplining’ them by burning their forearms and beating them to an inch of their life if there is a gross misconduct on their part like trying a lipstick lying on the dressing table or if they dip their grubby fingers in the family’s shrikhand.

Now when we broach this topic in a public forum many of us agree that a stricter punishment for child labour is the only solution to tackle this menace. But even here larger questions remain unattended. For even when these kids disappear from our sight does it really secure them a proper childhood that would in turn equip them suitably to face the world as adults? Unfortunately the answer here would be in the negative as well.

The parents of these children are neither financially empowered nor socially enlightened to guarantee their children a sound childhood that would pave the way for a bright future. Therefore these children would inevitably either land up in a construction site or in a tea garden or in a glass factory wherein their lives would be crippled forever.

To these helpless and hapless creatures we can actually provide a beacon of light if we only take upon ourselves the onus of educating the maid that we employ in our home. Pragmatically perhaps it would be expecting too much to expect the landlords to treat these kids as their own children. But even if they can get these children admitted to a government or a municipality school (where the school fees are negligible) and give them at least two hours in the evening to do their homework, then every household can proudly declare that they are playing their part in nation building.

In his concept of trusteeship Gandhiji attempted to synergise two independent variables psychology and ethics. He urged the businessmen to be trustee for their subordinates and also urged them to use only that much money on themselves that is required for their sustenance and the rest should be spend on community development. The idea of providing education to domestic help is in sync with this philosophy at the micro level and at a much toned down version. The precondition for this is however a reestablishment of faith in the eyes of the human beings that would make them realise that even our domestic helps are as much human beings as we are.

“The earth, the air, the land and the water are not an inheritance from our forefathers but on loan from our children. So we have to hand it over to them at least as it was handed over to us”. These words spoken by Gandhi the visionary way back in the 1940s might well be the approach that should be followed by each one of us in this era of growing environmental concerns. In today’s world where we adhere to the ‘here and now’ philosophy most of us do not get perturbed with the implications of environmental imbalance in the future, as it may not significantly affect us in our life time. And that is exactly where the above mentioned words of Gandhi become relevant. The environment and its protection should be an obligation on the part of each and every individual to their future generations. For that one does not need to do anything extraordinary. If only we can submerse our ego and share our cars alternatively while going to school or office or shut down the computer while leaving office or turn off the tap in the street we would be acting like a responsible borrower without forgoing any privileges of our own. This would not only secure a more sustainable world for our future generations but it would also protect the different species of flora and fauna that have been endangered by the imbalance that we have created in their habitat.

None of the points suggested are new or we haven’t heard of. But what we need is the change in our approach and attitude. We must respect the fact that other species in this world have as much claim over it as the human beings. Inculcating Gandhi’s perspective of being a borrower and not the inheritor can be a wonderful starting point.

From the above discussion one can conclude that faith and respect among fellow human beings can be the single most important element lacking in today’s world which is at the root of most of the ailments that plagues us in our modern sophisticated technology driven world. We have become so obsessed with ourselves that we treat fellow human beings merely as the means to pursue our own selfish interest. This is where some of the concepts of Gandhi like Satyagraha, non violence, and spiritual aspects of our lives find resonance and relevance in our modern world.

However one may argue that how is it possible for us to put so much importance on seemingly indefinable and intangible concepts like faith and spirit within us (soul). Wouldn’t traversing this road be in contrast to the principles of reason and science, the two main milestones in our voyage towards progress thus far?

Well to address these apprehensions I would like to quote the following

‘I believe that Gandhi’s views were the most enlightened of all the political men of our time.’

When these words come from an icon as gigantic as Einstein there should not be any remnant of doubt in our mind that the concepts propagated by Gandhi are very much in sync with our modern progressive world.

All that is needed now is volition on our part to follow, interpret and implement them.

Indraneel Mukherjee

My appologies for having taken so long between posts.  Life is always finding ways to fill itself; lately it’s been the college application process and preparing for the Dharma Mittra Yoga 500 Hour training which begins in just a few weeks.

Last night after dinner I sat reading Mohandas K. (Mahatma) Gandhi’s For Pacifists; a beautiful little book originally published in November of 1949.  For Pacifists is pieced together from a number of Gandhiji’s writings expounding Satyagraha, his philosophy of non-violent resistance.   Ahimsa, the foremost Yama of Yogic Philosophy serves as the root of his philosophies on non-violence.  Though not even a third of the way through, the brilliance of Ghandiji’s treatise shines bright.

Here are some of the highlights thus far:

Non-violence is a term I had to coin in order to bring out the root meaning of ahimsa.  In spite of the negative particle ‘non’, it is no negative force. .. but a force superior to all the forces put together.  One person who can express ahimsa in life exercises a force superior to all the forces of brutality.

It is not through strife and violence but through non-violence that man can fulfil his destiny and his duty to his fellow creatures.

The real love is to love them that hate you, to love your neighbour even though you distrust him… Of what avail is my love, if it be onl so long as I trust my friend?  Even thieves do that.

Let there be no can’t about non-violence. It is not like a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseperable part of our very being.

Non-violence is not an easy thing to understand, still less to practise, weak as we are.  We must all act prayerfully and humbly and continually ask God to open the eyes of our understanding, being ever ready to act according to the light as we receive it.

May you find peace in these words, peace in your hearts and peace in your world.  May you be ever and always open and receptive to the grace of God.

Namaste

~ Raw Yogi

In this grand adventure within a grand adventure I would call my life, I feel I am learning about love through my desire to document fear. The initial intention of a movie entitled ‘Canada Knows’ was to document that we know about 911 and the possibility of something coming to “End Times”. As we discuss in private and now in public those theories that make us embrace our personal histories that quite often lead to more clues about what we know for sure, I am finding we know much more as individuals…those who have become simply aware of themselves and the impact of their presence even to the most definite end that we symbiotically feed the trees like they feed us.
Perspectives in this so called movement of truth are quite varied yet commonality is shown. In times of need as in times of hunger one is hell bent on stating what they know for sure, real or not. With a desire to save the world, as it is their own that is being threatened. Not only can one person not defend themselves alone, an army of persons would not solve this either, it is almost a coming together of separateness. A desire to believe what one knows for sure rather than what one has been informed to do or about.

I feel I am not a resource for anything but the same as debunkers. I am not an architect or a first responder. I was not in New York then or have I ever visited what I feel to be a phenomenal gathering of individual minds. A community like no other yet no different. The rights of New Yorkers are not what they should be. The denial of a referendum for that community after they have spoken up by taking that step to say what they want, is downright inhuman. Where do we go from here if diplomacy is ignored.

Please don’t riot. That is why they keep poking us with sticks. Violence is never the answer, especially to those that oppress. Fire stokes the Fire.

Could we resolve to stop the fighting? Can we work together without thinking that togetherness enhances that force and it should be used. I feel this is a new thing that I am reporting on. A newness that self polices. No One wants to be a part of violence. Just the same as someone who debunks 911, they are simply ignoring their personal choice to listen.

Almost as tragic as those 3000 not feeling one iota of justice. What if they are watching and are among us? Not that I definitely believe it to be so. But what if?

Everyone wants to play that game. I like to think I’m on the side of truth. And truth don’t take sides.

Peace
Max

philip glass, one of my favorite composers….

“Generations to come, it may be, will scarce believe that such one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth” – Albert Einstein

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or popularly called Mahatma Gandhi is one of the greatest figures in world history. He is the father of the nation- India. He is the main face of Indian freedom fight against the British rule. He fought against the British rule using ahimsa and non violence. He was the pioneer in civil disobedient methods like Satyagraha. His birthday October 2nd is internationally celebrated as International Day of Non-Violence. He was born in a small village in Gujarat called Porbandar in 1869. By profession he was a lawyer and was working in South Africa where he came across the despotic and harsh rule of British. He left South Africa and Joined in the forefront of Indian Independence Movement. Using non violence and ahimsa he organized several marches and protests like, non-cooperation movement, Dandi salt march, Quit India etc. Mahatma Gandhi has also spent a number of years in jail. On January 30^th 1948 Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated while having a public walk by an extremist Nathuram Godse. Mahatma Gandhi is one of the greatest personalities in the world history.

(Audrey) Today India celebrates the birthday of Mohandas Gandhi, also known as the Mahatma, literally the great-souled one. To me, Gandhi’s birthday appears kind of like Presidents Day in America—there’s little to celebrate except getting a day off of work. There are a few festivities happening in Gandhi’s honor in Delhi today, but so far as I can tell closed shops and a ban on selling alcohol for the day are the major visible signs of this holiday.

But if we more seriously reflect on Gandhi, what do we come up with? In some respects, Gandhi is a great man who should be admired. He was one of the key leaders of the independence movement in India, a deeply worthy cause. Moreover, he perfected the use of non-violent resistance (satyagraha), a strategy that not only benefited India but has been key in various other movements around the world, including the US Civil Rights Movement. I do not mean to disparage these achievements; they are undeniably significant and should be given their full due. But there is another side to the Mahatma.

In several, not insignificant ways Gandhi was a very negative force in Indian society whose ideas, however unintentionally, continue to contribute to India’s poverty even today. Two majors problems, for starters:

1. Gandhi promoted swadeshi, a philosophy that posits India’s economy should be totally self-reliant. In other words, economic isolationism that resulted in intense poverty and unbelievably slow growth for India for about 4 decades after Independence before the economy opened-up to multinational companies again in 1991 (economic growth has sky-rocketed ever since, including during the recent recession). Swadeshi still gets some play in liberal circles and plays out in terms of economic restrictions, but if the Mahatma were still alive today I would feel compelled to ask: how can you put an idealistic policy ahead of feeding your people?

2. Gandhi advocated rural life as the only way to maintain India’s soul. The problem here is that people in rural areas are often poor, ruled by caste boundaries, oppressed by the police, have poor access to basic necessities, and lack advancement opportunities. All these evils exist in cities as well, but to a much lesser degree. Gandhi hoped to prove wrong the seemingly universal idea that economic progress and overall prosperity comes with urbanization. However, he was the one mistaken, at the expense of how many? Stay in your villages as ideals, Gandhi told countless thousands, while he was whisked away on trains. It’s not incidental that India’s poorest state today, Bihar, remains 90% rural while other much richer states, such as Tamil Nadu, are majority urban.

In India today, Gandhi continues to be highly revered in name, but he’s increasingly ignored in practice. I would submit, that this is largely because his ideas failed India. They failed to make the nation self-sustaining, and, more importantly, they failed to make the people rich. Gandhi was a spartan in his own life and railed against materialism regularly. But what he (and so many others) seem to miss is that rejecting materialism, capitalism, and wealth are only meaningful actions when you have a choice. Gandhi did—he was a lawyer by education, from a well to-do family, and had a lucrative future ahead of him if he wanted it.

Yet Gandhi traveled on trains in the lowest class, had few possessions by the end of his life, and sewed his own clothes—all because he wanted to. But he seems never to have admitted that forgoing materialism and doing as he did out of necessity is not noble, but just poverty. I have no problem with those who want to follow in the Mahatma’s footsteps and give up their wealth for a simpler life; what I have a problem with are Indians not having the other option to possess, to own, to enjoy, to relish, and to accumulate.

So today I celebrate Gandhi’s great achievements of Independence and non-violent resistance. But I condemn many of his other ideas as ill-thought through and deeply destructive. Jai Hind, but let Gandhi rest in peace.

“La verdad es el objetivo, el amor el medio para llegar a ella.”

—M. Gandhi

Hoy hace 140 años, la pequeña ciudad de Porbandar, al Oeste de la India veía nacer al señor Mohandas Karamchand “Mahatma” Gandhi; quien luego se convertiría en abogado, político, pensador , pacifista y revolucionario.

Bapu (Padre), como le decían con cariño, fue un estudiante mediocre hasta ser admitido en la Universidad de Bombay, que luego dejaría para estudiar Derecho en el University College de Londres, poco antes de cumplir 19 años. En 1893 se muda a Sudáfrica por razones de trabajo. Viviendo en este país, entonces bajo dominio británico, experimentó el racismo y la discriminación en carne propia, situaciones que lo llevarían a interesarse en la lucha por los derechos civiles y, finalmente, a desarrollar y practicar la forma de resistencia no-violenta satyagraha.

En 1915 Gandhi regresa a la India y pasa un buen tiempo con el político indio Gopal Krishna Gokhale, viajando por todo el país y conociendo la situación de su pueblo. Tres años después visita las localidades Champaran y Kheda, donde organiza ashrams (lugares destinados a la enseñanza de la cultura india) para combatir el alcoholismo y la pobreza extrema de la zona, originados por el cultivo casi exclusivo de índigo para explotación británica. Logra su objetivo, tanto que poco tiempo después es arrestado acusado de alterar el orden público, desencadenando multitudinarias manifestaciones pacíficas que exigían (y lograron) su liberación.

El 13 de Abril de 1919 durante la celebración pacífica del festival de la cosecha y año nuevo Sikh, el Brigadier General inglés Reginald Dyer ordena abrir fuego contra la multitud de aproximadamente 5000 personas reunida frente al Templo Dorado por no acatar la orden dispersarse. La masacre de Amritsar, como se bautizó el incidente, sólo se detuvo tras 15 minutos literalmente por falta de munición; dejó 1526 muertos, más de 1000 heridos y un enorme sentimiento de indignación y rabia en el pueblo indio, que no tardó en reaccionar con disturbios y agresiones. Gandhi condenó los actos violentos, tanto los cometidos por los ingleses como las retaliaciones indias, llegando incluso a pedir disculpas a las familias de los civiles ingleses asesinados durante los disturbios.

Un tiempo después, Bapu decide protestar contra el impuesto que los ingleses habían fijado a la sal e inicia su acto de protesta más famoso: la Marcha de la Sal o Satyagraha de la Sal, una caminata de 300 kilómetros hasta el Océano Indico, donde junto con sus seguidores, recoge agua en recipientes para evaporarla y obtener sal. Su ejemplo es imitado en todo el país. Tras 9 meses en prisión Gandhi es liberado y el virrey reconoce su derrota cediendo a las demandas indias. El reconocimiento de la independencia es inminente, pero se ve interrumpido por la Segunda Guerra Mundial en Europa; tiempo suficiente para acentuar las diferencias entre hindúes y musulmanes, que terminarían por convertirse en una guerra civil.

Finalmente, el 15 de agosto de 1947 se disuelve el Imperio de India, con la separación de India y Pakistán. Los roces entre estos dos países seguían creciendo y tras el anuncio del gobierno Indio de deportar todos los musulmanes a Pakistán, Gandhi visita a los musulmanes de Nueva Delhi esperando ayudar a aliviar las tensiones y luego, indignado, se declara en “ayuno a muerte” (huelga de hambre) hasta que cese la violencia, se retire la medida contra los musulmanes y el gobierno Indio pague una deuda al gobierno Pakistaní. Días después, es visitado por los distintos líderes, quienes se comprometen a cumplir sus demandas y Gandhi rompe su ayuno con un vaso jugo de naranja.

El 30 de enero de 1948, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi muere al recibir 3 disparos en el pecho provenientes de la pistola Beretta 9mm empuñada por Nathuram Godse, un radical ultraderechista hindú que luego sería ejecutado; muy seguramente en contra de lo que su víctima hubiera deseado.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or Mahatma Gandhi..popularly known as Gandhi ji thought us the way of being free and independent with respect to our thoughts, acts and deeds. Among many of his qualities we remember him for teaching us about freedom and freedom rights.

Being independant is a basic instinct of man. Even a child resists when being dictated in terms of do’s and dont’s. We feel chocked when we are restricted in terms of expressing our thoughts as we think and doing the tasks what we want to. Many of us subordinate and obey commands whether we want or not, since there is no way out. Many of us might have cursed our divine stars for putting us in a position where we are bent on doing things which we never meant to. A few of us fight and oppose unconditional rule on us, come out breaking the shells and try to establish ourselves as independent individuals and enjoy being free.Many of us accept slavery for granted and never ever try to dream of being independent in any aspect of life.The term “being free” seems to have no meaning in the dictionary of our lives.

What is INDEPENDENCE?  It is nothing but a thought process.We are free when we chanellize all our thoughts in a positive direction and start thinking that we can do a lot of things in life without depending on others and that we can initiate things not waiting for someone else to bell the cat first. Its a leadership quality.A feeling of being independent can be considered by some as an alternate face of egoism.But Independence is an egoism aided in a constructive pathway where we can not only better ourselves but also set an example for others to follow.

Egoistic feeling of being independent by a mass of people collectively motivated by a qualitative and selfless leader would have freed India long back from the clutches of the British empire. Infact the early resistance would not at all allowed the foreigners to enter our border.On the other hand the egoism of our rulers with a stuff of selfishness to crumple, destroy and rule over each other, rather than putting hands together to crush the foreign force enabled the westerners to use our weakness and later rule over us.

Though we were stronger and equipped enough to combat the British invasion, the problems within us made us look like broken fragments and the foreigners never allowed the pieces to come and integrate together.They never allowed us to unite into a single force. Their divide and rule policy made us to see a magnified vision of the otherwise tiny British force. Though a few rulers put up a gallent fight, they could not get the cake because they had no support from within. It took 3 centuries of tolerance and submission untill some heroes like Gandhi Mohandas(Mahatma) with his weapon of silence and tolerance on one side and brave heart attackers like Bhagath Singh, Subash Chandra Bose etc with their killer instincts on the other side to appear on the scenario of struggle for freedom rights to make the Britishers Quit India.

On the eve of Gandhi Jayanti, the birth day of the great Mahatma-the pioneer of Ahimsa i.e non-violence and Satyagraha i.e Fight for truth i.e on 2nd of october every year, it makes us feel proud that one of the greatest leaders; the name of whom makes every one bow their heads with respect even at the international front…Mahatma Gandhi was born on our holy land…our India. He was an institution by himself. He gained respect through his simplicity, humbleness and wisdom.He drafted independence to us without speaking or even touching a weapon. The insult he faced at South Africa made him to fight against the insult against his motherland. By appearances he never looked like a leader; but the whole country followed him. Just a dhoti. a shawl, a spectacle, a sharp talk, a brisk walk and a stick in his hand mesmerised the whole nation. Just by seeing and hearing him each person started feeling that they were Indians and a dream to fight for independence and freedom rights got seeded in their hearts.

Gandhi is not a character. He is not a story told and forgotten. He is much more than that. He gave us freedom and and taught us to be free, fight to be free… by thoughts, actions and deeds. His life is a lesson for us to oppose the wrongs and adapt the right things in life. He is an inspiration to tell us and the generation ahead that sincere dreams and a strong will power will surely help us to conquer our destiny…and also to win over wrongs however stong they may be. We dont need weapons to fight for our rights…a passion and a correct way of approach and an instinct to get it will make all of us leaders of self and get our rights. If each of us think in the way our Bapuji thought…then we will enjoy the fruits of a true freedom that Gandhiji got us at the cost of his life.

Think independent…act independent…

Eis uma das maravilhas da Bhagavad-Gita, escrita 4 séculos antes de Cristo, em diálogo entre Krishna e Arjuna:

“A Suprema Personalidade de Deus disse: Destemor, purificação da própria existência; cultivo de conhecimento espiritual; caridade; autocontrole; execução de sacrifícios; estudo dos Vedas; austeridade; simplicidade; não-violência; veracidade; estar livre da ira; renúncia; tranqüilidade; não gostar de achar defeitos; compaixão para com todas as entidades vivas; estar livre da cobiça; gentileza; modéstia; firme determinação; vigor; clemência; fortaleza; limpeza, estar livre da inveja e da paixão pela honra – estas qualidades transcendentais, ó filho de Bharata, existem nos homens piedosos dotados de natureza divina”. (XVI – 1-3)

Cultivar todas essas virtudes é encontrar a paz, simplesmente isso… Se em todas as nossas ações, interrogarmos à nós mesmos se estamos fazendo-as de acordo com essas virtudes apresentadas por Krishna, estaremos dando um excelente passo para o melhoramento íntimo. Quantos de nós conseguimos ter uma conduta tão reta quanto essa, nos mínimos detalhes, diariamente? Não é fácil. Os passos da virtude são como os passos dos grupos de ajuda à dependentes. Viver 24 horas por dia, um dia de cada vez. Só assim conseguimos ir acoplando em nossa alma essas virtudes, substituindo os vícios que nos são tão naturais, por elas. Até que elas começem, pouco à pouco, à serem nossas atitudes naturais. No início é difícil, desejamos desistir e esquecer, como todo viciado em más tendências. Só com a perseverância, com a firmeza e obstinação em se auto-melhorar e colocando esse como o objetivo primeiro da vida, é que consegue-se tal grau de compromisso ao ponto de não sucumbir no caminho. Não é fácil, como não é despir-se de qualquer vício, mas é tão compensador, e a paz que trás é tão perfeita, que após um tempo, a necessidade de praticar tais virtudes deixa de ser meta difícil, para ser prazer.

Com o tempo e a prática diária, um dia de cada vez, a nossa alma clamará por praticar as virtudes que no início eram tão penosas. No início praticá-las todo o tempo nos causa dor, nos causa mesmo sofrimento íntimo dos mais intensos, porque desfazer-se do ego, dos vícios aos quais nossa alma está acostumada, nos causa algo parecido com a crise de abstinência, mas temos que ser firmes, porque depois que a virtude entranha na nossa alma, se acopla à nossa estrutura mental e emocional, acontecerá fenômeno oposto. Sempre que não a praticarmos é quando sentiremos dor, sofrimento. O que antes era penoso, passa a ser necessidade essencial para bem-viver. E o vício que antes trazia prazer e comodismo, passa a trazer um terrível mal-estar e sofrimento. É das coisas mais lindas de ver, uma alma que antes sentia prazer no vício moral, passando a sentir prazer na virtude.

É o perfeito retrato da vitória do bem dentro do nosso próprio microcosmo…

]]> http://bodyontheline.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/on-the-limits-of-solidarity/ Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:49:44 +0000 marcy/مارسي newman/نيومان http://bodyontheline.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/on-the-limits-of-solidarity/

last month two comrades in the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement (bds)–omar barghouti and haidar eid–both of whom i respect a great deal–wrote a statement about the gaza freedom march asking them to adopt a statement of context that addressed palestinian needs and demands rather than impose an american idea of those needs and demands on palestinian people (i quoted it and wrote about it here). a few weeks ago haidar and omar released a new statement saying that the gaza freedom march organizers had adopted their statement and they are now requesting people to endorse the march (click here to endorse it):

Dear supporters of just peace and international law,

We are writing to invite you to endorse the Pledge of the Gaza Freedom March, a creative initiative with historic potential organized by the International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza. The March is aimed at mobilizing active and effective support from around the world for ending Israel’s illegal and immoral siege on Gaza, currently the most pressing of all Israeli violations of international law and Palestinian rights. To endorse the Pledge, please click here and enter your name — or your organization’s name — in the box provided at the bottom.

Also reproduced at the end of this letter, after the Pledge, is the organizers’ Statement of Context which provides the necessary Palestinian context of the siege, namely Israel’s occupation, its decades-old denial of UN-sanctioned Palestinian rights, and Palestinian civil resistance to that oppression.

The Gaza Freedom March has won the endorsement of a decisive majority in Palestinian civil society. Aside from the Islamic University of Gaza, Al-Aqsa University, and tens of local grassroots organizations, refugee advocacy groups, professional associations and NGOs in Gaza, the March was endorsed by the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign National Committee (BNC)*, a wide coalition of the largest Palestinian mass organizations, trade unions, networks and professional associaitions, including all the major trade union federations, the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO) and the largest network representing Palestinian refugees. Ittijah, the Union of Arab Community-Based Associations, representing the most prominent Palestinian NGOs inside Israel, has also endorsed.

The March, planned for January 2010, to commemorate Israel’s illegal war of aggression against the 1.5 million Palestinians in occupied Gaza, is expected to draw many prominent figures and massive activist participation from across the world. The organizers have shown exceptional moral courage and a true sense of solidarity in drafting the Pledge and the Statement of Context. We salute them all for their principled and consistent commitment to applying international law and universal human rights to the plight of the Palestinian people, particularly in Gaza. We deeply appreciate their solidarity with our struggle for freedom and our inalienable right to self determination.

Anchored solely in international law and universal human rights, the Gaza Freedom March appeals to international organizations and conscientious citizens with diverse political backgrounds on the basis of their common abhorrence of the immense injustice embodied in the atrocious siege of 1.5 million Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, the overwhelming majority of whom are refugees.

With massive participation of internationals, led by prominent leaders, alongside Palestinians in Gaza the world can no longer ignore its moral duty to end this criminal siege, and Israel can no longer count on its current impunity to last long. We strongly urge you to endorse the Pledge and to help secure more endorsements.

Haidar Eid (Gaza)
Omar Barghouti (Jerusalem)

* The BDS National Committee, BNC, consists of: Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine (all major political parties); General Union of Palestinian Workers; Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions; General Union of Palestinian Women; Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO); Federation of Independent Trade Unions; Palestine Right of Return Coalition; Union of Palestinian Farmers; Occupied Palestine and Golan Heights Initiative (OPGAI); Grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (STW); Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI); National Committee to Commemorate the Nakba; Civic Coalition for the Defense of Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem (CCDPRJ); Coalition for Jerusalem; Union of Palestinian Charitable Organizations; Palestinian Economic Monitor; Union of Youth Activity Centers-Palestine Refugee Camps; among others …

Endorse the Gaza Freedom March! Sign the Pledge Below!

Israel’s blockade of Gaza is a flagrant violation of international law that has led to mass suffering. The U.S., the European Union, and the rest of the international community are complicit.

The law is clear. The conscience of humankind is shocked. Yet, the siege of Gaza continues. It is time for us to take action! On January 1, 2010, we will mark the New Year by marching alongside the Palestinian people of Gaza in a non-violent demonstration that breaches the illegal blockade.

Our purpose in this March is lifting the siege on Gaza. We demand that Israel end the blockade. We also call upon Egypt to open Gaza’s Rafah border. Palestinians must have freedom to travel for study, work, and much-needed medical treatment and to receive visitors from abroad.

As an international coalition we are not in a position to advocate a specific political solution to this conflict. Yet our faith in our common humanity leads us to call on all parties to respect and uphold international law and fundamental human rights to bring an end to the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967 and pursue a just and lasting peace.

The march can only succeed if it arouses the conscience of humanity.

Please join us.

The International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza
For more information, please see the Statement of Context
For a list of endorsers, please click here.

STATEMENT OF CONTEXT

Amnesty International has called the Gaza blockade a “form of collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza, a flagrant violation of Israel’s obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.” Human Rights Watch has called the blockade a “serious violation of international law.” The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, Richard Falk, condemned Israel’s siege of Gaza as amounting to a “crime against humanity.”

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter has said the Palestinian people trapped in Gaza are being treated “like animals,” and has called for “ending of the siege of Gaza” that is depriving “one and a half million people of the necessities of life.”

One of the world’s leading authorities on Gaza, Sara Roy of Harvard University, has said that the consequence of the siege “is undeniably one of mass suffering, created largely by Israel, but with the active complicity of the international community, especially the U.S. and European Union.”

The law is clear. The conscience of humankind is shocked.

The Palestinians of Gaza have exhorted the international community to move beyond words of condemnation.

Yet, the siege of Gaza continues.

Upholding International Law

The illegal siege of Gaza is not happening in a vacuum. It is one of the many illegal acts committed by Israel in the Palestinian territories it occupied militarily in 1967.

The Wall and the settlements are illegal, according to the International Court of Justice at the Hague.

House demolitions and wanton destruction of farm lands are illegal.

The closures and curfews are illegal.

The roadblocks and checkpoints are illegal.

The detention and torture are illegal.

The occupation itself is illegal.

The truth is that if international law were enforced the occupation would end.

An end to the military occupation that began in 1967 is a major condition for establishing a just and lasting peace. For over six decades, the Palestinian people have been denied freedom and rights to self-determination and equality. The hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were forced out of their homes during Israel’s creation in 1947-48 are still denied the rights granted them by UN Resolution 194.

Sources of Inspiration

The Gaza Freedom March is inspired by decades of nonviolent Palestinian resistance from the mass popular uprising of the first Intifada to the West Bank villagers currently resisting the land grab of Israel’s annexationist wall.

It draws inspiration from the Gazans themselves, who formed a human chain from Rafah to Erez, tore down the border barrier separating Gaza from Egypt, and marched to the six checkpoints separating the occupied Gaza Strip from Israel.

The Freedom March also draws inspiration from the international volunteers who have stood by Palestinian farmers harvesting their crops, from the crews on the vessels who have challenged the Gaza blockade by sea, and from the drivers of the convoys who have delivered humanitarian aid to Gaza.

And it is inspired by Nelson Mandela who said: “I have walked that long road to freedom. I have tried not to falter; I have made missteps along the way. But I have discovered the secret that after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. … I dare not linger, for my long walk is not ended.”

It heeds the words of Mahatma Gandhi, who called his movement Satyagraha-Hold on to the truth, and holds to the truth that Israel’s siege of Gaza is illegal and inhuman.

Gandhi said that the purpose of nonviolent action is to “quicken” the conscience of humankind. Through the Freedom March, humankind will not just deplore Israeli brutality but take action to stop it.

Palestinian civil society has followed in the footsteps of Mandela and Gandhi. Just as those two leaders called on international civil society to boycott the goods and institutions of their oppressors, Palestinian associations, trade unions, and mass movements have since 2005 been calling on all people of conscience to support a non-violent campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel fully complies with its obligations under international law.

The Freedom March also draws inspiration from the civil rights movement in the United States.

If Israel devalues Palestinian life then internationals must both interpose their bodies to shield Palestinians from Israeli brutality and bear personal witness to the inhumanity that Palestinians daily confront.

If Israel defies international law then people of conscience must send non-violent marshals from around the world to enforce the law of the international community in Gaza. The International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza will dispatch contingents from around the world to Gaza to mark the anniversary of Israel’s bloody 22-day assault on Gaza in December 2008 – January 2009.

The Freedom March takes no sides in internal Palestinian politics. It sides only with international law and the primacy of human rights.

The March is yet another link in the chain of non-violent resistance to Israel’s flagrant disregard of international law.

Citizens of the world are called upon to join ranks with Palestinians in the January 1st March to lift the inhumane siege of Gaza.

when the announcement for the march went out i wrote a critique of it, particularly about the racist way in which it seemed to be run (epitomized by the march’s first poster which featured no palestinians and just one white man–norman finkelstein). if you read that earlier post you will not be surprised to learn that with the gaza freedom march’s adoption of a palestinian platform–rather than an american platform pushed on palestinian people–finkelstein withdrew his support. here is what pulse media reported he said in response:

Norman Finkelstein’s withdrawal statement:

The original consensus of the International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza was that we would limit our statement to a pair of uncontroversial, basic and complementary principles that would have the broadest possible appeal: the march to break the siege would be nonviolent and anchored in international law.

I agreed with this approach and consequent statement and decided to remove myself from the steering committee in order to invest my full energies in mobilizing for the march. During the week beginning August 30, 2009 and in a matter of days an entirely new sectarian agenda dubbed “the political context” was foisted on those who originally signed on and worked tirelessly for three months.

Because it drags in contentious issues that—however precious to different constituencies—are wholly extraneous to the narrow but critical goal of breaking the siege this new agenda is gratuitously divisive and it is almost certain that it will drastically reduce the potential reach of our original appeal.

It should perhaps be stressed that the point of dispute was not whether one personally supported a particular Palestinian right or strategy to end the occupation. It was whether inclusion in the coalition’s statement of a particular right or strategy was necessary if it was both unrelated to the immediate objective of breaking the siege and dimmed the prospect of a truly mass demonstration.

In addition the tactics by which this new agenda was imposed do not bode well for the future of the coalition’s work and will likely move the coalition in an increasingly sectarian direction. I joined the coalition because I believed that an unprecedented opportunity now exists to mobilize a broad public whereby we could make a substantive and not just symbolic contribution towards breaking the illegal and immoral siege of Gaza and, accordingly, realize a genuine and not just token gesture of solidarity with the people of Gaza.

In its present political configuration I no longer believe the coalition can achieve such a goal. Because I would loathe getting bogged down in a petty and squalid public brawl I will not comment further on this matter unless the sequence of events climaxing in my decision to resign are misrepresented by interested parties.

However I would be remiss in my moral obligations were I not humbly to apologize to those who, either coaxed by me or encouraged by my participation, gave selflessly of themselves to make the march a historic event and now feel aggrieved at the abrupt turn of events. It can only be said in extenuation that I along with many others desperately fought to preserve the ecumenical vision that originally inspired the march but the obstacles thrown in our path ultimately proved insurmountable.

problems still remain with the new statement of context. it is far from perfect. it represents, however, a significant compromise, and, more importantly, acknowledges the necessity of abiding by palestinian civil society’s goals as guided by international law. three activists, gabriel ash, mich levy and sara kershnar, authored a very important critique of this new context in electronic intifada that is worth considering for activists invested in justice for palestinian refugees and for palestine more generally:

Changing course is never easy. It would have been far better had this discussion taken place before the call went out. That, however, is a lesson for the future. The compromise led a few of the organizers to leave in anger and recriminations. Some argued that the new context document is “sectarian” and will severely damage the potential of the march. While disputes are inevitable in every political endeavor, we call on all parties to cast aside differences and arguments, to respect the compromise and unite on our common objective, ending the siege of Gaza. What is important now is getting the best and most effective march possible.

We see the context document as a thoughtful attempt to bring together for this march those of us who support boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) and the full objectives of Palestinian liberation — including the right of return and full and equal rights for Palestinians living in Israel — with those activists whose support for lifting the siege of Gaza is largely humanitarian. Contrary to misrepresentations, the context document does not require marchers to adhere to BDS. But as the march puts nonviolence on its banner and claims inspiration from nonviolent Palestinian resistance, it cannot, without being offensive, ignore the increasing presence and far-reaching international impact of BDS as a Palestinian campaign of nonviolent resistance that is endorsed by all factions, including Fatah and Hamas, as well as more than 100 civil society associations. The growing support for BDS among prominent Western figures and mainstream organizations belies the claim that the mere mention of it is divisive.

Nor does the document commit the marchers to support the Palestinian right of return. It does commit the marchers to recognize the Palestinian Nakba and the historical fact that the refugees’ right of return, recognized by UN resolution 194, has been denied. These refugees make up 75 percent of the population of Gaza and are the recipients of this march’s solidarity. To recognize this history does not compel one to agree to any specific resolution of the conflict. But refusing to recognize it denies the history of the Palestinian people, a denial that is inconsistent with any form of solidarity.

The new document’s only demand is the end of the siege of Gaza. There are no other demands. Nothing in it prevents activists committed to a “two-state solution” and a “Jewish state” from participating. We therefore strongly object to representing the new language as an attempt to limit the scope of the march. We take strong offense at the attempt to label the recognition of the concerns of Palestinian liberation within the context of a solidarity action as “sectarian.” We seriously doubt that the number of individuals willing to fly to Egypt and then march in Gaza, yet who refuse to recognize the history of Gaza, is very large.

We are also heartened by the addition of non-governmental partners in Gaza. As soon as the context statement was added, endorsements came from the University Teachers’ Association in Palestine, Palestinian Student’s Campaign, al-Aqsa University, Arab Cultural Forum-Gaza and al-Quds Bank for Culture and Information-Gaza. We are also encouraged by the addition of the International Solidarity Movement and support from members of the South African Palestine solidarity community. The elected government of Gaza has also endorsed the march and will now hopefully increase its assistance.

In supporting this compromise, we are mindful of the original aim of the organizers for large and “ecumenical” participation. We share that goal. However, our conversation would benefit from honesty about the meaning of “ecumenical.” It never means “everybody.” We don’t just want the maximum number of marchers; we want the maximum number that can be achieved without compromising the visions of the diverse organizers and solidarity groups participating in this particular project.

Where should the line be drawn? This is a difficult decision that haunts every political struggle and always requires deliberation, negotiation and compromise. It is misleading to frame the debate as one between those who want maximum participation and those motivated by ideology, in particular when this framing aims to delegitimize the concerns of Palestinian activists representing significant sections of Palestinian grassroots organizing. We all have political lines that we won’t cross. The lines drawn by those at the very heart of the struggle deserve our particular respect.

We now have a fair and inclusive basis for organizing the march, open to proponents of radically different political visions yet respectful of all, and in particular, respectful of Palestinian history and struggle. We must now all strive to make this march as big and as successful as possible.

but this march and is organizing, as well as the organizing around bds, has made me think a lot about what it means to act in solidarity with palestinians, or any group of people for that matter. i recently received an email from a dear friend who decided, after years of trying to persuade him, to join the academic boycott. he signed the statement, but he is still ambivalent about it as a tactic. why? because noam chomsky has not come out in support of it. and this makes me wonder a lot about why chomsky would be the one to defer to? chomsky, like norman finkelstein, are two scholars whose work i admire a great deal. their thinking and writing has influenced me tremendously over my the course of my life. but in the end there are too many barriers for me to fall in line with their thinking: particularly the fact that neither one has signed on to bds andthat neither one supports the right of return for palestinian refugees. here, for example, is chomsky speaking on the subject of sanctions in an interview with christopher j. lee:

Safundi: So you would apply “apartheid” to that broader situation?

Chomsky: I would call it a Bantustan settlement. It’s very close to that. The actions are taken with U.S. funding, crucially. U.S. diplomatic, military, and economic support are crucial. It cannot be done without that.

Safundi: And that is similar to U.S. support for South Africa during the apartheid period through the 1980s.

Chomsky: Yes. As I’m sure you know, the Reagan Administration-which is basically the current people in power, including people like Colin Powell-found ways to evade Congressional restrictions so that they continued to support the apartheid administration, almost until the end.

Safundi: Connected to that…

Chomsky: In the case of Israel, they don’t have to hide it because there are no sanctions.

Safundi: That’s my question. One of the important tactics against the apartheid government was the eventual use of sanctions. Do you see that as a possibility?

Chomsky: No. In fact I’ve been strongly against it in the case of Israel. For a number of reasons. For one thing, even in the case of South Africa, I think sanctions are a very questionable tactic. In the case of South Africa, I think they were [ultimately] legitimate because it was clear that the large majority of the population of South Africa was in favor of it.

Sanctions hurt the population. You don’t impose them unless the population is asking for them. That’s the moral issue. So, the first point in the case of Israel is that: Is the population asking for it? Well, obviously not.

But there is another point. The sanctions against South Africa were finally imposed after years, decades of organization and activism until it got to the point where people could understand why you would want to do it. So by the time sanctions were imposed, you had international corporations supporting them. You had mayors of cities getting arrested in support of them.

So calling for sanctions here, when the majority of the population doesn’t understand what you are doing, is tactically absurd-even if it were morally correct, which I don’t think it is.

The country against which the sanctions are being imposed is not calling for it.

Safundi: Palestinians aren’t calling for sanctions?

Chomsky: Well, the sanctions wouldn’t be imposed against the Palestinians, they would be imposed against Israel.

Safundi: Right…[And] Israelis aren’t calling for sanctions.

Chomsky: Furthermore, there is no need for it. We ought to call for sanctions against the United States! If the U.S. were to stop its massive support for this, it’s over. So, you don’t have to have sanctions on Israel. It’s like putting sanctions on Poland under the Russians because of what the Poles are doing. It doesn’t make sense. Here, we’re the Russians.

Israel will of course do whatever it can as long as the U.S. authorizes it. As soon as the U.S. tells it no, that’s the end. The power relations are very straight forward. It’s not pretty, but that’s the way the world works.

of course, chomsky has a point: in terms of bds the u.s. should be every bit the target. but not in lieu of the zionist entity, but rather in addition to it. but the fact that paestinians are calling for bds means that those of us who want to work in solidarity with palestinians should support that work. but the fact that some people think we should refer to two american jews on the matter of this is disturbing. would one defer to a slavemaster when abolishing slavery? would one defer to a nazi when fighting against concentration camps? would one defer to white southerners when resisting jim crow segregation in the u.s. south? i find this logic racist and deeply problematic. i’m not at all saying that the work of chomsky and finkstein is not important to read, to listen to, to consider. but i am asking people to consider the logic of looking to them as if they were the leaders of the palestinian people. if we’re looking for leaders we need not look beyond haidar eid and omar barghouti for starters. and there are thousands more where they came from.

Como é difícil essa frase de Gandhi, mas quanto ela liberta!

“Mesmo que seu oponente o tenha enganado vinte vezes, um satyágrahí está pronto a confiar nele pela vigésima primeira vez, pois uma confiança implícita na natureza humana é a verdadeira essência de seu credo”.

Ser livre por não temer, por confiar, por dar sempre a chance para a verdade! Não seria essa conduta do Satyagraha de Gandhi, a base essencial do perdoar 70 x 7 que Jesus pregou?

Confiar outra vez é Perdoar 70 x 7 , é sempre dar a outra face ao agressor, é sempre estar disposto à tranformar o inimigo em amigo, é sempre dar a chance para o bem. Quanta sabedoria num único gesto: confiar sempre.

Como é difícil confiar quando esse edifício da nossa alma desmorona, mas quanto liberta a alma reconstruí-lo incessantemente, se for preciso, sem descanso, sem a pressa que alicerça com imperfeição, sem se preocupar se o trabalho terá que ser feito todo outra vez! Se te ferirem 100 vezes, por 100 vezes você fez a tua parte! Apenas de ti mesmo depende a sua paz…

Dizem que a ingenuidade é a essência da confiança. Pois eu penso que ingênuo é quem pensa que se liberta, enquanto se escraviza ao opressor, pelos laços do medo e da desconfiança. Dar sempre a chance para o bem é viver em liberdade incondicional, mesmo rodeado de inimigos. Pode demorar, pode nos custar sofrimento e renúncia, mas um dia a verdade triunfa. Trabalhar pelo bem não é só fazer caridade ou ter tolerância e fraternidade, porém tendo como limite o próprio bem-estar, mas também sofrer e renunciar voluntariamente pelo triunfo da verdade e do amor. E isso, muitas vezes consiste em esperar, sofrendo, pelo despertar daqueles que nos agridem. Isso é um grau mais elevado de amor aos inimigos, mais difícil e com necessidade de mais maturidade, para que o amor incondicional não se transforme em aceitação incondicional. Essa é a grande essência do Satyagraha: Amar incondicionalmente sem aceitar incondicionalmente. Aceitar sofrer pelo despertar do opressor, mas não aceitar sofrer pela opressão.

]]> http://jyotiprema.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/grandes-almas/ Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:36:22 +0000 Luciana Luz http://jyotiprema.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/grandes-almas/

Yogananda no ashram de Gandhi em 1935

Nem acreditei quando vi o encontro de Parahamansa Yogananda com Gandhi! Que maravilha! Destaco essa frase de Yogananda:

“Algum dia, uma epopéia será escrita sobre os satyágrabís da índia que resistiram ao ódio com o amor, à violência com a não-violência e se deixaram impiedosamente assassinar, em vez de empunhar armas. Disto resultou que, em certas ocasiões históricas, foram os adversários que jogaram ao chão as armas e fugiram – cheios de vergonha, abalados em suas convicções mais profundas, à vista de homens que valorizavam a vida dos outros acima da sua própria”.

É a própria essência da Satyagraha! E como é imbatível à qualquer império, por maior e mais magestoso que ele seja!

Excelente lembrança para o dia de hoje, e para o dia de amanhã… Há um ano atrás, a Satyagraha de Gandhi, vencia mais uma vez…

]]> http://wordcreates.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/satyagraha-triology-by-philip-glass/ Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:24:49 +0000 benedictg http://wordcreates.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/satyagraha-triology-by-philip-glass/

“Satyagraha” is a Sanskrit word meaning “truth-force.” While the text is ancient, the story of the opera is set in modern times, and deals with Mahatma Gandhi’s early years in South Africa and his development of non-violent protest as a political tool.

“Satyagraha” is the second of three operas that form a kind of trilogy about men who changed the world: Einstein, Gandhi, and the ancient Egyptian pharaoh Akhnaten.

The opera is loosely based on the life of Mohandas K. Gandhi, and is the second part of Glass’s “Portrait Trilogy” of operas about men who changed the world, which also includes Einstein on the Beach and Akhnaten. Philip Glass’s style can broadly be described as minimalist, but the music in Satyagraha is somewhat more expansive than is implied by that label. The cast of the opera includes 2 sopranos, 2 mezzo-sopranos, 2 tenors, a baritone and 2 basses and a large SATB chorus. The orchestra is strings and woodwinds only, no brass or percussion.

The title of the opera refers to Gandhi’s concept of non-violent resistance to injustice, Satyagraha, and the text, from the Bhagavad Gita, is sung in the original Sanskrit.

wikipedia link

a time for action: sometimes, no matter how many ways you try to describe a thing, you have to experience it to know what it really is. i’ve been talking about transformative change: what it is and isn’t. what it could look like and what it can make possible in the world. “beyond the boycott” is the birthplace of an experience of transformative change rooted in nonviolent action. rather than a campaign against Whole Foods, it’s a committment to real healthcare & wellness for all. it’s a campaign for a more “whole truth.” if you’re interested, join in the experience, and together, we’ll transform the world. -aKw

Two weeks ago, like now tens of thousands of others on Facebook, I ran across a post on Why You Should Boycott Whole Foods. If you’re like me, you may have experienced a deeply conflicted moment of some combination of shock, disgust, rage and, um…fear. Fear that you will now have to figure out where to get those admittedly pricey but picturesquely beautiful organic foods you’ve come to know and love and, for some of us, give your whole paycheck for.

I’m a stalwart soldier that can take a strong stand for what I believe in. The truth is though, I live in Berkeley, CA, the uber-progressive Republic rivaled only by my hometown of New York City for access to “whole foods” from places other than Whole Foods. As annoying as it might be, it won’t exactly be a hardship for me to go spend my dollars at Berkeley Bowl, Trader Joe’s and the stunning array of year-round weekly farmer’s markets.

But how true is that for thousands of us? Especially when Whole Foods is the only game in town—exactly what has made it such a national success—and exactly what I believe John Mackey was counting on when he wrote his now-infamous op-ed The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare.

Here’s another truth, sheepish as it may be: I Like Whole Foods. After kavetching like many about the high pricetag on everything from Abalone to Zinneas, and derisively calling it by its’ Whole Paycheck moniker every chance I could get, I surrendered to its wide open aisles, carefully stacked vine-ripened tomatoes and apparently happy-to-be-working-there-employees’ smiles. I do spend my whole paycheck, though not being able to afford health insurance frees up a little cash.

And since we’re on a truth roll: I like most of the eight points Mackey made in his piece. I certainly think they’re worth looking into. So I don’t think he’s evil and I definitely don’t think he’s stupid. In fact, I think he smartly calculated the risk of framing his plan as he did. I think John Mackey, like any businessman capable of building a $8B business did some accounting. He accounted for the risk of pissing off a central base. He accounted for sparking a firestorm at a critical point in the healthcare discourse, and I even think he accounted for some boycotts here and there. But he calculated that he would win. Why? Because:

• Most Americans (myself included) have dwindled down to the attention span of a 140-character tweet.
• Boycotts take time, patience and commitment to work. Understandably, we’re sorely lacking on most of that these days, and most impactfully:
• Whole Foods IS the only game in town in too many places for a sustained boycott over an indefinite period of time.

So what to do? Something John Mackey hasn’t accounted for—take the Whole Foods Boycott to another level—tell Whole Foods “I Don’t Buy It.”

If given an invitation, they don’t respond meaningfully to the concerns of their offended core base and those impacted by his statements, we should all get together and go beyond the boycott. Sending peopleTO Whole Foods to SHOP, but DON’T BUY is an action that will get their attention. It’s time to increase the pressure and urgency on Whole Foods, leaving no doubt that we will not only withhold our dollars from them, but will take positive action to drain them of resources. But it’s also time for those of us pushing for change to do so in a way that actually seeks resolution, transforming the issue into an opportunity for real change: change that matters. Thus, any action taken should be thoughtful, respectful, measured and leveraged only if it is needed: if understanding where this is headed, Whole Foods won’t come to the table. Ignoring it away is not an option.

Just like it sounds, in a SHOP. DON’T BUY action, people would:

SHOP for groceries, then “pay” with a symbolic 60-Person bill and tell the cashier that their CEO, in effect, said this is acceptable:

• that it’s OK that 60 people die every day without access to healthcare
• that it’s OK that uninsured adults are 25% more likely to die prematurely
• that it’s OK the lack of health insurance is the third leading cause of death for the near-elderly

Naturally they won’t accept the 60P so shoppers get to tell Whole Foods “I DON’T BUY It.”

• DON’T BUY their food.
• DON’T BUY their excuse for John Mackey’s irresponsible statements.
• DON’T BUY any position that allows corporations to avoids responsibility for their leadership when offering a personal view under the banner of their brand.

Leave the store without the groceries.

This simple but powerful action can give us voice to acknowledge that, contrary to what Mackey suggests, healthcare IS a right. It is buying from Whole Foods that is a privilege.

Going beyond the boycott—which is hard to measure the impact of, potentially loses steam and often devolves into angry protest because people want to DO something—each of us can say “Whole Foods, I’m commited to take action because…

I don’t buy it that Mackey benignly used scare tactic phrases “socialism” and “government takeover.”

I don’t buy it that healthcare is something that every American shouldn’t have access to because “a careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right…”

I don’t buy it “that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health” even though a flawed system has sold access to healthcare from under the feet of 47 million people.

I don’t buy it “voluntary, tax-deductible donation” is sufficient to address that lack of access, and

I don’t buy it that even if “many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted” for the many reasons–systemic, market-driven, lack of information–that may be true, 60 people should die everyday.

And I don’t buy it for Whole Foods to explain this away as “personal opinions” because Mackey used his access and status as CEO to make his surprisingly irresponsible and self-serving statements, branding it “The Whole Foods Alternative…”

We can leverage our commitment to action for a more satisfying resolution to the betrayal of our trust in shared values. Now that their CEO has publicly stood against so many, what will Whole Foods stand for? In the absence of a meaningful response to their leader’s maybe personal, likely uninformed, but still irresponsible statements, love Whole Foods as we may—-in fact because we love them—-we need to hold them accountable. An organized, nonviolent Shop, Don’t Buy action can do that.

Finally, Mr. Mackey, I acknowledge that your “eight reforms” might work. But this is no longer only about lowering costs, it’s about life and our inalienable Rights—as a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence does reveal—to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of those are possible without our health. You’ve got good ideas but you didn’t have to slap us with them. Relationship repair starts with conversations. Can we talk?

Some powers that be, naysayers, talking heads and even John Mackey may believe Whole Foods can just wait out a boycott and continue business as usual without significant impact on their bottom line.

I don’t buy it. And you shouldn’t either.

Get details on Shop. Don’t Buy: http://bit.ly/idbi

—

copyright MMIX. angel Kyodo williams

angel Kyodo williams is a maverick teacher, author, social visionary
and founder of Center for Transformative Change. she posts, tweets &
blogs on all things change. permission granted to retweet, repost,
repaste & repeat with contact information intact.

Fan angel on Facebook
Follow angel on Twitter
Find angel on the Web
angel in the blogosphere

Note: The above essay was modified from the original written 8/25/09 —aKw

You can access the so-called poems by clicking on their titles in the right-hand column. There is also an introduction, called “*Eric Chaet.”

Tho, given
prevailing conditions
it is approximately
impossible
this collection
of so-called poems
exists—
as much as
Homer’s Iliad
or Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching
or Isaiah’s Book
or Dante’s Divine Comedy
or Whitman’s Leaves of Grass—
or a rock or water
or the Chinese Communist Party
or the American
Republican or Democratic Parties
or the Iranian or Russian government
or the national oil companies
of Brazil, Malaysia, or Mexico
as Somalia, Sudan, or Guinea
or BP or Shell or Exxon-Mobil
or Al-Qaeda or JPMorgan Chase
or the Bank of England
or Apple or Google or Microsoft
or various nuclear arsenals
or politically-awarded subsidies
or the cost of getting elected to represent people
who can’t afford to contribute to your campaign
even if they weren’t so furiously cynical, so fatalistic
so trapped in the herd they wrap themselves in for warmth
as light, photosynthesis, sight, as blood, bone, breath
or the place where you buy groceries, or the groceries.

Patience & perseverance
learning & practice
integrity & adaptability
refusal to accept what’s wrong
initiative & follow-thru
one life-time at a time.

I don’t find most poetry
whether ancient, modern, or contemporary
of much value to me—
but the poetry I find that is valuable
is valuable as little else is.
I hope you find these so-called poems of real value to you.
I wrote them with that intent.

///

///

Picture: U.S. Geological Survey

This story is a couple of months old but what do you think the man himself would have made of it all.

I suspect he would not have been concerned about the personal belongings but much more worried about the state of things in general.

Even though there is some pretence that they were bought ‘for India’ it is not sure if they are going to a museum. Gandhi is after all the man who said…”A nation’s culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its people.”

NEW YORK: Hours after high drama and frenzied bidding, Mahatma Gandhi’s personal belongings were bought for USD 1.8 million by industrialist Vijay Mallya, who said he “bidded for the country” at the auction after last-ditch attempts by India to stall the sale of the memorabilia fell through.