Tonight I ran into someone who I went to high school with on the bus home. He was a couple of grades ahead of me, and was very popular back then. When I first saw him, and realized who it was, I felt nothing beyond the natural excitement of bumping into someone you haven't seen in a while, and I eagerly tapped him on the shoulder to say hello. At first he didn't recognize me - and I was fine with that - as I said, he was older (and a high school celebrity), so I didn't necessarily expect him to know who I was.
But as I got up to get off the bus, recognition swept over his face, and he smiled (and maybe, or was it just me? giggled?). In that moment, as he said my maiden last name, I was suddenly overcome with shame and embarrassment. If he remembered who I was, I thought to myself, he must remember what a gigantic loser I had been - and he's probably still laughing at me now, I thought.
I went home and played the scene over and over in my mind, as I chopped up my fresh kale for our dinner. And somewhere between analyzing my perception of his perception of me (can he tell how much I've changed?), and cringing at the thought of that pimple-faced teenage girl with that awful last name who I have been trying to so hard to distance myself from for the last decade...I remembered something: that girl was just a kid. She was just a girl doing the best she could. Just a quirky, smart, socially awkward girl, with a tendency to over-share (which hasn't changed), suffering from hormonal skin in a small town. This guy didn't know me...if he had any perception of me, negative or otherwise, it wasn't based on anything factual - it couldn't be, we had never spoken directly to each other in our lives up until today...
I felt something soften in me tonight, like that moment when the shell of a piece of candy left out in the sun starts to melt. I felt a compassion for that younger me, where before there was only revulsion. And as a result, I didn't need to try to tear down this guy's character in my mind to make sure that I maintained some sense of self-esteem (i.e. if i make him out to be a vapid, shallow person, his opinion won't matter). There were no judgments of the kind necessary. And I suddenly even found humor in the idea that he would have thought I was a nerd..."If only he knew," I smiled to myself.
So it looks like all this Buddhist stuff I've been reading/practicing lately is starting to sink in...what da ya know? :)
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Friday, February 8, 2013
Muslims & Miseducation - Enough Already
The media's "unconscious" reinforcement of stereotypes and prejudices has long been an issue for me, especially when it comes to their coverage of small groups and individuals who call themselves Muslims, yet commit crimes against God, humanity, and Islam itself. In particular, I have a problem with the very way that media makes reference to these groups, intimately linking them to Islam and its concepts, without any further explanation, thereby implying to the public that "Islam" and "terrorism" are one in the same.
For instance, any time you turn on the news (even the BBC) to find a story regarding a terrorist act or sell, these individuals will be referred to "Islamic extremists" or "Muslim terrorists" or "Jihadists". To say that one is extreme about something, implies that they follow it or link themselves to it in some extreme manner. That is, to say that these people are extreme about Islam, implies that they follow Islam in an extreme way. In actuality of course, it is quite the opposite - by committing acts of violence targeting innocent people, they sharply deviate from the teachings of Islam - any sane Muslim, be they ultra religious or barely practicing will tell you that. These acts of terror that are committed are in no way "Islamic" - not in principle nor in objective. Terrorists are not seeking to convert more people to Islam - their agendas are purely political and territorial. They merely use the concept of God as some kind of twisted justification for their horrific acts. But equating "Islam" with "extremism", and "Muslim" with "terror" leaves a certain taste in people's mouths, especially those who have no other references for Islam.
It is bitter sweet for me that over ten years after 9/11 when we began this active miseducation about Muslims and Islam, I am starting to see a few campaigns attempting to combat these misconceptions. For instance, there's this one, targeting the misunderstanding of the word "Jihad": http://myjihad.org/
Aymann Ismail, a 22-year-old American Muslim filmmaker, made this video talking to college students at Rutgers University, showing how few of them could even make a clear distinction between the concept of an "Arab" and the concept of a "Muslim". To learn more about this, click here.
Here's the 7 minute video: https://vimeo.com/16696682
But unfortunately these campaigns, though certainly worthwhile (every individual you educate is a victory), have small voices in contrast to the constant barrage of media headlines feeding these stereotypes.
The most recent one that inspired this post - coverage of current events in Timbuktu with headlines like this:
For instance, any time you turn on the news (even the BBC) to find a story regarding a terrorist act or sell, these individuals will be referred to "Islamic extremists" or "Muslim terrorists" or "Jihadists". To say that one is extreme about something, implies that they follow it or link themselves to it in some extreme manner. That is, to say that these people are extreme about Islam, implies that they follow Islam in an extreme way. In actuality of course, it is quite the opposite - by committing acts of violence targeting innocent people, they sharply deviate from the teachings of Islam - any sane Muslim, be they ultra religious or barely practicing will tell you that. These acts of terror that are committed are in no way "Islamic" - not in principle nor in objective. Terrorists are not seeking to convert more people to Islam - their agendas are purely political and territorial. They merely use the concept of God as some kind of twisted justification for their horrific acts. But equating "Islam" with "extremism", and "Muslim" with "terror" leaves a certain taste in people's mouths, especially those who have no other references for Islam.
It is bitter sweet for me that over ten years after 9/11 when we began this active miseducation about Muslims and Islam, I am starting to see a few campaigns attempting to combat these misconceptions. For instance, there's this one, targeting the misunderstanding of the word "Jihad": http://myjihad.org/
Here's the 7 minute video: https://vimeo.com/16696682
But unfortunately these campaigns, though certainly worthwhile (every individual you educate is a victory), have small voices in contrast to the constant barrage of media headlines feeding these stereotypes.
The most recent one that inspired this post - coverage of current events in Timbuktu with headlines like this:
Islamists’ Harsh Rule Awakened Ethnic Tensions in Timbuktu
(The above is a link an article from the New York Times).
Also from the NY Times:
I was actually watching the BBC (which is typically the only news I find worthwhile) when they referred to the former regime in Mali as implementing "harsh Shariah law". Here is a BBC article headline in print:
So what do these headlines say to you about Muslims when you come across them? I imagine that if I had to no other education on the subject, I would without a doubt learn to associate "Islamists" (people who believe in Islam, right?) with harshness and cruelty. And "Shariah"? What's that? Sounds like some kind of Muslim martial law meant to oppress people. Funny that Muslims here are painted as oppressors, when in fact the word Muslim means "submission".
So regarding this situation, what you had here was a case of a group of people trying to impose one ultra-conservative, very narrow interpretation of Islam upon others in an effort ultimately to control those they were oppressing. This in no way represents the mainstream teachings or generally accepted wisdom within Islam. In the same way that Taliban rule does not represent the mainstream thinking in Islam, nor do female circumcision practices. But from reading these headlines, you wouldn't know that.
Secondly, "Shariah" is a term that refers to Islamic law or the law of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). When the Prophet was alive, the Muslim community that followed him invited Islam to permeate every part of their lives. Their was no separation between private lives and religious lives. And there was no separation between church and state. And this worked for everyone because all the people were fervent believers. They created a community based on love of Islam, which was entered into by choice. And a life lived by (not under) the Shariah, was a happy and fulfilling one. Islamic law, the Shariah, is a path to God, not a set of harsh rules to oppress people. It includes everything from frequency of one's prayers, to the injunction to give to charity, and the commands like this to be a "true servant" to God directly from the Qur'an: ‘The true servants of the Most Merciful are those who behave gently and with humility on earth, and whenever the foolish quarrel with them, they reply with [words of] peace.’ (al-Furqan 25: 63)
So where is the sense of responsibility from media publications and individual journalists not to perpetuate and augment such inaccurate and hateful stereotypes? Why is it we hold our pop stars more accountable for what they project to our youth, then our media who is addressing things of much deeper significance?
Monday, February 4, 2013
Black Hasidim
Took these photos (by Wayne Lawrence) out of an NY Mag in a doctor's office. They are black Hasidic Jews living in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. I just love the way these photos challenge so many of our preconceived notions. What do they conjure up for you?
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Some Thoughts on the Election
Apparently I never published the below - so here it is:
Last night, Barack Hussein Obama was reelected for his second term as our President. Leading up this election, I have felt a great deal of sorrow, anger, disillusionment and overall cycism with regard to our political system and our prospects for the future as a nation. I had formerly been an avid supporter of Obama, but watching him fight to win this election...the ads, the debates, the manipulations...I found myself deeply disappointed in him and I wondered if he wasn't just like all the rest, just with darker skin and better rhetoric. I considered not voting at all. And if after I went to the polls and cast my vote for Obama, I was still unclear as to my reasons for even going, being that a) I live in one of the 41 states where my vote doesn't matter (it's a Blue state, period) and b) I think our whole political system is so broken that it doesn't really matter who wins, and c) I believe that until there is a massive paradigm shift in the way we relate to one another as individuals, diverse peoples, and nations politics are pretty much irrelevant because the government will continue to be a reflection of "Me! Me! Me!" ideology. I just knew that Mitt Romney struck me as another arrogant, self-righteous, money-centered, and narrow-minded (did I mention arrogant?) and I would be sad to see America fall back into that tired, stagnant mindset - so for whatever it was worth, I cast my vote against it.
But as I sat watching the election coverage (hours after our power had finally been restored - a whole 9 days after hurricane sandy!), I started to read about Obama, more than I ever had before. I voted for the first time around, but truth be told, when he won that election the most meaningful aspect of it for me at the time was what it meant for America to be able to elect a black president. I also believed he was a man of real integrity - but that was most of what I knew about him.
I wont go into all the things I learned about him both biographically and policy-wise, but I will see that between what I read and his beautiful acceptance speech, I found myself once again hopeful for this nation. It is one thing to elect someone like Obama once; but is another to confirm, with a considerable majority, that he is the direction this country wants to continue to move in - despite a still very sick economy.
So I sit here and I reflect about what has changed in America since George Bush Jr. was elected 12 years ago, when I was not yet old enough to vote. I think I had just recently gotten my first cell phone at that time. People were just starting to get DSL internet, changing over from the old dial-up modems. Dawson's Creek was still on - which I'm pretty sure was the first show for teenagers that portrayed teenagers living in a world where teen sex, masturbation, and homosexuality were no longer taboo. And now here we are, 12 years later, and we live in a world where everyone has a smart phone, there is at least one personal of color on every sitcom, and gay marriage and medical marajuana are now legal in several states. By the time the next presidential election comes around, my niece, who has never known a world without lightning fast internet, who's generations biggest heartthrob is somewhat racially ambiguous (I'm talking about Taylor Lautner here), and who will have grown up with a black president, will be old enough to vote.
So what is my point with all of this? Well, maybe this age of Information that we live in now will lead to more than just narcissitic, social media addicted fat kids who never go outside to play. Maybe the fact that the internet and all its knowledge and exposure it provides is so accessible, even in Kansas, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Mississippi (and all those other bright Red states), is causing a real change in those spending the first 1/3 of their lives in the U.S. Maybe the Mitt Romney's of the world really are a dying breed because when they are gone, the children/grandchildren will know too much to follow blindly in their footsteps. I'm not talking here about fiscal policy, I'm talking about a vision for the future. A generation that considers diversity perfectly natural. Maybe even one that views education and (dare I say) healthcare, as necissities that should be available to everyone. Maybe they will be a generation who will have witnessed a deep recession and the mistrust of financial instituitions that resulted, as well movements like Occupy Wall Street, and they will have a different point of view about greed and America's class system then those before them.
Maybe, just maybe, we are on the verge of that massive paradigm shift so many of us have been dreaming of...
Last night, Barack Hussein Obama was reelected for his second term as our President. Leading up this election, I have felt a great deal of sorrow, anger, disillusionment and overall cycism with regard to our political system and our prospects for the future as a nation. I had formerly been an avid supporter of Obama, but watching him fight to win this election...the ads, the debates, the manipulations...I found myself deeply disappointed in him and I wondered if he wasn't just like all the rest, just with darker skin and better rhetoric. I considered not voting at all. And if after I went to the polls and cast my vote for Obama, I was still unclear as to my reasons for even going, being that a) I live in one of the 41 states where my vote doesn't matter (it's a Blue state, period) and b) I think our whole political system is so broken that it doesn't really matter who wins, and c) I believe that until there is a massive paradigm shift in the way we relate to one another as individuals, diverse peoples, and nations politics are pretty much irrelevant because the government will continue to be a reflection of "Me! Me! Me!" ideology. I just knew that Mitt Romney struck me as another arrogant, self-righteous, money-centered, and narrow-minded (did I mention arrogant?) and I would be sad to see America fall back into that tired, stagnant mindset - so for whatever it was worth, I cast my vote against it.
But as I sat watching the election coverage (hours after our power had finally been restored - a whole 9 days after hurricane sandy!), I started to read about Obama, more than I ever had before. I voted for the first time around, but truth be told, when he won that election the most meaningful aspect of it for me at the time was what it meant for America to be able to elect a black president. I also believed he was a man of real integrity - but that was most of what I knew about him.
I wont go into all the things I learned about him both biographically and policy-wise, but I will see that between what I read and his beautiful acceptance speech, I found myself once again hopeful for this nation. It is one thing to elect someone like Obama once; but is another to confirm, with a considerable majority, that he is the direction this country wants to continue to move in - despite a still very sick economy.
So I sit here and I reflect about what has changed in America since George Bush Jr. was elected 12 years ago, when I was not yet old enough to vote. I think I had just recently gotten my first cell phone at that time. People were just starting to get DSL internet, changing over from the old dial-up modems. Dawson's Creek was still on - which I'm pretty sure was the first show for teenagers that portrayed teenagers living in a world where teen sex, masturbation, and homosexuality were no longer taboo. And now here we are, 12 years later, and we live in a world where everyone has a smart phone, there is at least one personal of color on every sitcom, and gay marriage and medical marajuana are now legal in several states. By the time the next presidential election comes around, my niece, who has never known a world without lightning fast internet, who's generations biggest heartthrob is somewhat racially ambiguous (I'm talking about Taylor Lautner here), and who will have grown up with a black president, will be old enough to vote.
So what is my point with all of this? Well, maybe this age of Information that we live in now will lead to more than just narcissitic, social media addicted fat kids who never go outside to play. Maybe the fact that the internet and all its knowledge and exposure it provides is so accessible, even in Kansas, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Mississippi (and all those other bright Red states), is causing a real change in those spending the first 1/3 of their lives in the U.S. Maybe the Mitt Romney's of the world really are a dying breed because when they are gone, the children/grandchildren will know too much to follow blindly in their footsteps. I'm not talking here about fiscal policy, I'm talking about a vision for the future. A generation that considers diversity perfectly natural. Maybe even one that views education and (dare I say) healthcare, as necissities that should be available to everyone. Maybe they will be a generation who will have witnessed a deep recession and the mistrust of financial instituitions that resulted, as well movements like Occupy Wall Street, and they will have a different point of view about greed and America's class system then those before them.
Maybe, just maybe, we are on the verge of that massive paradigm shift so many of us have been dreaming of...
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Inauguration Day & MLK's Bible
Cornell West is a professor at Union Theological Seminary (where I recently applied to get my Masters). He was a professor at Harvard before that, and for various reasons, he's kind of a BIG deal. Below he eloquently and passionately states the opinion of many true Martin followers on the president's inaugural move to be sworn in on MLK's bible. And I get it - I really do - and the sentiment is reasonable and understandable...
However, I think it's very easy to sit in a classroom or in front of one's computer and criticize the president in his ivory house, but the fact of the matter is we don't know exactly what motivated this move from President Obama. Sure, it could be just a political ploy. Or, it could be because he is the first black president, and he feels a responsibility to try to do his best to help this country move towards Martin's dream. He is a president, not a king though, so he cannot wake up one day and stop the war immediately. He cannot wake up, and all by himself, end poverty in America right here, right now. Maybe he wishes he could. Maybe he doesn't. And furthermore, what would people say about the first black president sworn in on MLK day that chose NOT to use Martin's bible? What? He doesn't think racism is an issue in this country anymore? He's gonna use some rich white guy's bible and not Martin's? Just because he's president, he thinks he's too good for Martin? So in a sense, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. I'm not saying that Obama's motivations were pure in choosing to use Martin's bible - only he and God know that. I'm just saying that maybe we could reserve our own judgment a little because maybe, just maybe, it's not exactly what Brother West thinks it is.
However, I think it's very easy to sit in a classroom or in front of one's computer and criticize the president in his ivory house, but the fact of the matter is we don't know exactly what motivated this move from President Obama. Sure, it could be just a political ploy. Or, it could be because he is the first black president, and he feels a responsibility to try to do his best to help this country move towards Martin's dream. He is a president, not a king though, so he cannot wake up one day and stop the war immediately. He cannot wake up, and all by himself, end poverty in America right here, right now. Maybe he wishes he could. Maybe he doesn't. And furthermore, what would people say about the first black president sworn in on MLK day that chose NOT to use Martin's bible? What? He doesn't think racism is an issue in this country anymore? He's gonna use some rich white guy's bible and not Martin's? Just because he's president, he thinks he's too good for Martin? So in a sense, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. I'm not saying that Obama's motivations were pure in choosing to use Martin's bible - only he and God know that. I'm just saying that maybe we could reserve our own judgment a little because maybe, just maybe, it's not exactly what Brother West thinks it is.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
On Gun Control (with apologies)
Well, now i'm heated, and i'm gonna go ahead and do what i said i wasn't - i'm gonna talk about gun control (which is a merely a band aid, for a much bigger problem, but it's better than "bleeding" all over the place). You may want to abort reading this status now...
COMMENCE RANT:
I hear a lot of people talking about how this country is founded on personal freedom and liberty, and they say that means a private citizen should have the freedom to protect themselves, their families, and their property from anyone that may want to take them by force - hence, the right to bear arms.
So first off, let's talk about that big buzzword "Freedom" for a minute. "Land of the Free", as the U.S. is called. What does it really mean to be free? I will tell you what it does not mean first: it does not mean ABSOLUTE freedom - not in this context. Absolute freedom means you can do whatever you want. Clearly this is not the case. You are not free to run naked through the streets. You are not free to play your music as loud as you want. You are not free to yell "fire" in a movie theater, etc. ...and these are just laws. I won't even go in to all the normative limitations we have on freedom. So you are not free - not really - sorry if I've bursted anyone's bubbles. But it's OK, because part of living in community and society is that it doesn't allow for absolute freedom. If you want total freedom, you can [theoretically] go into the woods, live by yourself, and do whatever the hell you want - but as long as you want the benefits of living with others, you will need to surrender a number of personal freedoms for the society to function.
The concept of "freedom" that our forefathers believed in was NOT of the absolute kind; it was freedom from OPPRESSION. It was about an individual being free to be themselves (have opinions and voice them, practice their own religion, etc.), and to reach their own potential (the pursuit of happiness). These freedoms differentiate us from oppressed nations, like Vietnam, where they cannot speak out against their corrupt government in public without fear of retaliation.
The "Bill of Rights", lists in the first amendment these freedoms which they believed to be inalienable (that is, we as human beings have a right to them by our very nature). The rest of the document contains a number of rights to protect citizens against a tyrannical or OPPRESSIVE government (including the right to bear arms). Our forefathers came from a monarchy (a dictatorship, in essence), and it was extremely important to them to ensure that the U.S. government would never be able wield its power on the people in an oppressive fashion. They were terrified of tyranny and put laws in place to protect them against their biggest fear.
So here we are approx 250 years later, and by the grace of God, we still live in a country where we are relatively free from oppression. And there is no longer a general fear of our government changing and becoming a dictatorship. Is it possible? Sure. But not likely. And thank God that's true, because considering the size of our military, the existence of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc., if our government wanted to turn against the people, they are perfectly capable of doing so, regardless of how many guns our private citizens carry - we'd be screwed.
So what is our biggest fear now as a society? Probably something along of the lines of getting mugged, murdered, raped, etc. or having one of those things happen to the people we love. That is, WE ARE NOW MUCH MORE AFRAID OF EACH OTHER, THAN WE ARE OF THE GOVERNMENT. We are now looking to the government to protect us from each other. Ironic, no?
The idea of limitations on guns is protect us from each other (sad but true). Does this also leave us unprotected against our government, should they try to oppress us? Yes. But this is a risk that is worth taking, since there is a far greater chance that one of us will be killed by a gun that at some point was legally bought and sold (making it's way into the hands of a criminal from there), than that our government will turn oppressive... want proof? Just wait 18 minutes. (That's the time between gun related deaths in the U.S. every day, on average.)
END RANT
COMMENCE RANT:
I hear a lot of people talking about how this country is founded on personal freedom and liberty, and they say that means a private citizen should have the freedom to protect themselves, their families, and their property from anyone that may want to take them by force - hence, the right to bear arms.
So first off, let's talk about that big buzzword "Freedom" for a minute. "Land of the Free", as the U.S. is called. What does it really mean to be free? I will tell you what it does not mean first: it does not mean ABSOLUTE freedom - not in this context. Absolute freedom means you can do whatever you want. Clearly this is not the case. You are not free to run naked through the streets. You are not free to play your music as loud as you want. You are not free to yell "fire" in a movie theater, etc. ...and these are just laws. I won't even go in to all the normative limitations we have on freedom. So you are not free - not really - sorry if I've bursted anyone's bubbles. But it's OK, because part of living in community and society is that it doesn't allow for absolute freedom. If you want total freedom, you can [theoretically] go into the woods, live by yourself, and do whatever the hell you want - but as long as you want the benefits of living with others, you will need to surrender a number of personal freedoms for the society to function.
The concept of "freedom" that our forefathers believed in was NOT of the absolute kind; it was freedom from OPPRESSION. It was about an individual being free to be themselves (have opinions and voice them, practice their own religion, etc.), and to reach their own potential (the pursuit of happiness). These freedoms differentiate us from oppressed nations, like Vietnam, where they cannot speak out against their corrupt government in public without fear of retaliation.
The "Bill of Rights", lists in the first amendment these freedoms which they believed to be inalienable (that is, we as human beings have a right to them by our very nature). The rest of the document contains a number of rights to protect citizens against a tyrannical or OPPRESSIVE government (including the right to bear arms). Our forefathers came from a monarchy (a dictatorship, in essence), and it was extremely important to them to ensure that the U.S. government would never be able wield its power on the people in an oppressive fashion. They were terrified of tyranny and put laws in place to protect them against their biggest fear.
So here we are approx 250 years later, and by the grace of God, we still live in a country where we are relatively free from oppression. And there is no longer a general fear of our government changing and becoming a dictatorship. Is it possible? Sure. But not likely. And thank God that's true, because considering the size of our military, the existence of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc., if our government wanted to turn against the people, they are perfectly capable of doing so, regardless of how many guns our private citizens carry - we'd be screwed.
So what is our biggest fear now as a society? Probably something along of the lines of getting mugged, murdered, raped, etc. or having one of those things happen to the people we love. That is, WE ARE NOW MUCH MORE AFRAID OF EACH OTHER, THAN WE ARE OF THE GOVERNMENT. We are now looking to the government to protect us from each other. Ironic, no?
The idea of limitations on guns is protect us from each other (sad but true). Does this also leave us unprotected against our government, should they try to oppress us? Yes. But this is a risk that is worth taking, since there is a far greater chance that one of us will be killed by a gun that at some point was legally bought and sold (making it's way into the hands of a criminal from there), than that our government will turn oppressive... want proof? Just wait 18 minutes. (That's the time between gun related deaths in the U.S. every day, on average.)
END RANT
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Of all the little trinkets we picked up in southeast Asia, this is by far my favorite.
It is a wood carving of a Thai monk that is begging for his food in the morning from the people, as all monks there do every morning. Every time I look over at this little statue, I am reminded of our profound interdependence. The monks that beg for food in the morning are not just depending upon the people to sustain their physical bodies, they are reminding themselves, and those who feed them, as well as those who witness, that there is no future, no eternity -- neither physically nor spiritually -- without each other. Despite what appearances may be, my very being is dependent upon you, and yours upon me. And every moment that we forget this, we bring more misery into our fragile human predicament.
I have not said a word about the CT school shootings up to this point -- there has been so much noise on that subject - much of it valid, heart-felt, authentic, and necessary - that I felt for me, this was a time to shut up, to merely reflect and listen. But as I look at my little statue here, I will say only that when human beings remember by means of mass consciousness, that we are not islands, that nothing is truly our own, that on the most basic soul level WE NEED EACH OTHER, these things do not happen.
One morning in Vietnam a few days after the shooting, the bellhop helping us from our hotel room turned to us, and in broken English and with deep pity he said, "I am so sorry about what happened in your country. I saw it on the news and I had tears, like your president, Obama..." This man, who probably makes about $5 a day, who lives in a country who's government oppresses its people in ways that you and I cannot truly conceive of, who most likely has had no formal education past the age of nine, who is helping us with our over-sized luggage out of a hotel room that costs more money for one night than he probably makes in a year, so we can go back to our freedoms and liberties in our super-power country... HE takes pity on US...
Because he knows that all three of us in that room are really just beggars, relying on each other to get us through this next moment...
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
He is Like the Rain
He is like the rain.
And You,
You are the fire crackling under the mantle,
You are the hearth,
The warmth of the sun on my face,
A blanket wrapped tight
around my body,
You are a place I call home.
But he is like the rain.
Outside it washes over us
I hear it slapping the roof
and clanking on the shutters,
clamoring for a moment's notice.
You are I are safe in here.
I step inside of you and shut the door
and it's warm like fresh baked bread
Like six o'clock sand on a Seychelles shore
Like my own womb
But he is like the rain.
Always present,
sometimes just waiting to form
I can hear him outside...
I won't get caught in it!
I now come prepared
with You as my shepherd
You, as my shelter
You, my ward and my word,
You,
my Heart.
And as for him?
Well,
he is like the rain
And You,
You are the fire crackling under the mantle,
You are the hearth,
The warmth of the sun on my face,
A blanket wrapped tight
around my body,
You are a place I call home.
But he is like the rain.
Outside it washes over us
I hear it slapping the roof
and clanking on the shutters,
clamoring for a moment's notice.
You are I are safe in here.
I step inside of you and shut the door
and it's warm like fresh baked bread
Like six o'clock sand on a Seychelles shore
Like my own womb
But he is like the rain.
Always present,
sometimes just waiting to form
I can hear him outside...
I won't get caught in it!
I now come prepared
with You as my shepherd
You, as my shelter
You, my ward and my word,
You,
my Heart.
And as for him?
Well,
he is like the rain
Thursday, November 22, 2012
On Bullying
On my walk the other day, I was thinking about the bullying that I experienced growing up, and the teachers that passively participated (or even actively, occasionally), even encouraged, the behavior. Perhaps they felt kids will be kids, life is cruel, or maybe this was some kind "tough love" - who knows? But now, by the grace of God, there has finally been awakening in our education system that bullying is a very real problem that can lead to the most tragic of circumstances. So I thought to myself, if I were a teacher now, and I observed bullying in my classroom, what would I do? Sure I could reprimand the bully, even hold them in detention, but I know full well that all that would do is ensure that the bullying continued on where I could not observe it - perhaps it would even be worse for the bullied because now they've gotten the bully in trouble. So what can be done? Well, I had a few thoughts and wanted to share them, in hopes that perhaps they can be of some help to someone somewhere...
First of all, there are situations that teachers can create without meaning to, that lay the foundation for bullying, or even if it's not explicit, hurt a child's self-esteem. For instance, when I was a kid, in gym class the teacher would pick team captains (usually the two best male athletes in the class) and then leave to them to choose their teammates. I was always picked last (unless by the some miracle there happened to be a morbidly obese kid in my class - then I was picked second to last). Obviously, being picked last every day can do nothing good for a child's self-esteem. Clearly those gym teachers were not considering the fact that child/adolescent athletics are supposed to help build up a child's image of themselves, not cripple it. Thankfully, I have heard that this kind of thing is no longer a common practice in schools. I assume it has been replaced with the teacher picking teams at random. But I imagine that had my gym teachers picked the teams (or let us pick out of hat or something), that whoever's team I ended up on would still have responded with obnoxious sighs, or comments along the lines of "Ew!", "Damn it!", etc.
So what is to be done in a case like this? I began to picture myself relegated to a team, and one of my oh-so-cool peers expressing his distaste for it.... If I were the teacher, I would have given us BOTH detention. But not just any detention - a special detention. I would have said to the bully - let's call him "Seth" - "Seth, thank you for comments. Going forward, for the rest of the year, whatever team you are on, Jaime will be on as well. In addition, you will both spend a half hour with me everyday after school for the next week, wherein Seth, you will help teach Jaime how to play [insert sport here] better, so she can be a more valuable teammate to you." In doing this, Seth is going to have to get to know Jaime, and actually be forced to help her. After this, unless Seth is a total sociopath, he will no longer be able to look Jaime in the eye and bully her - in getting to know her, he will no longer be able to objectify her, and once someone is a person, rather than object of amusement, bullying loses all its fun.
But what about Jaime? She didn't do anything wrong, right? Why does she have to have detention with someone she probably can't stand? Well, as a girl who was tortured by the students in her class growing up, on a constant basis (to the point of contemplating suicide), I can tell you that as an adult, I came to realize that even the bullied are not purely victims. A bully/bullied relationship is a two way street, and there are always two sides to the story. It is almost never simply because the other kids are "just jealous" - that's just what Mom's tell their children to make them feel better.
So what did I do to bring on this bullying? To bring on the contempt from my peers. Well, for one, I was desperate for them to like me, and this was as obvious as it was pathetic. At the same time, I also believed in a way that I was better than them. They were stupid jocks, and I was really smart. My attitude also displayed this - a sense of social inferiority, but a belief of inherent superiority. They were horrible to me, but I wasn't kind or respectful to them either. I remember in the 8th grade there was this one kid who was friends with all the guys who bullied me, but he rarely made a comment himself. One day, I got up from my desk to go up to the front of the class and his desk was blocking my way a little bit so I just pushed by it, moving his desk while I did so, and not even looking at him. "You can say 'excuse me'!" he chided. There he was, a soldier of the enemy, accusing ME of being rude. ...but he was right. Of course, I didn't get it then. It never occurred to me that perhaps if I had made an effort to be kind to these people, to feel compassion for them instead of defensively assuming myself to be far superior, perhaps things could have gone differently. My point in all this is that despite appearances, the bullied is usually unconsciously a co-conspirator in their situation, not purely the victim. And as such, they too can benefit from getting to know their peer, who they surely also objectify as "the enemy", "the stupid jock", etc.
This method can also obviously be used in situations outside of gym class as well. For instance, let's say a student is being bullied in Chemistry class. If the bullied child happens to be a good student and the bully not, the consequences could be that they have to tutor the bully until a certain test score is achieved. If they are both average, make them study together after school until a grade a certain grade is reached by both. Or make them work on a project together. Whatever it is, the idea is to simply to move them from seeing each other as objects to knowing each other as human beings. And if there are multiple bullies, just do this with the leader - and there is always a leader.
So that's my two cents - may it be in some way of service.
First of all, there are situations that teachers can create without meaning to, that lay the foundation for bullying, or even if it's not explicit, hurt a child's self-esteem. For instance, when I was a kid, in gym class the teacher would pick team captains (usually the two best male athletes in the class) and then leave to them to choose their teammates. I was always picked last (unless by the some miracle there happened to be a morbidly obese kid in my class - then I was picked second to last). Obviously, being picked last every day can do nothing good for a child's self-esteem. Clearly those gym teachers were not considering the fact that child/adolescent athletics are supposed to help build up a child's image of themselves, not cripple it. Thankfully, I have heard that this kind of thing is no longer a common practice in schools. I assume it has been replaced with the teacher picking teams at random. But I imagine that had my gym teachers picked the teams (or let us pick out of hat or something), that whoever's team I ended up on would still have responded with obnoxious sighs, or comments along the lines of "Ew!", "Damn it!", etc.
So what is to be done in a case like this? I began to picture myself relegated to a team, and one of my oh-so-cool peers expressing his distaste for it.... If I were the teacher, I would have given us BOTH detention. But not just any detention - a special detention. I would have said to the bully - let's call him "Seth" - "Seth, thank you for comments. Going forward, for the rest of the year, whatever team you are on, Jaime will be on as well. In addition, you will both spend a half hour with me everyday after school for the next week, wherein Seth, you will help teach Jaime how to play [insert sport here] better, so she can be a more valuable teammate to you." In doing this, Seth is going to have to get to know Jaime, and actually be forced to help her. After this, unless Seth is a total sociopath, he will no longer be able to look Jaime in the eye and bully her - in getting to know her, he will no longer be able to objectify her, and once someone is a person, rather than object of amusement, bullying loses all its fun.
But what about Jaime? She didn't do anything wrong, right? Why does she have to have detention with someone she probably can't stand? Well, as a girl who was tortured by the students in her class growing up, on a constant basis (to the point of contemplating suicide), I can tell you that as an adult, I came to realize that even the bullied are not purely victims. A bully/bullied relationship is a two way street, and there are always two sides to the story. It is almost never simply because the other kids are "just jealous" - that's just what Mom's tell their children to make them feel better.
So what did I do to bring on this bullying? To bring on the contempt from my peers. Well, for one, I was desperate for them to like me, and this was as obvious as it was pathetic. At the same time, I also believed in a way that I was better than them. They were stupid jocks, and I was really smart. My attitude also displayed this - a sense of social inferiority, but a belief of inherent superiority. They were horrible to me, but I wasn't kind or respectful to them either. I remember in the 8th grade there was this one kid who was friends with all the guys who bullied me, but he rarely made a comment himself. One day, I got up from my desk to go up to the front of the class and his desk was blocking my way a little bit so I just pushed by it, moving his desk while I did so, and not even looking at him. "You can say 'excuse me'!" he chided. There he was, a soldier of the enemy, accusing ME of being rude. ...but he was right. Of course, I didn't get it then. It never occurred to me that perhaps if I had made an effort to be kind to these people, to feel compassion for them instead of defensively assuming myself to be far superior, perhaps things could have gone differently. My point in all this is that despite appearances, the bullied is usually unconsciously a co-conspirator in their situation, not purely the victim. And as such, they too can benefit from getting to know their peer, who they surely also objectify as "the enemy", "the stupid jock", etc.
This method can also obviously be used in situations outside of gym class as well. For instance, let's say a student is being bullied in Chemistry class. If the bullied child happens to be a good student and the bully not, the consequences could be that they have to tutor the bully until a certain test score is achieved. If they are both average, make them study together after school until a grade a certain grade is reached by both. Or make them work on a project together. Whatever it is, the idea is to simply to move them from seeing each other as objects to knowing each other as human beings. And if there are multiple bullies, just do this with the leader - and there is always a leader.
So that's my two cents - may it be in some way of service.
 |
| Me (9th or 10th grade) |
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Daily Prayer of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama
The highest welfare of all sentient beings,
Who surpass even a wish-granting jewel,
I will learn to hold them supremely dear.
Whenever I associate with others I will learn
To think of myself as the lowest amongst all
And respectfully hold others to be supreme
From the very depths of my heart.
In all actions I will learn to search into my mind
As and soon as a disturbing emotion arises,
Endangering myself and others,
I will firmly face and avert it.
I will learn to cherish ill-natured beings
And those oppressed by strong
misdeeds and sufferings,
As if I had found a precious
Treasure difficult to find.
When others out of envy treat me badly
With abuse, slander, and the like,
I will learn to take all loss
And offer the victory to them.
In short I will learn to offer
everyone without exception
All help and happiness directly and indirectly,
And respectfully take upon myself
All harm and suffering of my mothers.
I will learn to keep all those practices
Undefiled by the stains of
the eight worldly concerns,
And by understanding all
phenomena as like illusions,
Be released from the bondage of attachment.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
On racism...
I want to talk about a topic that is maybe even more dangerous than politics and religion; I want to talk about race and racism in the right here, right now.
In the year 2012, in the Northeast, it is almost taboo to say that we have a racism problem. New York City especially has an incredibly diverse population. The city is overwhelming liberal and in many ways one of the most "progressive" places in the world.
I grew up in a small town about 20 minutes outside of NYC, where the population was 99% white, but I was convinced that racism was no longer a large scale issue in this country. Sure, there were racists - you can find crazies anywhere. And of course in the South you would find more bigotry then in the rest of the county, but overall, I believed - I was taught - that racism was problem of the past. We celebrated "Black History month" in school, racist slurs were no longer culturally acceptable, black people and white people freely shared all the same facilities, and black people were treated no differently than white people when engaging in the regular functions in our society, for instance, a black person could go to a white teller in a bank, or a white salesperson in a store, and be treated exactly the same as those individuals would treat white people (in most cases, anyway). So what was the problem? When I was a freshman in college I had a Sociology professor that said to our class, "America is a racist country." I was extremely offended by this and argued with her that while certainly there were "racists" in this country, "racist" is not an appropriate adjective to define our country overall - this is the land of the free, home of the brave, I have a dream.... I chalked it up to the fact that I was in California at the time, and Californians were always over the top about these things...
Fast forward 12 years. I'm back home in NY. My job takes me to multiple NYC public schools daily (all in Queens) and I have been struck by what I've seen. It took me a few months to really come to terms with it, but it is impossible now to deny: while not legally, NYC public schools are, in effect, segregated. There are two kinds of schools: white schools and black schools. I had always assumed that one of the great benefits about raising children in an urban environment like NYC was the racial and cultural diversity they experience growing up. But I have realized that despite Queens being the most diverse area in all of the U.S., for the kids growing up here, there is little to no integration with other races. Granted, people here come from all over world, so the white kids probably get more exposure to other cultures (Greek, Russian, Italian, Indian, Asian, Middle Eastern etc.) then they would otherwise, but when it comes to black and white, things haven't actually changed much since the 1960's: the segregation still exists - we're just not supposed talk about it.
 |
| P.S. 15Q |
 |
| Trey Whitfield School, Brooklyn, NY |
 |
| P.S. 124 Flushing,Queens |
 |
| Forest Hills (Queens) School Chldren |
 |
| P.S. Q30 - First Grade - 1969 (5 years after segregation in public schools was legally banned) |
There are all kinds of neighborhoods in Queens and I get to see all of them. Yesterday, I was in Forest Hills Gardens, one of the wealthiest places in NY State (the streets are actually private, even though it's not a gated community). The day before that I was in Jamaica aka "the hood". Where I live in Astoria, it's mostly yuppies and old Greek/Italian families and I feel safe walking by myself on the street at 2am. Down the road a few minutes are the projects, and that area has all the stereo-typical issues you would expect. The populations of these not-so-nice areas are predominantly African American. I keep hearing the lyrics from Tupac's "Changes" in my head: "It ain't a secret, don't conceal the fact, the penitentiary's packed, and it's filled with blacks."
The "Merriam-Webster" dictionary defines racism as: (1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race (2) racial prejudice or discrimination
I don't think this classical definition is inclusive enough for this millennium. It seems to me there exists now a post-modern or "neo-racism", and it has more to do with assumptions and stereotypes, then judgment on the overall worth of human being. This is the truly insidious racism. It's the racism that infects even the "liberal", "open-minded", and "progressive" people.
This neo-racism is the force behind the idea that because of the color of your skin, you are supposed to act a certain or think a certain way. Think of Carlton Banks from the Fresh Prince of Bellair - Will Smith's character was always teasing him for being a white man trapped in a black man's body - an oreo cookie.
Or what about Eminem? Even though his music was endorsed, promoted, and produced by Dr. Dre, he will still never have the kind of foothold in the African American community that a black hip hop artist might.
There is also a term that I grew up with for when a white person acts like a black person (whatever that means...) - we used to called them "wiggas":
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what two words were merged to create this lovely term.
This is the racism that underlies the assumption that because of cultural differences connected to race in this country (which developed as a result of the jim crow laws, etc.), there are insurmountable divides that prevent bi-racial relationships of any kind (love, friendship, colleagues, adoptive children, etc.) from being the norm. And in this scenario, there are no innocents; we are all complicit (with the exception of a very small minority that is working to promote change in this area).
When I reflect on my personal experience with race, I see the evolution in my own thinking as I assimilated into this culture from childhood to adulthood. From the time I was 3 years old, I had a live-in Jamaican nanny named Beryl, who took care of me while my parents (and after their divorce, my Mom) was at work. She was not educated so she was unable to help me with my homework. She didn't drive. And I was the only one that could understand her accent. With a short break during the 2 years that my Mom and I moved to LA, she was my primary caretaker from the age of 3 to 14, after which she moved out, but would still come one day a week to clean the house. Beryl loved me very much. I was her "lick-ul (little) Jame-james". For my birthday every year she would make sure she got me a card, and gave me $25. (She made $300 a week, most of which she sent back to her family in Jamaica, and the rest of which she used to pay rent in Brooklyn, where she lived on the weekends). As for me, I definitely cared for her, but ask me how many family pictures she's in? Zero. Ask me how many times we invited her out to dinner, or even to sit down with us to eat a meal she made? Zero. Ask me if I ever saw her apartment or even had any idea where in Brooklyn she lived or what she did on the weekends? I didn't. She was a fixture in our household for over 15 years - and as I look back, I am horrified, because that is exactly how we treated her - as a fixture. As...the help. My stomach is turning as I write this...
When I was in the first and second grade at a private school in LA, I became friends with these two black girls, both named Tiffany. I came to believe that black people were much nicer than white people, because most of the white kids in my school were snotty brats who would leave me out of things, while T&T just accepted me as I was made me feel welcome. As I started to get a little bit older, I found that I was more attracted to black boys then white boys. My first boyfriend in the 6th grade was black (he was not from my town, of course). In the 7th grade I also had a huge crush on this older boy, Jareek (one of the only 3 kids black kids at my school).
I continued to be attracted to black guys as I got older, but the playing field started to even between them and the white guys, and slowly I started to find myself less and less attracted to black men. Right after college I worked at a mortgage company (pre-crisis) and I ended up making out with a colleague of mine one day after work who was a big (built like a football player) black man, with dark skin, and very full lips. His name was "Rock".
That was it for me. I remember sitting in his car after we kissed and thinking to myself, "well, there's really nowhere to go from here." It wasn't like we could actually date... The options were push it until we slept together, or walk away now. I knew there was no future there - we lived in two (or 'too') different worlds.
I pretty much ceased to be attracted to black men after that. It's not a physical thing - I still love the contrast between a darker skinned black man's skin and his teeth/white's of his eyes. I still think high cheek bones with a broad nose makes for a strikingly beautiful face. It is not skin color, or any inherent traits that kept me at a distance after Rock - it is the cultural divide. I have been brainwashed. I have drank the kool-aid and bought into the idea that a) a skin color can dictate which part of American culture you "belong to", and b) the cultural differences between 'us' and 'them' are too vast to ever bridge that gap, to ever find enough common ground to build a relationship. And by the way, it is not enough for a white person to say, "but I have a couple black friends..." or visa versa - exceptions do not nullify the rules of the norm.
These things are not easy for me to say - I am embarrassed and ashamed. But they're real, and whether they want to step up and admit it or not, most of people I know, black or white, feel the same way.
It is no longer acceptable to me that white Americans and black Americans should live "separate but equal" lives. It is not acceptable to me that classrooms, offices, churches, movie theaters, non-profit events, etc. that I walk into should be overwhelmingly one race or another. There are three places in NYC where you can find a genuine mix of people - the subway, the bus, and the dmv. This is how those other places I mentioned should look.
Now of course, people have differences - in personality, in culture, in interests, etc. and naturally people will make friends with those they feel they have the most in common with, but this is not an excuse to throw up invisible walls.
So what is my point here? I guess my point is just that we have a real problem here, and we need to stop being afraid to recognize it. As they say in AA, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. And I'm also saying that this problem is not acceptable, and it will not go away by itself. We need to take steps (after we figure out what those steps are), to create genuine integration and re-write those tapes that play in the heads of the American people, repeating over and over, "We're not like them."
Monday, May 7, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Occupy
I was thinking about Ghandi's words yesterday:
and it got me to thinking, why? What does he mean exactly? How is my personal behavior and attitude going to make any significant effect on the world at large? I started thinking about the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement and how there is something about it that doesn't sit right with me - and doesn't have to do with the fact that they have no real demands or suggestions for how things can change, though I think such things would certainly help their cause. On the one hand, it is invigorating for me to see people finally standing up and saying, "Hey! Something is wrong here!" I think that is certainly a step in the right direction. But the way the whole thing has been executed so far comes across to me like, "We're angry! It's not fair! Why shouldn't we have everything we want! Off with their heads!" and then they point their fingers at anyone and everyone that has more than them. They are lashing out against corporate greed, but what I see, honestly, is greed. You don't have to be rich to be greedy. It is like a child who throws a temper tantrum because another child got a bigger piece of cake. There is a covetousness about it...
So I think back about the most successful movements against oppression, and I think of Ghandi and Martin.
What was it that made their movements so powerful? In my opinion, it was that they came from a place of love, not hate, of disappointment not anger. Ghandi did not say, "Screw the British! They're all a-holes! They took everything from us!" Instead he looked at them as human beings, and he appealed to their compassion. He sat in front them and forced them to take a good hard look at the suffering they were causing, and ultimately, he succeeded in eliciting change, because his actions spoke to the humanity within them.
In the same sense, Martin did not say, "Screw the white man!" He said, "I have a dream that one day black and white children will walk down the street hand in hand."
What both these wonderful men were saying to their oppressors was, "I love you, because I love all human beings. I want us to walk together in harmony. I am disappointed in your actions but I know that they come from a place of ignorance. Let me show you just what you are doing, because I know that once you look us in the eye and you see our suffering, your humanity will take over, and you will no longer be able to inflict pain upon us."
You see, at the end of the day, it's not the laws, or the policies, or economic system that is the problem. Those are only symptoms of the problem. The problem is we view ourselves as separate from other human beings. We are concerned only with our own lives and the lives of those that are closely intertwined with ours. "Love your neighbor as yourself." "You want to be enlightened? Feed people. Serve people." The only way there is going to be more equality is if we stop looking at others as outside of ourselves; we start to see our own interdependence. It's not about, "Oh, I feel like being nice today. I'll give the homeless guy some change." It's about, "That homeless man is me. I am him. We are connected by our humanity. He is my brother. I can do nothing else but to help him."
So back to the 'Occupy' movement, I feel what is missing is the Love. I feel this movement will move forward by leaps and bounds when they figure out that the 1% is not the faction of evil-doers in this country - they're just people. Just like you and me. They struggle like us. They are ignorant like us. They need to be shown the harsh truth, but in a loving way.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
If you want equality, if you want people to treat you with care, concern, and compassion, to look at you as a brother or sister, not an 'Other', then you must treat them with that same love that you are asking of them.
and it got me to thinking, why? What does he mean exactly? How is my personal behavior and attitude going to make any significant effect on the world at large? I started thinking about the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement and how there is something about it that doesn't sit right with me - and doesn't have to do with the fact that they have no real demands or suggestions for how things can change, though I think such things would certainly help their cause. On the one hand, it is invigorating for me to see people finally standing up and saying, "Hey! Something is wrong here!" I think that is certainly a step in the right direction. But the way the whole thing has been executed so far comes across to me like, "We're angry! It's not fair! Why shouldn't we have everything we want! Off with their heads!" and then they point their fingers at anyone and everyone that has more than them. They are lashing out against corporate greed, but what I see, honestly, is greed. You don't have to be rich to be greedy. It is like a child who throws a temper tantrum because another child got a bigger piece of cake. There is a covetousness about it...
So I think back about the most successful movements against oppression, and I think of Ghandi and Martin.
What was it that made their movements so powerful? In my opinion, it was that they came from a place of love, not hate, of disappointment not anger. Ghandi did not say, "Screw the British! They're all a-holes! They took everything from us!" Instead he looked at them as human beings, and he appealed to their compassion. He sat in front them and forced them to take a good hard look at the suffering they were causing, and ultimately, he succeeded in eliciting change, because his actions spoke to the humanity within them.
 |
| Ghandi - Hunger Strike - 1932 |
In the same sense, Martin did not say, "Screw the white man!" He said, "I have a dream that one day black and white children will walk down the street hand in hand."
 |
| US National Guard troops block off Beale Street as Civil Rights marchers pass by on March 29, 1968. (Memphis, Tennessee, USA) |
What both these wonderful men were saying to their oppressors was, "I love you, because I love all human beings. I want us to walk together in harmony. I am disappointed in your actions but I know that they come from a place of ignorance. Let me show you just what you are doing, because I know that once you look us in the eye and you see our suffering, your humanity will take over, and you will no longer be able to inflict pain upon us."
You see, at the end of the day, it's not the laws, or the policies, or economic system that is the problem. Those are only symptoms of the problem. The problem is we view ourselves as separate from other human beings. We are concerned only with our own lives and the lives of those that are closely intertwined with ours. "Love your neighbor as yourself." "You want to be enlightened? Feed people. Serve people." The only way there is going to be more equality is if we stop looking at others as outside of ourselves; we start to see our own interdependence. It's not about, "Oh, I feel like being nice today. I'll give the homeless guy some change." It's about, "That homeless man is me. I am him. We are connected by our humanity. He is my brother. I can do nothing else but to help him."
So back to the 'Occupy' movement, I feel what is missing is the Love. I feel this movement will move forward by leaps and bounds when they figure out that the 1% is not the faction of evil-doers in this country - they're just people. Just like you and me. They struggle like us. They are ignorant like us. They need to be shown the harsh truth, but in a loving way.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
If you want equality, if you want people to treat you with care, concern, and compassion, to look at you as a brother or sister, not an 'Other', then you must treat them with that same love that you are asking of them.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Fierce Grace
Was watching the documentary "Fierce Grace" with Ram Dass yesterday:
He was talking about his Guru, Maharji
One day, when he was alone with Maharaji, Ram Dass asked, "What do I need to do to become enlightened?"
Maharji said, "Serve people. Feed people."
Serve people. Feed People.
He was talking about his Guru, Maharji
 |
| Ram Dass & Maharji |
One day, when he was alone with Maharaji, Ram Dass asked, "What do I need to do to become enlightened?"
Maharji said, "Serve people. Feed people."
Serve people. Feed People.
I keep coming back to this poem in my head over and over... I know it's a famous one, but I only recently discovered it, and it has impressed itself on me..
i carry your heart with me
by E.E. Cummings
i carry your heart with me (i carry it in
my heart) i am never without it (anywhere
i go you go, my dear; and whatever is done
by only me is your doing, my darling)
i fear
no fate (for you are my fate, my sweet) i want
no world (for beautiful you are my world, my true)
and it's you are whatever a moon has always meant
and whatever a sun will always sing is you
here is the deepest secret nobody knows
(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud
and the sky of the sky of a tree called life; which grows
higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide)
and this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart
i carry your heart (i carry it in my heart)
i carry your heart with me
by E.E. Cummings
i carry your heart with me (i carry it in
my heart) i am never without it (anywhere
i go you go, my dear; and whatever is done
by only me is your doing, my darling)
i fear
no fate (for you are my fate, my sweet) i want
no world (for beautiful you are my world, my true)
and it's you are whatever a moon has always meant
and whatever a sun will always sing is you
here is the deepest secret nobody knows
(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud
and the sky of the sky of a tree called life; which grows
higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide)
and this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart
i carry your heart (i carry it in my heart)
Sunday, March 25, 2012
This is how God speaks to us... But we don't understand...
The other night I was sitting in my room and I looked up at the big picture frame hanging above my bed. It is of one of the photos taken as part of the Ashes & Snow exhibit.
This is it:
I have had this picture hanging above my bed now for about 5 years but for some reason when I saw it that night, I felt the need to go back and review the whole exhibit online. In doing so I found a note about the animals in the exhibit - some of the animals in the photos were trained; others were wild. Then I googled "elephants", wondering if I might be able to determine which group they fell into.
What I found were several articles talking not only about how smart elephants were, but that they are the only animals besides us humans that bury their dead. They also experience grief, joy, and (this was the "Wow" moment for me-) they are capable of compassion even for other species, and even in some cases where the compassionate act requires risking their life.
Up until this point, I had thought that what separated humans from other animals, what made us more than just really smart primates, is that we had the capacity to transcend our instinct for survival. We are capable of putting our own lives on the line for the sake of others or for things we believe in. But it turns out that elephants are capable of this too - not only of trading a primary survival instinct for a secondary or tertiary one (that is, not only would they put their individual survival on the line for the sake of their kins' survival, or even for their own species' survival) - they are actually capable of the kind of compassion that is purely for it's own sake. At least, I cannot come up with any other reason why an elephant would risk its life over and over again to pull a baby rhino out of a hole it was stuck in, while it's mother continued to charge the elephant every time it went to help (a field researcher working on the "Save the Elephants" team reported this incident.)
Soo, a day or two later, I was flipping through the channel guide and I saw that there was a documentary on the "Secret Lives of Elephants", which I then taped.
A day or two after that, I went to Lincoln Center to visit my old college and as I came out of the subway, what do I see? Two life size statues of elephants planted in the middle of the 59th St. traffic circle. "That's weird," I thought to myself, "I was just thinking about elephants...". I decided to take a picture:
As I walked along Central Park South to another subway line, just people watching, etc. I glance over and in a window that I'm walking by at that very moment is this display:
Seeing as how this was starting to get pretty odd, I decided to take a picture of that too.
OK, so now I'm really starting to wonder - is there some kind of pattern here? What's with all the elephants? I get to the N train and I walk down to the platform, where I begin to pace up and down, as I wait for the train, continuing to wonder about the elephants. As I am turning the question over in mind, I look up and see this advertisement:
A message? I dunno. I take another picture and keep walking.
Next poster:
This is an ad for a TV show that I "happened to" set to record the day before. The series premiere would be that night. The Fox website says the show is about a boy who, "possesses an extraordinary gift—the ability to perceive the seemingly hidden patterns that connect every life on the planet."
I keep walking. Next poster:
That was it. There were a few more posters along the wall, but nothing that I perceived to be part of this...trail? I don't know what other words to use.
The experience left me in a state of bewilderment...and wonder. A quote from the very beginning of Elie Wiesel's, "Night" also kept running through my head: Moshe the Beadle says to Elie,
"Man raises himself toward God by the questions he asks Him...That is the true dialogue. Man questions God and God answers. But we don't understand His answers. We can't understand them. Because they come from the depths of the soul, and they stay there until death. You will find the true answers, Eliezer, only within yourself!"
This is it:
I have had this picture hanging above my bed now for about 5 years but for some reason when I saw it that night, I felt the need to go back and review the whole exhibit online. In doing so I found a note about the animals in the exhibit - some of the animals in the photos were trained; others were wild. Then I googled "elephants", wondering if I might be able to determine which group they fell into.
What I found were several articles talking not only about how smart elephants were, but that they are the only animals besides us humans that bury their dead. They also experience grief, joy, and (this was the "Wow" moment for me-) they are capable of compassion even for other species, and even in some cases where the compassionate act requires risking their life.
Up until this point, I had thought that what separated humans from other animals, what made us more than just really smart primates, is that we had the capacity to transcend our instinct for survival. We are capable of putting our own lives on the line for the sake of others or for things we believe in. But it turns out that elephants are capable of this too - not only of trading a primary survival instinct for a secondary or tertiary one (that is, not only would they put their individual survival on the line for the sake of their kins' survival, or even for their own species' survival) - they are actually capable of the kind of compassion that is purely for it's own sake. At least, I cannot come up with any other reason why an elephant would risk its life over and over again to pull a baby rhino out of a hole it was stuck in, while it's mother continued to charge the elephant every time it went to help (a field researcher working on the "Save the Elephants" team reported this incident.)
Soo, a day or two later, I was flipping through the channel guide and I saw that there was a documentary on the "Secret Lives of Elephants", which I then taped.
A day or two after that, I went to Lincoln Center to visit my old college and as I came out of the subway, what do I see? Two life size statues of elephants planted in the middle of the 59th St. traffic circle. "That's weird," I thought to myself, "I was just thinking about elephants...". I decided to take a picture:
As I walked along Central Park South to another subway line, just people watching, etc. I glance over and in a window that I'm walking by at that very moment is this display:
Seeing as how this was starting to get pretty odd, I decided to take a picture of that too.
OK, so now I'm really starting to wonder - is there some kind of pattern here? What's with all the elephants? I get to the N train and I walk down to the platform, where I begin to pace up and down, as I wait for the train, continuing to wonder about the elephants. As I am turning the question over in mind, I look up and see this advertisement:
A message? I dunno. I take another picture and keep walking.
Next poster:
I keep walking. Next poster:
That was it. There were a few more posters along the wall, but nothing that I perceived to be part of this...trail? I don't know what other words to use.
The experience left me in a state of bewilderment...and wonder. A quote from the very beginning of Elie Wiesel's, "Night" also kept running through my head: Moshe the Beadle says to Elie,
"Man raises himself toward God by the questions he asks Him...That is the true dialogue. Man questions God and God answers. But we don't understand His answers. We can't understand them. Because they come from the depths of the soul, and they stay there until death. You will find the true answers, Eliezer, only within yourself!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)