“Let’s work together In harmony Let’s build a better world No suffering
And in times of darkness Just reach out ‘Cause there is a promise It won’t be denied
Let there be light Let there be joy Let there be love And understanding Let there be peace Throughout the land.”
– quoted from the song “Let There Be Light” by Carlos Santana (b. 1947)
As I mentionedduring yesterday’s practice, some (off the mat) invitations to practice and to turn inward, are stressful, awkward, and horrible. I specifically referenced moments when we (or anyone) is being called out for being racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, ageist, and/or ableist. So, some might argue that such invitations are always stressful, awkward, and horrible. This is especially true, as I mentioned, when we don’t even recognize that we are blowing the proverbial dog-whistle we inherited from our ancestors.
Yet, as I also mentioned, accepting such invitations creates the opportunity to make real change. The thing I did not explicitly say is that the idea of making “real change” is a euphemism and is itself a kind of dog-whistle. Because, when we talk about making “real change” in a societal sense, we are assuming that everyone understands that we mean “positive” change and that everyone has the same understanding of what “positive” means. Such assumptions, however, are part of our avidyā (“ignorance”), which is an afflicted/dysfunctional thought pattern that leads to suffering.
Because we don’t all see the world – or each other – the same way, we do not recognize the same problems and/or the same solutions to such problems. A perfect example of that is the current issue around choice and abortion – which, let’s be clear, is really an issue about privacy and reproductive rights. Even if you consider yourself “pro-life,” your ideas on this issue are based upon your beliefs about what is private vs public and where that line is drawn when it comes to reproduction.
I am very aware, that just reading such statements pushed some people’s buttons and gotten people hooked. I am also aware that my next statement will push some more buttons and start reeling people in. Because, when you wade into the debate about privacy and reproduction, you also wade into the debate about life outside of the womb. And, more and more, we are seeing that we don’t all see this issue the same way. More and more, the conversations coming up today are the same conversations that Pearl S. Buck started having in 1949 and that the Kennedy family started having in the early 1900’s. When we really look back at those earlier conversations, we start to recognize the dog-whistles, we start to recognize the changes that take us backwards, and we can start considering how we move forward in a way that is more functional (and that makes for a more functional society).
Since Carlos Santana was born today in 1947, and the first Special Olympics Games were held today in 1968, today’s practice is about raising awareness around one of the “-isms” many overlook and about using the hook to get “unhooked.”
Please join me today (Wednesday, July 20th) at 4:30 PM or 7:15 PM for a yoga practice on Zoom.Use the link from the “Class Schedules” calendar if you run into any problems checking into the class. You will need to register for the 7:15 PM class if you have not already done so. Give yourself extra time to log in if you have not upgraded to Zoom 5.0. You can request an audio recording of this practice via a comment below or by emailing myra (at)ajoyfulpractice.com.
Wednesday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for “07202021 Using the Hook”]
“Like diabetes, deafness, polio or any other misfortune, [intellectual disabilities] can happen in any family. It has happened in the families of the poor and the rich, of governors, senators, Nobel prizewinners, doctors, lawyers, writers, men of genius, presidents of corporations – the President of the United States.”
– quoted from a September 22, 1962 article by Eunice Kennedy Shriver printed in The Saturday Evening Post
In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.)
### Is This The Plank In Your Eye? (Cause It’s Definitely The Sawdust In Mine!) ###
“Shenpa thrives on the underlying insecurity of living in a world that is always changing.”
– quoted from “How We Get Hooked and How We Get Unhooked” by Pema Chödrön (published by Lion’s Roar, 12/26/2017)
A random short appeared in my YouTube queue. It was only about 60 seconds, from a channel I have never watched nor followed, and I’ll admit that I got “hooked” within a few seconds. Remember, “hook” is one way the American Tibetan Buddhist nun Pema Chödrön translates the Tibetan word shenpa. It can also be translated as “urge, impulse, charge, or attachment.” It is the first sign that someone has pushed your buttons and activated your sympathetic nervous system, which makes you want to fight, flee, or freeze/collapse. While her teachings related to shenpa and the four R’s (which are a way to get unhooked), are often connected to negative button-pushing, we would be mindful to note that the ability to be hooked is ego-related and, therefore, is also connected to positive things.
The lure is the pretty or shiny thing that draws us in so that we can get hooked. There’s nothing wrong in feeling a sense of pride in your work, your appearance, and/or your child. Part of the practice, however, is being mindful of the fact that that pride is a button that can be pushed. And this is where I first got hooked by the short video, because the content creator was highlighting their hard work. That hard work and (let’s call it) artistry was what caught my attention. But, that’s not the point of this post – neither, in some ways, was it the point of the video.
You see, the people in the video had been accused of something. They had been publicly accused, by someone who doesn’t know them, of something that, in some ways, is not inherently a bad thing. Although I personally think that not acknowledging the thing can be detrimental, I also understand that everyone is not in position to see the thing: privilege.
Yes, they had been accused of having privilege. It’s something we all have to a certain degree; however, it is also something that people are starting to understand in a different way than perhaps they understood it in the past. Hence it becoming a point of accusation. To be clear, being accused of having (and using your) privilege is not even close to the same thing as being accused of murder or treason or conspiracy to commit either, it is a hot button. It is something that results in shenpa and, therefore, creates some of the same feelings and reactions. So, it was interesting (but not surprising) that the content creators were quick to defend themselves. It was also interesting that the way they went about defending themselves, ultimately, proved the accusers’ point (to a lot of people). Equally interesting is that, for every person pointing out that their accusers were correct, there was someone vehemently defending the content creator. That’s the thing about public accusations; they lead to public shenpa. They can also lead to public awareness and public action.
Today’s practice highlights public accusations, as well as the resulting public shenpa and public awareness and action. While we can see the parallels to events happening today, these events took place in France in 1898.
As I noted in 2020: “We are living in a time when a lot of people are getting “hooked” by a large number of things. One thing in particular that stands out is people experiencing shenpa because of loud, public, and blunt accusations. The accusations are all related to what in the yoga philosophy would be called avidyā (ignorance) and all four of the other afflicted or dysfunctional thought patterns. The loudest of the accusations comes in the form of one of several words: racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, Islamaphobic, or xenophobic. And, let’s be honest, if someone uses the right “mean” word, they don’t have to do it loudly (or publicly) for the accused to feel the bite of the hook. Furthermore, this shenpa-related reaction is so prevalent right now that we don’t have to turn on the news, read about it, or look online to see someone experiencing this particular form of suffering: all we have to do is look in the mirror.” Click here to read more about shenpa and Émile Zola, who fled France today in 1898.
Please join me today (Tuesday, July 19th) at 12:00 PM or 7:15 PM for a yoga practice on Zoom. You can use the link from the “Class Schedules” calendar if you run into any problems checking into the class. You can request an audio recording of this practice via a comment belowor (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.
Tuesday’s playlist is available onYouTube and Spotify. [Look for “07192020 Compassion & Peace, J’Accuse!”]
In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.)
“As they have dared, so shall I dare. Dare to tell the truth, as I have pledged to tell it, in full, since the normal channels of justice have failed to do so. My duty is to speak out; I do not wish to be an accomplice in this travesty. My nights would otherwise be haunted by the spectre of the innocent man, far away, suffering the most horrible of tortures for a crime he did not commit.”
– from “J’Accuse” by Emile Zola, published in L’Aurore on January 13, 1898
“Every relationship you develop, from casual to intimate, helps you become more conscious. No union is without spiritual value.”
– from “Morning Visual Meditation” (focus for Chakra 2) by Caroline Myss
I have had a lot of teachers over the years – teachers who have taught me some amazing things about myself and about the world. When I am able, as much as I am able, I give credit where credit is due. But, sometimes, as I internalize a lesson and make it my own, I may forget the source. Or, I may just forget to mention the source. Hopefully, that does not in any way dimension the teaching.
Shiva Rea’s outline for the Global Mala Project (a world-wide practice of 108 Sun Salutations) might be the first time I came across the term “precious jewels” as a way to describe people with whom “you have unresolved conflict”. Unfortunately, I do not recollect when I first heard “master teacher” as shorthand for someone who gives you a master class on yourself. But, it is an idea that is very much backed up by some of the sūtras, suttas, and lojang statement and I often pair these two terms together – especially when we set our personal intentions and dedications – because they underscore some very important aspects of the practice and some very fundamental elements of mindfulness-based practices like Yoga and Buddhism:
All relationships are sacred;
You can learn something from everyone and everything;
Every encounter is opportunity to practice;
Every opportunity to practice is an opportunity to turn inward, to take a look at yourself, and to contemplate the gap between how you show up in the world and how you want to (or think) you show up in the world.
Purnima means “full moon.” This full moon day (and night) – which is the first full moon after the Summer Solstice – is extra special for a number of reasons, including the fact that it is a celebration of those who teach us to remove darkness. Even though it is, formally, a celebration of specific “Big G” Teachers and, in some cultures, can also be a celebration of non-religious “little g” teachers, it can also be an opportunity to take note of those who shine light on the darkness. You know, all those people who push your buttons, get you hooked, and make you hot (under the collar)?
We may wish we didn’t have to deal with them, but they are a reminder that we can not remove the darkness we can not see.
Please join me today (Wednesday, July 13th) at 4:30 PM or 7:15 PM for a yoga practice on Zoom.Use the link from the “Class Schedules” calendar if you run into any problems checking into the class. You will need to register for the 7:15 PM class if you have not already done so. Give yourself extra time to log in if you have not upgraded to Zoom 5.0. You can request an audio recording of this practice via a comment below or by emailing myra (at)ajoyfulpractice.com.
Wednesday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for “Guru Purnima 2020”]
In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.)
This is the “missing” post for today, Sunday, July 10th. You can request an audio recording of this practice via a comment belowor (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.
In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.
“1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.
2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.
4. If he satisfy the elders to impose a fine of grain or money, he shall receive the fine that the action produces.
5. If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge’s bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.”
*
– quoted from the Code of Hammurabi (translated by L. W. King, as posted on the Yale Law School’s Lillian Goldman Law Library website for The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy)
Before we go any further, let me clarify something important. The title of this blog post can be – and is intended to be – taken in different ways. This is not, however, a treatise on the beginning of how people started taking legal action against one another. Although, to that end, I will say that carved and chiseled tablets from as far back as 2350 BCE provide very clear evidence of Near East, Middle East, and African societies with codified expectations, processes, and precedents. Here in the West, the most well-known of these ancient legal texts is probably the Code of Hammurabi (circa 18th century BCE), which is recognized as the laws of Hammurabi, sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Preserved on a stone slab over 7 feet (i.e., over 2 meters) tall, the text contains an image of King Hammurabi and Shamash, the Babylonian sun god and god of justice, followed by several thousands of lines of cuneiform text.
The Code of Hammurabi includes 282 rules and guidelines, which establish what happens “if” someone does something – or is accused of doing something – and what happens “[w]hen” they are proven guilty or “if” they are proven innocent “then” what happens to the accuser. The latter are particularly interesting to me, because there is no double standard: falsely accusing someone could carry the same penalty as having done the deed. It is also interesting to note that (per the fifth code, as quoted above) judges were not above the penalty of law – a rule that underscores the responsibility that comes with judicial power.
In many cases, the penalty for grievances were severe (and final). While some parts of our modern Western society have done away with the death penalty and most have eliminated “trial by river,” we can very clearly trace many of our laws, litigation processes, and penalties through the history of the Abrahamic religions and into the here-and-now – at least, from a purely historical perspective. In fact, the Code of Hammurabi is so historical significant to our modern society that Hammurabi’s image is included in the relief portraits of lawgivers located over the gallery doors of the House Chamber in the United States Capital – right next to Moses and across from two gentleman from Virginia: George Mason and Thomas Jefferson.
“We will now discuss in a little more detail the struggle for existence…. I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny.”
*
– from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life by Charles Darwin (pub. 1859)
So, again, this post is not about the history of law. Instead, this post is about a trial that started today in 1925. It is not, as any good law professor or lawyer will tell you, the first (or the first significant) trial in the United States of America. Therefore, it is not the beginning of this great nation’s (sometimes way too “great”) litigation system. However, when I think about litigation that set a precedent for the way laws and legal proceedings affect society – and are affected by society – I think of The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, better known as “The Scopes Monkey Trial,” which took place in Dayton Tennessee (July 10-21, 1925).
At the center of the trial, legally speaking, was John Thomas Scopes, a high school biology substitute teacher who was accused of violating Tennessee’s “Butler Act” by teaching evolution during a high school biology class. Tennessee teachers were required, by law, to not teach evolution or deny Intelligent Design (ID) – even though the required text book had a chapter on evolution. By most accounts, Scopes skipped the chapter, but he still provided an opportunity to challenge what some considered an unconstitutional Act. Given the subject matter, it is not surprising that the trial became a carnival-like spectacle. There were vendors selling Bibles, toy monkeys, hot dogs, and lemonade. Despite the summer heat, the crowd size eventually increased to the point that the whole thing had to be moved outside. Those who couldn’t make it to Tennessee and/or the court “room” could listen to the trial on the radio. And, everyone had an opinion. Of course, the legal opinions that mattered came from the lawyers.
“Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals…. If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene. His teachings, and His teachings alone, can solve the problems that vex the heart and perplex the world.”
*
– quoted from William Jennings Bryan’s written summation to The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes (as distributed to the press), July 1925
*
“My statement that there was there was no need to try this case further, and for the court to instruct that the defendant is guilty under the law was not made as a plea of guilty or an admission of guilt. We claim that the defendant is not guilty, but as the court has excluded any testimony, except as to the one issue as to whether he taught that man descended from a lower order of animals, and we cannot contradict that testimony, there is no logical thing to come except that the jury find a verdict that we may carry to the higher court, purely as a matter of proper procedure. We do not think it is fair to the court or counsel on the other side to waste a lot of time when we know this is the inevitable result and probably the best result for the case. I think that is all right?”
*
– quoted from Clarence Darrow’s “bench statement” just before the jury’s verdict was announced in The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, July 21, 1925
William Jennings Bryan – who was known as “The Great Commoner” and “The Boy Orator” – represented the state of Tennessee and, therefore, the idea that man was created by (the Abrahamic) God and had no relation to “other” primates. By 1925, when the trial occurred, Mr. Bryan had severed the country as a litigator; a member of the U.S. House of Representatives (from Nebraska’s 1st district); and as the 41st U. S. Secretary of State (serving under President Woodrow Wilson). He had also, unsuccessfully, run for president on three different occasions. He was adored by some, abhorred by some, and was nothing short of polarizing. [As a side note, William Jennings Bryan died five days after the verdict came in of the “Scopes Monkey Trial.”]
Then there was Clarence Darrow, for the defense.
Clarence Darrow was prominent member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and had just (the previous year) wrapped up the very public “Leopold and Loeb murder” trial. He was considered a witty, sophisticated country lawyer, who even had the audacity to put the state’s attorney (William Jennings Bryan) on the witness stand. In 1925, Clarence Darrow was already establishing his reputation as a brilliant criminal defense lawyer who fought for the underdog. Just as was the case when he represented Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, his motivation for representing John Scopes wasn’t about whether or not his client broke the law. It wasn’t even, as he pointed out in his summation, whether or not the court would find his client guilty. No, Clarence Darrow’s focus was ultimately about whether or not laws and punishments made sense. As he would illustrate in his later defense of the brothers Ossian Sweet and Henry Sweet (1926), as well as of Thomas Massie (1931), he was about the rule of law and “the law of love.”
“I do not believe in the law of hate. I may not be true to my ideals always, but I believe in the law of love, and I believe you can do nothing with hatred. I would like to see a time when man loves his fellow man, and forgets his color or his creed. We will never be civilized until that time comes.”
*
– quoted from the end of Clarence Darrow’s 7-hour closing argument in The People of Michigan v. Henry Sweet (the second of the “Sweet Trials, involving a defendant from the racially charged The People of Michigan v. Ossian Sweet et al.), May 11, 1926
Clarence Darrow’s “law of love” is the same “moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene” that William Jennings Bryan cited and, ironically, it speaks directly to the origin of Charles Darwin’s treatise on evolution. That is to say, it is related to how we are all connected and how our survival is based on “dependence of one being on another.” However, those early teachings – which actually predate Jesus – are not always practiced as they are preached. Similarly, evolution as it was debated in Tennessee in 1925 and at Oxford University in 1860, was not exactly what Darwin presented in 1859. In fact, the scientist never even used the word “evolution” in his first text. But, it didn’t take long for his argument to, ummm, evolve (or devolve, depending on your perspective). The way Darwin approached the subject was partially responsible for why it changed and why it can still be such a hot topic.
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
*
– from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life by Charles Darwin
The idea of evolution didn’t start with Charles Darwin. No, even the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) referenced earlier ideas (that predated his life) and contemplated an internal purpose (related to survival). Aristotle believed that this “internal purposiveness” existed in all living beings and could be passed down through generations. So, if the idea existed before Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (or, more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) was published on November 24,1859, why did Darwin’s work create such an uproar?
To get to the origins of Origins – or at least the controversy, chaos, and uproar around it, let’s go back to 1852, when Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, and sociologist used the German term “entwicklungsgeschichte” (“development history”), which had previously been used in relation to embryos and single cell organisms, to explain cosmic and biological changes in societies. Spencer would later write an essay coining the phrase “theory of evolution” – in relation to Darwin’s work. However, in the same year (1852) that Spencer wrote about cultures having “development history,” he also wrote an essay called “The Philosophy of Style” in which he promoted writing “to so present ideas that they may be apprehended with the least possible mental effort.” In other words, Spencer advocated writing to make the meaning plain and accessible.
I can’t say for sure how much Darwin himself was influenced by Spencer, but it is very clear that Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species for non-specialists. In other words, he wrote it for the masses. And, as it was easily understood (and written by a then esteemed scientist), it became wildly discussed – in the parlors and in the public. The first big public debate occurred onJune 30, 1860 during the British Science Association’s annual meeting at Oxford University. The next big public debate started today, July 10, 1925, in Dayton, Tennessee (USA). In both cases, what people remember is the way two very articulate men squared off around matters of faith and reason, and the moral and ethical implications of believing one origin story over the other.
As predicted by his lawyer, John Scopes was found guilty by the jury. The judge fined him $100 (the equivalent of about $1,670.26, as I post this today). As planned, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee (in 1926). All five of the defense’s constitutional points of appeal were rejected by the higher court. However, the verdict was overturned on a technicality: the $100 penalty required by the legislation was higher than what the state constitution said a judge could apply. Had the jury assigned the fine, it is possible that the case could have continued to the Supreme Court of the United States.
“It has often and confidently been asserted, that man’s origin can never be known: but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
*
– from The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex by Charles Darwin (pub. 1871)
The fact that “The Scopes Monkey Trial” is related to Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species is tangentially related to why I think of it as a litigation “origin” story. More importantly, as the first United States trial to be nationally televised broadcasted on the radio, The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes set a precedent on how trials are covered by the press and how the public pays attention to such trials. The press was right there, in the court “room” and, therefore, it put the whole country in the jury box; hearing testimony in real time. It was the beginning of a national (even an international) court of public opinion that’s not restricted to the parlors and the streets. Instead, this expanded defacto jury also becomes a judging and legislating body that is quick to convert cases into real world applications (and vice versa). For example, the initial verdict in 1925, led to several state legislations debating anti-evolution legislation – most of which were rejected, but some of which were codified. While Tennessee’s “Butler Act” was rescinded September 1, 1967, there have been similar legal and pedagogical debates in the United States as recently as 2005 and 2007 (hello, Kansas – where evolution is still officially “an unproven theory”). The case also led to changes in science text books (across the country) and changes in the way in which students were taught – and not just about how they were taught biology.
Finally, as a textbook case on how the U. S. legal system could work, “The Scopes Monkey Trial” was/is a primer for how the constitution can be applied to day-to-day life and how that application can be defended… or rejected. It is a tried and true First Amendment case and, to me, is the origin story of how so many Americans view the legality of their constitutional rights, as well as how they understand their rights to challenge how the constitution is applied and the process by which they might exercise those rights. As so many states (including my own home state) codify things that I view as absolutely egregious (and unconstitutional) – and as SCOTUS shockingly overturns precedent – I see lots of opportunities for Scopes-like “tests.”
As soon as Texas created it’s “bounty hunter” abortion law, I said there’s going to be some Scope-like cases testing this. Within a matter of days, cases were filed. Just a couple of weeks ago, mere days after SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, a woman here in Texas was pulled over while driving in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. She was cited for not having at least one passenger. The woman, who is pregnant, cited the aforementioned Texas penal code and the SCOTUS decision as “proof” that she was driving lawfully. She was given a ticket, which means she gets her day in court. I don’t know anything else about this woman and I don’t know anything about her politics, but – whether her motivations are purely economic or whether they are more expansive – her case will put these matters to the test.
And, how ever, those cases are decided, the world will be watching… and discussing.
“Now, we came down here to offer evidence in this case and the court has held under the law that the evidence we had is not admissible, so all we can do is to take an exception and carry it to a higher court to see whether the evidence is admissible or not. As far as this case stands before the jury, the court has told you very plainly that if you think my client taught that man descended from a lower order of animals, you will find him guilty… and there is no dispute about the facts. Scopes did not go on the stand, because he could not deny the statements made by the boys. I do not know how you may feel, I am not especially interested in it, but this case and this law will never be decided until it gets to a higher court, and it cannot get to a higher court probably, very well, unless you bring in a verdict…. We cannot argue to you gentlemen under the instructions given by the court we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it.”
*
– quoted Clarence Darrow’s statement to the jury, just before the verdict was announced in The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, July 21, 1925
Sunday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for the “Hays Code” playlist dated “March 31” on YouTube and “03302020” on Spotify]
The Law of Love
“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.”
– The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (13:8, NIV)
“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.”
– The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians (5:14-15, KJV)
*
“Is it on your grandmother’s or grandfather’s side that you are descended from an ape?”
*
– Bishop Samuel Wilberforce to Thomas Henry Huxley (reportedly), June 30, 1860
*
“I asserted – and I repeat – that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling it would rather be a man – a man of restless and versatile intellect – who, not content with an equivocal success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them with aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.”
*
– Thomas Henry Huxley to Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (reportedly), June 30, 1860 (from Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, by his Son Leonard Huxley by Leonard Huxley (Volume I)
“The whole world naturally seeks peace, and peace is rooted in having a good heart.”
*
“I believe we can combine our traditional [Tibetan] understanding of the mind and modern science to show how to cultivate love and compassion and achieve peace of mind. We all want to be happy and fundamental to that is having a good heart.”
*
– quoted from the speech to the 8th World Parliamentarians Convention on Tibet (in Washington, D. C., June 22-23, 2022) by Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama
Please join me today (Wednesday, July 6th) at 4:30 PM or 7:15 PM for a yoga practice on Zoom.Use the link from the “Class Schedules” calendar if you run into any problems checking into the class. You will need to register for the 7:15 PM class if you have not already done so. Give yourself extra time to log in if you have not upgraded to Zoom 5.0. You can request an audio recording of this practice via a comment below or by emailing myra (at)ajoyfulpractice.com.
Wednesday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for “07062021 HHDL Big Day”]
His Holiness the Dalai Lama turns 87 today! See message link above for his 2021 birthday gift to the world, in which he reaffirmed his commitment to “serving humanity and climate condition.” *Click here to read more about Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, who is considered a bodhisattva (enlightened being) and/or click here to see how his thoughts on suhrit-prapti (“the ability to cultivate a good heart; obtain friends”) fit with the Yoga Philosophy (and a little role playing).
In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.)
The following was originally posted today in 2021. Class details have been updated. As there are even more elephants “in the room” than the ones I referenced below, I can’t promise that tonight will be a celebration. It will, however, be an opportunity for contemplation.
In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
*
– quoted from “The Declaration of Independence” drafted by the Committee of Five and (eventually) signed by delegates of the Second Continental Congress
In the United States, a lot of people – one might even argue, most people – are celebrating the Fourth of July, Independence Day. They would have taken the day off from work (if it wasn’t already the weekend) and many will have Monday off. Since Covid-19 numbers are going down in most of the country, people are celebrating with picnics, get-togethers, parades, concerts, and – even when they’ve been advised against it – fireworks and gunshots in the air.
That’s how we do it in America. Right?
And, we have the freedom to do that. Right?
Except, such assumptions leave out the millions of Americas working today. Some (like me, as well as musicians and other performers, theatrical technicians, and a handful of pyrotechnics professionals) choose to work today and may even be excited to work today. Others, millions and millions of others, don’t have a choice. They work because they lack the financial freedom and/or they work in order for the rest of us to celebrate, freely.
In that last category are all the essential workers like people in healthcare, first responders, grocery workers, delivery people, and people in various forms of journalism – all the people who have kept us going over the last year-plus. Some of them are also in that penultimate category (just as are some in the first category).
And, since I’m being extra real here, the people who serve(d) in the military and their families sometimes fall in all three categories.
One of the questions I have today is: Do you picture these people when you think of what it means to be American? Do you give thanks for these people when you celebrate your freedom (assuming you feel free)? Has/Does your understanding of freedom, independence, “liberty and justice” for all change when you picture, express gratitude for, and even celebrate some of the people above?
Or, since I snuck it in there, do you think of those people when you say the Pledge of Allegiance?
“…Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? And am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
*
“…such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn….”
*
– quoted from the “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” speech by Frederick Douglass (July 5, 1852)
The Fourth of July, as a day of pomp and circumstance, is always slightly ironic to me, because it is simply a publishing date. Granted, it’s not the only publishing date I celebrate. While at least one of the documents I mention over the years is much more inclusive than the Declaration of Independence, it is not widely celebrated in the United States.
I know, I know, there are some people thinking, “Hold up a minute, the Declaration of Independence is inclusive.” To which, I would respond (as anyone familiar with the documents history would respond) that it was, actually, intentionally exclusive. However, it was also designed to be adjusted to, theoretically, become more inclusive – hence the amendments and the ability of the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) to add-on. However, the rights, provisions, and promise of this nation still aren’t extended equally to all citizens or to all within the nation’s borders. It’s not a perfect system, nor is it a perfect union.
Although, one could argue that despite – or because of – current events it is still “a more perfect Union.”
“The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.
*
I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.
*
You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.”
*
– quoted from a letter John Adams wrote to Abigail Adams, with the heading “Philadelphia July 3d, 1776”
Going back to my reference to essential workers, service people, and all of their families; today’s practice is a celebration, but it is also a reminder. It is a reminder that, just as Medgar Evers said in 1963, “freedom is never free.” It is a reminder, just as Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young sang in 1971, that you can “find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground” – and, sometimes, behind bars (or sitting on the bench).
It is also a reminder that stresses the importance, as the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. did during the commencement speech he gave at Oberlin College on June 14, 1965, of “remaining awake through” challenging and changing times. Some people think of pandemic and the events of the last year-plus as a wake-up call.
But, let’s be real. Some people are hitting snooze and going back to normal, I mean sleep. The thing we must remember about the events of 1776 is that when it comes to freedom, independence, “liberty and justice,” we all truly have it… or some of us are ignoring the elephant in the room.
“All I’m saying is simply this: that all mankind is tied together; all life is interrelated, and we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. For some strange reason I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. And you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be – this is the interrelated structure of reality.”
*
– quoted from the Oberlin College commencement speech entitled, “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution” by Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. (June 14, 1965)
Please join me today (Monday, the 4th of July) at 5:30 PM for a 75-minute virtual yoga practice on Zoom. Use the link from the “Class Schedules” calendar if you run into any problems checking into the class. You can request an audio recording of this practice via a comment below or by emailing myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.
There is no playlist for the Common Ground practice.
A playlist for this date is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for “4th of July 2020”]
NOTE: This playlist has been remixed since last year. It is still slightly different on each platform, but mostly with regard to the before/after class music. The biggest difference is that the videos from the 2020 blog post do not appear on Spotify.
*
“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”
*
– quoted from the “Introduction” to Common Sense, signed by the “Author” (Thomas Paine, known as “The Father of the American Revolution”) and dated “Philadelphia, February 14, 1776
*
*
### LET FREEDOM RING (by lifting the bell & ringing it) ###
It’s National CROWN Day (unofficially, of course)!
“… so he said to put an end to all misunderstanding: ‘We parted on bad terms.’
The Manageress seemed to construe this as excellent news.
‘So then you’re free?’ she said.
‘Yes, I’m free,’ said Karl, and nothing seemed more worthless than his freedom.”
*
– quoted from “FIVE / The Hotel Occidental” in the unfinished novel Amerika by Franz Kafka
In some ways, we are living in a realistic, surreal world, not unlike the worlds created by Franz Kafka, who was born today in 1883. Like Kafka’s characters, we find ourselves transformed and/or in oddly transformational situations where we are forced to confront things that just don’t make sense. Of course, in order for things to make sense, we need context… reference points… history. In fact, in a letter to Oskar Pollak (dated 27 January 1904), Kafka advocated reading books that shake us awake. This was a follow-up to an earlier letter (dated 8 November 1903, translated by Frederick R. Karl), in which Kafka wrote, “We are as forlorn as children lost in the woods. When you stand in front of me and look at me, what do you know of the griefs that are in me and what do I know of yours? And if I were to cast myself down before you and weep and tell you, what more would you know about me than you know about Hell when someone tells you it is hot and dreadful? For that reason alone we human beings ought to stand before one another as reverently, as reflectively, as lovingly, as we would before the entrance to Hell.”
Today in 1776, John Adams wrote a letter to his wife Abigail about how (and why) the “Second Day of July 1776” would be remembered and celebrated for all times.
Today in 1863, the Army of the Potomac forces, led by Major General George Meade, defeated Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia during the third Battle of Gettysburg. The Battle of Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863) was the bloodiest battle of the Civil War and its conclusion not only halted the confederacy’s invasion of northern territories, it also marked the beginning of the end of the Civil War (but not the end of the battle for long-promised freedom). Today in 2019, in America’s ongoing effort to make our ideals make sense (as a reality rather than a theory), the CROWN (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair) Act (SB188) was signed into law under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (of 1959) and the California Education Code. As I noted last year: “New Jersey and New York adopted similar versions of the bill and other states, including South Carolina, are following suit. But, those laws don’t protect people in all over the country and they don’t apply outside of the country.” You can click the previous link for the history and/or click here for more (con)text(ure).
Please join me for a 65-minute virtual yoga practice on Zoom today (Sunday, July 3rd) at 2:30 PM. You can use the link from the “Class Schedules” calendar if you run into any problems checking into the class. You can request an audio recording of this practice via a comment belowor (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.
Sunday’s is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for “4th of July 2020”]
[NOTE: This playlist has been remixed since 2020. It is still slightly different on each platform, but mostly with regard to the before/after class music. The biggest difference is that certain contextual videos do not appear on Spotify. One track may not play on Spotify due to artist protests.]
“Who is free? The free must certainly be beyond cause and effect. If you say that the idea of freedom is a delusion, I shall say that the idea of bondage is also a delusion. Two facts come into our consciousness, and stand or fall with each other. These are our notions of bondage and freedom. If we want to go through a wall, and our head bumps against that wall, we see we are limited by that wall. At the same time we find a willpower, and think we can direct our will everywhere. At every step these contradictory ideas come to us. We have to believe that we are free, yet at every moment we find we are not free. If one idea is a delusion, the other is also a delusion, and if one is true, the other also is true, because both stand upon the same basis — consciousness. The Yogi says, both are true; that we are bound so far as intelligence goes, that we are free so far as the soul is concerned. It is the real nature of man, the soul, the Purusha, which is beyond all law of causation. Its freedom is percolating through layers of matter in various forms, intelligence, mind, etc. It is its light which is shining through all.”
*
– quoted from the commentary on Yoga Sūtra 2.20 from Raja Yoga by Swami Vivekananda
In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.)
This is the “missing” post for Wednesday, June 29th. You can request an audio recording of this practice via a comment below or (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.
In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.
“The Nation’s highway system is a gigantic enterprise, one of our largest items of capital investment. Generations have gone into its building. Three million, three hundred and sixty-six thousand miles of road, travelled by 58 million motor vehicles, comprise it. The replacement cost of its drainage and bridge and tunnel works is incalculable. One in every seven Americans gains his livelihood and supports his family out of it. But, in large part, the network is inadequate for the nation’s growing needs.“
*
– quoted from President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s message to the Congress of the United States, dated February February 22, 1955 (with a header from James C. Hagerty, Press Secretary to the President, indicating that the message “MUST BE HELD IN STRICT CONFIDENCE and no portion, synopsis or intimation may given out or published UNTIL RELEASE TIME” of Noon EST)
Take a moment to consider the difference between mobility and mobilization. It’s possible that you think of these things as being the same, but in totally different contexts. Maybe you only think of mobility in terms of physical ability and you only think about mobilization in terms of the military. To clarify, mobility is, in fact, related to range of movement. We can think of it in term’s of a body’s range of movement (i.e., how much a person can physically move) and we can also think of it in terms of social movement (e.g., someone’s upward mobility at work and/or their socioeconomic mobility). On the flip side, mobilization is what it takes in order to move.
As to the latter, the armed services (at least here in the United States) have specific meanings associated with the term “mobilization” – as in the mobilization of troops, which is what it takes in order for an individual or a unit to be sent to a specific location for a specific purpose. (Note: According to the U. S. Department of Veteran Affairs, mobilizations count as deployments, but some deployments do not count as mobilizations.) Understanding the military definition can give us some insight into how mobilization works in our own mind-body. For instance, there are a lot of different resources, organization, and infrastructure needed in order for members of the military to assist citizens in the event of a natural disaster – or in the event of a man-made disaster. Yes, having the people, with the necessary skills and the right appropriate equipment is part of mobilization. However, all of those resources are useless if the people and things can’t get where there needed and/or can’t get there in a timely fashion.
This same idea applies to the human mind-body, which is made to move. Similar to the military, we have all these different parts (with different functions) that make up the whole. Our parts can work together in an efficient way – to achieve a desired goal or to be more functional – and/or we can recruit parts of ourselves in ways that might be detrimental and led to discomfort, disease, and/or injury. Knowing how we move, how we can move, brings awareness to what we need in order to move. This is how mobility and mobilization go hand-in-hand: movement (i.e., mobility) is essential to life; therefore, mobilization is as paramount to us individually as it is to us collectively.
Recognizing the importance of national mobilization, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed and enacted the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act on June 29, 1956. Also known as the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, this 10-year plan to improve and expanded the United States highway system included the addition of 41,000 miles of interstate highway that was consistent in terms of construction, nomenclature, and signage. It was the largest public works project during it’s enactment and it all stemmed from President Eisenhower’s experiences in the military and how those experiences informed his decisions as commander-in-chief.
“Third: In the case of an atomic attack on our key cities, the road net must permit quick evacuation of target areas, mobilization of defense forces and maintenance of every essential economic function. But the present system in critical areas would be the breeder of a deadly congestion within hours of an attack.”
*
– quoted from President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s message to the Congress of the United States, dated February February 22, 1955 (with a header from James C. Hagerty, Press Secretary to the President, indicating that the message “MUST BE HELD IN STRICT CONFIDENCE and no portion, synopsis or intimation may given out or published UNTIL RELEASE TIME” of Noon EST)
After graduating from West Point (in 1915) and marrying Mary Geneva “Mamie” Doud (on July 1, 1916), Dwight D. Eisenhower spent World War I stateside at a tank training center in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. After the war, and several promotions, he participated in the 1919 Motor Transport convoy – which was the US Army Motor Transport Corps “Truck Train” that drove from Washington, D. C. to Oakland, California and then ferried to San Francisco. Several dozen expeditionary officers and observers from the War Department (and various military divisions) as well as 258 enlisted men and (at least) 81 vehicles were expected to travel 3,000 miles in two months. In the end, they traveled over 3,200 miles and finished the trip a week behind schedule. Their delays were partially due to inexperienced personnel and partially due to the dilapidated roads (and roads that were not appropriate for military vehicles) – a combination which led to over 200 “road incidents” that resulted in 9 vehicles being retired; over 80 bridges being broken and repaired; and nearly two dozen men being injured to the point that they could not complete the trip.
The convoy was a public relations event as well as an opportunity for the US Army to road test vehicles and infrastructure. In other words, it was a way to assess mobilization. The future president called the convoy “a lark” and a learning experience. In At Ease: Stories I Tell My Friends, he also described it as “difficult, tiring and fun.” Overall, though, it was a sharp contrast to his experience during World War II, when he discovered the usefulness of Germany’s autobahn.
“Once the Allies controlled the superhighway, they were able to force an unconditional surrender in just six weeks.”
– quoted from “Ike’s Grand Plan” in The Roads that Built America: The Incredible Story of the U. S. Interstate System by Dan McNichol
*“By the time the Allied forces reached Germany, they could take full advantage of the autobahn. E. F. Koch, a U.S. Public Roads Administration (PRA) employee who observed the autobahn in 1944-45 as a highway and bridge engineer with the Ninth Army. He and his engineering unit spent the unusually cold winter maintaining roads in Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands that, after the pounding of military vehicles and the thaw in early 1945, were in terrible shape. Conditions changed when they reached Germany in early 1945. ‘After crossing the Rhine and getting into the areas of Germany served by the Autobahn . . . our maintenance difficulties were over. Nearly all through traffic used the Autobahn and no maintenance on that system was required.’“
**
– quoted from “Highway System – Infrastructure System: The Reichsautobahnen” an expanded version of material in “The Man Who Changed America” as posted on the U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration website [Contact: Richard Weingroff]
Now officially known as Bundesautobahn (“federal auto track” or federal motorway), the autobahn was originally known as the Reichsautobahn (initially in reference to the Welmar / German Republic), but was not firmly established or constructed until after Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor and the Enabling Act of 1933 started the county’s descension into Nazi Germany. Some people called them Straßen Adolf Hitlers (“Adolf Hitler’s roads) and they were intended to serve multiple purposes – including improved military mobility and mobilization. Ultimately, the Nazi regime used their rail system more than their highway system as they dominated the country and destroyed communities. However, the carefully planned and connected road system did provided an advantageous opportunity for the Allied forces: an efficient infrastructure for convoys like the Red Ball Express – a primarily African-American operated truck convoy – to quickly resupply forces moving from the beaches of Normandy into Germany.
As President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower wanted the USA to have a similar in-country advantage if it ever needed it. In 1954, in the middle of his first term in office, he solicited studies from three (3) different sources – this was in addition to the survey he had done at the end of World War II. In February of 1955, he submitted their conclusions and his own recommendations to the United States Congress. In his letter to Congress, the President illustrated why “All three [studies] were confronted with inescapable evidence that action, comprehensive and quick and forward-looking, is needed.” He emphasized the pros (of implementing his recommendations) and the cons (of not moving forward with his plan). He also highlighted these pros and cons as they related to the economy, the overall state of the union, and the defensibility of the nation. In very clear language and undeniable numbers, he quantified how and why a federal highway system was a matter so paramount that it warranted a diversion of funds from the military.
“Ike accepted the German’s surrender on May 7, 1945. One of the first things he did as the head of occupied Germany was order an investigation of the Autobahn. Years after the U. S. Interstate System’s construction began, he called, ‘After seeing the autobahns of modern Germany and knowing the asset those highways were to the Germans. I decided, as President, to put an emphasis on this kind of road building. This was one of the things I felt deeply about, and I made a personal and absolute decision to see that the nation would benefit by it. The old convoy had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land.'”
*
– quoted from “Ike’s Grand Plan” in The Roads that Built America: The Incredible Story of the U. S. Interstate System by Dan McNichol
Once it was completed, President Eisenhower’s interstate plan connected military basis and major cities from coast to coast. It decreased the travel time along the route of the 1919 truck convoy from two months to 5 days (and without as many “incidents”). All of this was achieved by combining direct experience – of what worked and what didn’t work – with coordinated studies. Similarly, we can gain awareness of our own mobility and mobilization through direct experience and coordinated study. We can even uses different methodology and mechanisms.
Kinesiology has multiple applications and is a multidisciplinary endeavor related to physiological, anatomical, biomechanical, and neuropsychological principles and mechanisms of movement. In other words, it’s not just about the body. Even if we say that we only want to look at the mind-body from a purely physical standpoint, we’re still going to be dealing with muscles, joints, tendons, and innervation. We’re still going to deal with energy – again, we’re just using a different road map.
“Our unity as a nation is sustained by free communication of thought and by easy transportation of people and goods.”
*
“Together, the uniting forces of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we bear–United States. Without them, we would be a mere alliance of many separate parts.”
*
– quoted from President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s message to the Congress of the United States, dated February February 22, 1955 (with a header from James C. Hagerty, Press Secretary to the President, indicating that the message “MUST BE HELD IN STRICT CONFIDENCE and no portion, synopsis or intimation may given out or published UNTIL RELEASE TIME” of Noon EST)
Wednesday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for “08072021 The Turtle’s Secret to Moving Meditation”]
There is another “Traffic Jam” song, but it’s a little too explicit for me. Sorry.
“First: Each year, more than 36 thousand people are killed and more than a million injured on the highways. To the home where the tragic aftermath of an accident on an unsafe road is a gap in the family circle, the monetary worth of preventing that death cannot be reckoned. But reliable estimates place the measurable economic cost of the highway accident toll to the Nation at more than $4.3 billion a year.
*
Second: The physical condition of the present road net increases the cost of vehicle operation, according to many estimates, by as much as one cent per mile of vehicle travel. At the present rate of travel, this totals more than $5 billion a year. The cost is not borne by the individual vehicle operator alone. It pyramids into higher expense of doing the nation’s business. Increased highway transportation costs, passed on through each step in the distribution of goods, are paid ultimately by the individual consumer.
*
Third: . . . .
*
Fourth: Our Gross National Product, about $357 billion in 1954, is estimated to reach over $500 billion in 1965 when our population will exceed 180 million and, according to other estimates, will travel in 81 million vehicles 814 billion vehicle miles that year. Unless the present rate of highway improvement and development is increased, existing traffic jams only faintly foreshadow those of ten years hence.
*
To correct these deficiencies is an obligation of Government at every level.”
*
– quoted from President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s message to the Congress of the United States, dated February February 22, 1955 (with a header from James C. Hagerty, Press Secretary to the President, indicating that the message “MUST BE HELD IN STRICT CONFIDENCE and no portion, synopsis or intimation may given out or published UNTIL RELEASE TIME” of Noon EST)
*
### Keeping it between the lines is easier when the lanes are wide. ###
The following was originally posted June 28, 2020. Class details and music links have been updated. Two extra quotes and additional 2021 post links (with statistics) have been added.
In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.)
“[It was] a perfect event in my life because it let me live the kinds of dreams I had of seeing an equitable society. I was able to live my life, which I would have done anyway, but without Stonewall I would have had more opposition. So it turns out the times were on my side, which left me with a basically happy life.”
*
– Martin “Marty” Boyce
It started off like any other regular Friday. People got up, got dressed, went to work (on Wall Street) or to school. Some wrote poetry or songs in a café. Some gathered on a street corner hoping to score their next meal. It was a regular Friday, and people were looking forward to the weekend. They came home or went to a friend’s place. They changed clothes – that was the first spark of something special… but it was still just a regular Friday. People were going to go out, have a good time, sing, dance, gather with friends (maybe do it again on Saturday night), and then spend some time recovering so that, on Monday, they could go back to being regular.
It was a regular Friday… that became an extraordinary Saturday, because at around 1:20 AM on Saturday, June 28, 1969, four policeman dressed in dark suits, two patrol officers in uniform, a detective, and a deputy inspector from the New York Police Department walked into the Stonewall Inn and announced that they were “taking the place!” It was a raid.
“I was never afraid of the cops on the street, because I was not an obvious person. I was not flaunting my homosexuality to anyone. I wasn’t holding hands. It would never have occurred to me to try and have a confrontation with them [because] you don’t want to be arrested for any stupid reason. I never had any problems with the police. I never had problems with anyone anywhere, until that night…. I never ever gave it a thought of [Stonewall] being a turning point. All I know is enough was enough. You had to fight for your rights. And I’m happy to say whatever happened that night, I was part of it. Because [at a moment like that] you don’t think, you just act.”
*
– Raymond Castro
In some ways, there was still nothing special. The Stonewall Inn, located on Christopher Street in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Lower Manhattan was a Mafia owned “private bottle bar” frequented by members of the GLBTQIA+ community. It was raided on a regular basis, usually at a standard time. Because the bar was Mafia owned, it would normal get a heads up (from someone who knew the raid was coming – wink, wink, nudge, nudge) and just before the raid was scheduled the lights would come up so people could stop holding hands or dancing (both of which were illegal for same sex partners) and any illegal alcohol could be hidden. The police would separate people based on clothing and then a female officer would take anyone wearing a dress into the bathroom in order to check their genitalia. Some people were arrested, but many would go back to the party once the police had taken their leave.
The raid that happened this morning in 1969 was different. There was no warning. No lights came up. No then-illegal activity was hidden. Unbeknownst to the patrons, four undercover officers (two men and two women) had previously been in the bar gathering visual evidence. The police started rounding people up and, also, letting some people go. They were planning to close the bar down. The only problem was…people didn’t leave. The people who were released stayed outside in the street, watching what was happening, and they were eventually joined by hundreds more.
“I changed into a black and white cocktail dress, which I borrowed from my mother’s closet. It was mostly black, empire-waisted, with a white collar. I used to dress with a bunch of older queens and one of them lent me black fishnet stockings and a pair of black velvet pumps…. The cop looked at me and said, ‘Hey, you!’ and I said, ‘Please, it’s my birthday, I’m just about to graduate from high school, I’m only 18,’ and he just let me go! [I was] scared to death that my father would see me on the television news in my mother’s dress.”
*
– Yvonne (also known as Maria) Ritter
At times the crowd was eerily quiet. But then, as Mafia members were brought out, they started to cheer. When employees were brought out, someone yelled, “Gay power,” and someone started to sing. An officer shoved a person in a dress and she started hitting him over the head with her purse. The crowd was becoming larger… and more restless. At some point people started throwing beer bottles and pennies (as a reference to the police being bribed by the Mafia.) This was becoming a problem, but an even bigger problem was when the police found out the second van was delayed. They were stuck.
Then, things went from bad to worse when some of the 13 people arrested (including employees and people not wearing what was considered “gender appropriate clothing”) resisted. One of the women, a lesbian of color, managed to struggle and escape multiple times. At some point there were four officers trying to contain her. When a police officer hit her over the head, she yelled at the crowd, “Why don’t you guys do something?” And they did.
Police officers barricaded themselves and several people they were arresting (some of whom were just in the neighborhood) inside of the bar for safety. The NYPD’s Tactical Patrol Force was called out to free the officers and detainees trapped inside the Stonewall Inn. One witness said that the police were humiliated…and out for blood. The police’s own escalation, in trying to contain the violence, was met with a Broadway chorus style kick-line… and more violence. The escalation continued. At times, people were chasing the police.
The ensuing protests/riots lasted through the weekend and, to a lesser degree, into the next week. The bar re-opened that next night and thousands lined up to get inside. There was more vandalism and more violence, but on Saturday night (June 28th) there were also public displays of affection: at that time, illegal same-sex public displays of affection. People were out.
“It was a rebellion, it was an uprising, it was a civil rights disobedience – it wasn’t no damn riot!”
*
– Stormé DeLarverie
The Stonewall Uprising, the riots and the ensuing protests and celebrations were not the first of their kind. Three years earlier, the Mattachine Society had organized “sip-ins” where people met at bars and openly declared themselves as gay. That kind of organized, peaceful civil disobedience was happening all over the country during the 60’s. It was a way to break unjust laws and it temporarily reduced the number of police raids. However, the raids started up again.
Stormé DeLarverie, Marsha P. Johnson, Zazu Nova, Jackie Hormona, Martin “Marty” Boyce, Sylvia Rivera, Raymond Castro, John O’ Brian, and Yvonne “Maria” / “Butch” Ritter were among the people involved in the Stonewall Uprising. The musician Dave Van Ronk (who famously arranged the version of “House of the Rising Sun” made famous by Bob Dylan) was not gay, but he was arrested. Alan Ginsberg, who was gay, would witness the riots and applaud the people who were taking a stand. Village Voice columnist Howard Smith was a straight man who had never been inside the Stonewall Inn until he grabbed his press credentials and made his way into the center of the uprising. Craig Rodwell (owner of the Oscar Wilde Memorial Bookshop) and Fred Sargent (the bookstores manager) started writing and distributing leaflets on behalf of the Mattachine Society. They also drummed up media interest. In addition to Rodwell and Sargent, Dick Leitsch (a member of the Mattachine Society), John O’Brien, and Martha Shelley (a member of the Daughters of Bilitis) would start organizing so that the protest that turned into a riot would come full circle as a protest that created change.
A year later, June 28, 1970, thousands of people returned to Stonewall Inn. They marched from the bar to Central Park in what was then called “Christopher Street Liberation Day.” The official chant was, “Say it loud, gay is proud.” And, I’m betting there was at least one kick line.
“But [Gil] Scott-Heron also had something else in mind—you can’t see the revolution on TV because you can’t see it at all. As he [said] in a 1990s interview:
*
‘The first change that takes place is in your mind. You have to change your mind before you change the way you live and the way you move. The thing that’s going to change people is something that nobody will ever be able to capture on film. It’s just something that you see and you’ll think, “Oh I’m on the wrong page,” or “I’m on I’m on the right page but the wrong note. And I’ve got to get in sync with everyone else to find out what’s happening in this country.”’
*
If we realize we’re out of sync with what’s really happening, we cannot find out more on television. The information is where the battles are being fought, at street level, and in the mechanisms of the legal process.”
*
– quoted from the Open Culture article “Gil Scott-Heron Spells Out Why ‘The Revolution Will Not Be Televised’” by Josh Jones (posted June 2nd, 2020)
Please join me today (Tuesday, June 28th) at 12:00 PM or 7:15 PM for a yoga practice on Zoom. You can use the link from the “Class Schedules” calendar if you run into any problems checking into the class. You can request an audio recording of this practice via a comment belowor (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.
Tuesday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for “06282020 Stonewall PRIDE”]
(NOTE: The YouTube playlist has been updated with the latest link to the “forbidden” music. The Spotify playlist may skip an instrumental track.)
“Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.”
*
– quoted from an originally unpublished introduction to Animal Farm by George Orwell
Click here for a short note about Gil Scott-Heron, whose lived experience in 1969 New York City may not have been a specifically LGBTQIA+ experience, but did write words that speak to an intersectionality of experiences that existed 52 years ago today and still exist to this day. As I mentioned last year, “He was speaking from the experience of being part of a marginalized (and sometimes vilified) community in the world (in general) and in New York (specifically). And, therefore, it is not surprising that his words apply.” Click here for some contextualized stats.
If you are thinking about suicide, worried about a friend or loved one, or would like emotional support, you can call 1-800-273-TALK (8255). You can also call the TALK line if you are struggling with addiction or involved in an abusive relationship. The Lifeline network is free, confidential, and available to all 24/7. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT ANYTHING.
If you are a young person in crisis, feeling suicidal, or in need of a safe and judgement-free place to talk, call the TrevorLifeline (which is staffed 24/7 with trained counselors).
This post-practice post for Monday, June 27th.You can request an audio recording of Monday’s practice via a comment belowor (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.
In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.)
“A healing story is my term for the stories we have come to believe that shape how we think about the world, ourselves, and our place in it. They can be as simple as ‘Everything happens for a reason’ or as sharp as ‘How come nothing ever works out for me?’ Healing stories guide us through good times and bad times; they can be constructive and destructive, and are often in need of change. They come together to create our own personal mythology, the system of beliefs that guide how we interpret our experience. Quite often, they bridge the silence that we carry within us and are essential to how we live.”
*
– quoted from “Introduction: The Mind-Body Relationship in Waking: A Memoir of Trauma and Transcendence by Matthew Sanford
What Matthew Sanford wrote about his personal story is true of all our stories: They are full of healing stories. These stories are intertwined with the stories of others and we often find ourselves in the intersection between the mythology and the reality, fantasy and fiction, the constructive and the destructive. This could be the “silence” of which Sanford also speaks – or it could be the shadow of the myth. Either way, we grow up in this in-between space and, at some point, we may realize that we can step out of the shadow. At some point, we may realize that we must step out of the shadow of the myth in order to move forward. Stepping out of the shadows of our personal mythology, however, often requires us to recognize that very little is as black and white as we thought it was and the only reason things seemed simpler “back in the day” was that we lacked awareness.
Of course, awareness can be painful, because it can lead to uncomfortable and inconvenient truths, as well as uncertainty. Awareness comes with the knowledge that no one is as perfect as they are portrayed in the story. The hero (or heroine) sometimes use their greatness to do and say really horrible and detrimental things. The anti-hero or the one that was demonized may actually save the day. Awareness can allow us to see cause-and-effect, in the past and (on a certain level) in the future. However, both hindsight and foresight require us to “see” clearly and to understand what we are seeing, which can sometimes be problematic. True hindsight and foresight require us to look at the facts (and the fiction) as if we are simultaneously viewing two sides of the same coin – something we can only do under special conditions and using a special tool.
Studying history can be the special conditions, but not everyone loves diving into a biography or a chronology. Even when we do appreciate history, we may only view it from one side – which means we still lack knowledge. Furthermore, our vision may still be impaired by our perception, which itself may be impaired. This is where the mind and mindful awareness come in, because paying attention to how we think (and why we think the things we think) creates the special tool we need to distinguish the difference between the mythology and the reality, fantasy and fiction, the constructive and the destructive.
“‘Every act of perception,’ Edelman writes, ‘is to some degree an act of creation, and every act of memory is to some degree an act of imagination.’”
*
– Dr. Oliver Sacks, quoting Dr. Gerald Edelman (co-winner of the 1927 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine)
– “The Seer is the pure power of seeing, yet its understanding is through the mind/intellect.” [Translation by Pandit Rajmani Tigunait (for comparative analysis), “The sheer power of seeing is the seer. It is pure, and yet it sees only what the mind shows it.”]
On a certain level, perception is one area where philosophies like Yoga and Buddhism dovetail with the physical sciences. All agree, in theory, that most of what we perceive is based on what’s happening in the mind and what’s happening in the mind is mostly based on past experiences. What we see/comprehend is based on what we have previously seen/comprehended. When there are gaps in our knowledge (i.e., where there is ignorance), the mind-intellect fills in the gap. What fills in the gap may not make sense to anyone or anything other than our mind-intellect. It may not even make sense to us, on a conscious intellectual level. However, we (often) accept what comes from our mind even when there is some part of us that says, ‘That doesn’t actually make sense, when you really think about it.’
The point is we don’t necessarily think about it. Or, we think about it in a way that makes it make sense – which is how confirmation bias works: we look for a reason to believe. We can say we all believe in the truth, but the truth is that we are all looking for something in which to believe – which is why philosophies like Yoga and Buddhism (and even some religions) have practices that revolve around being, rather than thinking.
Being and breathing, with awareness.
Vipassanā is a Theravada Buddhist meditation technique that has also become a tradition (meaning there are people who practice vipassanā, but no other aspects of Buddhism). It literally means “to see in a special way” and can also be translated as “special, super seeing,” “inward vision,” “intuition,” or introspection.” In English, however, it is usually translated as “insight.” This insight is achieved by sitting, breathing, and watching the mind-body without judging the mind-body. Part of the practice is even to recognize when you are judging and, therefore, recognizing when you are getting in your own way. It is a practice of observation – which is also part of our yoga practice. It is a way to parse out fact and fiction, myth and reality, and that place where they overlap like a wacky Venn Diagram.
I have heard that in Theravada Buddhism there are eighteen (18) stages or types of “insight,” which bring awareness to eighteen (18) pairs of opposites and create the opportunity to eliminate attachment to those dysfunctional/afflicted thought patterns which lead to suffering. In some texts, this is how “opposites” are engaged, which is also a practice recommended in Patanjali’s Yoga Sūtras. A connected technique in the Yoga Philosophy is svādhyāya (“self-study”), which includes the practice of bringing awareness to how one feels within a certain context. For instance, we can pay attention to how we feel – physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually/energetically – when we learn different elements of someone’s story, as well as when we put ourselves in someone else’s shoes: be it the hero(ine) of the story or someone inspired by them.
The following is a revised version of a 2020 post.
“We must not allow other people’s limited perceptions to define us.”
*
– quoted from The New Peoplemaking by Virginia Satir
If you want to talk about people who did not let other people’s limited perceptions define them, let’s talk about Helen Keller and the people that surrounded her. Born June 27, 1880, in Tuscumbia, Alabama, Keller lost both her ability to see and her ability to hear when she was 19 months old. She fell ill with what might have been scarlet fever or meningitis and while she lost two of her senses, Keller was far from dumb. She figured out a way to use signs to communicate with Martha Washington (the Black six-year old daughter of her family’s cook, not to be confused with the 1st lady) and by the age of seven she had developed more than 60 signs – which her family also understood. Furthermore, she could identify people walking near her based on the vibrations and patterns of their steps – she could even identify people by sex and age.
Keller’s mother, Kate Adams Keller, learned about Laura Bridgman (who was a deaf and blind adult) from Charles Dickens’ travelogue American Notes for General Circulation. The Kellers were eventually referred to Alexander Graham Bell who, in turn, introduced them to Anne Sullivan (who was also visually impaired, due to a bacterial infection). Keller and Sullivan would form a 49-year relationship that evolved over time. Even when Sullivan got married, Keller (possibly) got engaged, and illness required additional assistance from Polly Thomson, the women worked and lived together. Keller would go on to learn to speak and became a lecturer, as well as an author and activist. Sullivan would be remembered as an extraordinary educator whose devotion and ability to adjust to her student’s needs is memorialized in school names and movies like The Miracle Worker and Monday After the Miracle. Keller (d. 06/01/1968), Sullivan (d. 10/20/1936), and Thomson (d. 03/20/1960) are interred together at the Washington National Cathedral.
All of this is part of the mythology of Helen Keller and also of Anne Sullivan. All of this is part of the “healing story” that have inspired so many people, some of whom are considered “able bodied” and some of whom are considered “disabled.” And while these are the most well-known facts, they are only a handful of facts. They represent an oversimplified version of a complicated story about complex people, their convoluted relationships, and their controversial legacies.*
“At that time the compliments he paid me were so generous that I blush to remember them. But now that I have come out for socialism he reminds me and the public that I am blind and deaf and especially liable to error. I must have shrunk in intelligence during the years since I met him.”
*
– quoted from “How I Became a Socialist” by Helen Keller (published in The New York Call 11/03/1912) [referencing St. Clair McKelway, editor of the Brooklyn Eagle]
Helen Keller is notable for many reasons, but she was (and still can be) considered controversial when you think about her family history and some of her views. Her father, and at least one of her grandfathers, served in the Confederate Army and she was a related to Robert E. Lee. She was a suffragist, a pacifist, a radical socialist, an advocate for people with disabilities, and a supporter of birth control – but/and she also believed in eugenics. Yes, a woman who was blind and deaf publicly wrote and spoke in favor of the idea that humans could genetically pre-select character traits in order to create a better society. Eugenics has been scientifically debunked and is rife with basic humanitarian issues. At its core, it also exhibits a lack of faith in humanity and human potential. Still, history continues to show us some pretty messed up examples of people believing in eugenics. But/and, one of those mind-boggling examples is Helen Keller: someone who used their very public platform to support a theory that, in practice, would not have supported their own existence.
Again, that’s just one side of the coin. Just as no group of people is a monolith, no individual is one-dimensional. Hellen Keller herself pointed this out when she referenced the coincidence that she was related to the first teacher of the deaf in Zurich. She wrote in her autobiography, “… it is true that there is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his.” There is clarity in knowing, deep inside, that each of us is connected to both sides of the coin. That clarity comes from going deep inside ourselves. If we pay attention to what’s going on inside of our own hearts we have a compass that steers us in a functional/skillful direction – at least, that is the message of contemplatives.
That’s the lesson of “insight.”
“After long searches here and there, in temples and in churches, in earths and in heavens, at last you come back, completing the circle from where you started, to your own soul and find that He for whom you have been seeking all over the world, for whom you have been weeping and praying in churches and temples, on whom you were looking as the mystery of all mysteries shrouded in the clouds, is nearest of the near, is your own Self, the reality of your life, body, and soul. That is your own nature. Assert it, manifest it.”
– from “ The Real Nature of Man” speech, delivered in London and published in The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (Volume 2, Jnana-Yoga) by Swami Vivekananda
Yoga Sutra 2.26: vivekakhyātiraviplavā hānopāyah
*
– “The clear, unshakeable awareness of discerning knowledge (insight) is the means to nullifying sorrow (created by ignorance).”
There is no playlist for the Common Ground practice.
The 2020 playlist playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for “06032020 How Can We See, Dr. Wiesel”]
*NOTE: Radiolab recently aired a podcast episode entitled “The Helen Keller Exorcism” (dated Mar 11, 2022). While I wrote the aforementioned details about Helen Keller a couple of years ago, with minimal context, this podcast featured the perspective of fantasy writer Elsa Sjunneson, who is persistently resisting people’s limited perceptions of her and the myth of Helen Keller. (It also provides some of the backstory about Helen Keller’s most controversial views.)
“When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us… Happiness is a state of mind, and depends very little on outward circumstances.”
*
– quoted from To Love This Life: Quotations by Helen Keller by Helen Keller (with Forward by Jimmy Carter)
###
A Joyful Practice 