Water Music Peace (the “missing” Monday post that is also a “long lost” post) July 17, 2023

Peace and blessings to everyone, and especially to those who are dealing with conflict.

This is a “missing” post for July 17, 2023 (and also for 2022). You can request an audio recording of either 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.

Check out the “Class Schedules” calendar for upcoming classes.)

“I am getting ready to go see Stalin and Churchill…. I have a briefcase filled up with information on past conferences and suggestions on what I’m to do and say. Wish I didn’t have to go, but I do and it can’t be stopped now.”

– quoted from a letter dated July 3, 1945 addressed to his mother (Martha) and sister (Mary) by President Harry S. Truman

In Yoga and Āyurveda, as they come to us from India, the vital energy of the mind-body flows through the nadi like water flows down a river. In fact, nadi or nāḍī (“energy channels”) is also found in some texts as  nādi or nadī and translated into English as “rivers.” So, while I sometimes encourage people to bring awareness to the sound of their own personal ocean, it would be more precise to say “your own personal river.” Furthermore, when we tune into the breath during our practice – and especially when we move to the pace of the breath in a vinyāsa practice – what we are really doing is floating (or swimming) down the river.

Peacefully, floating or swimming down the river; thinking peace in, peace out.

Just as it is helpful to breathe “peace in, peace out,” when we are on the mat or cushion, this little exercise in prānāyāma (awareness of breath) can be helpful when we’re off the mat – especially if someone is pushing our buttons and/or we have the expectation that someone will push our buttons. It’s a nice tool to have in your mindfulness-based toolkit… or briefcase. It would have been a really handy tool for certain world leaders today in 1945.

For that matter, it would have been handy for certain members of British royalty today in 1717.

“It is more pertinent to ask why the opera did not function; and the main reason for this was the chaos surrounding relations between George I and his son, the Prince of Wales, which had a profound impact on the social activities of the primary financial supporters of the opera, the aristocracy. The two Georges had never been on particularly good terms.”

– quoted from “8. Royal Academy of Music 1719–28) and its Directors” by Elizabeth Gibson, as published in Handel, Tercentenary Collection, edited by Stanley Sadie and Anthony Hicks

It is easy to forget, when someone is pushing your buttons, that your reaction has a ripple effect. Since it seems like no one can push a person’s buttons like family, I think that forgetting how one’s actions/reactions affect others is magnified when the family in question has a certain amount of power. Take the two Georges, for instance.

George I was King of Great Britain and Ireland (beginning August 1, 1714), as well as the ruler of the Electorate of Hanover, an electorate of the Holy Roman Empire (beginning January 23, 1698). While his positions afforded him some power and wealth, he may have been sensitive about the fact that times were changing. The power of the monarchy started to diminish under his rule and, to add insult to injury, people in London did not think very highly of him (or his intelligence). His son was not always viewed more favorably, but he did throw a good party – and people loved a good party. Additionally, George II, the Prince of Wales, presented himself as 100% English, something his father could not do.

According to the stories, the prince and heir apparent, felt a certain kind of way because his father was still alive and still on the throne. The idea that his own time to rule would be short pushed George II’s buttons and he reacted by throwing lavish parties and dinners – so that he would be the talk of the town. This, in turn, pushed his father’s buttons and the senior George needed a way to, quite literally, turn the tide.

King George I wanted to create an event more lavish and more extraordinary than any party or dinner his son could host. A concert on the river sounded like just the ticket and so, the elder George turned to the friend and personal composer of his son’s wife: George Frideric Handel, whose “Water Music” premiered on the River Thames today (7/17) in 1717.

“Many other barges with persons of quality attended, and so great a number of boats that the whole river in a manner was cover’d; a city company’s barge was employ’d for the musick, wherein were fifty instruments of all sorts, who play’d all the way from Lambeth (while the barges drove with the tide without rowing, as far as Chelsea) the finest symphonies compos’d express for this occasion by Mr. Handel….”

– quoted from a July 19, 1717, article in the Daily Courant 

As reported by the Daily Courant, Britain’s first daily newspaper, one or two royal barges and a city barge started floating down the River Thames at around 8 PM that Wednesday, July 17^th (according to the Julian Calendar). The royal barge(s) carried King George I and a ton of aristocrats. A City of London barge carried about 50 musicians. While there is some debate about the original order of the the three suites – as well as about which instruments were on the barge with the musicians – and while some modern composers doubt that George Handel composed all the music specifically for the concert on the Thames, there is no question that the composition was well received. The music was played as the barges floated (with the tide) from Whitehall Palace – towards Chelsea, where the king and his court debarked for dinner at around 11 PM – and then, again, as the barges were rowed back to the palace. A reference to music being played during the king’s dinner sounds like it was different music than what was played on the barge, however, there’s no additional information in the article. The article did note that the musicians played Handel’s music “over three times.”

What always strikes me is the image of all the regular people who came to listen to the music. I imagine some of those who were on boats heard the music from beginning to end. However, people along the shoreline would have heard bits and pieces. Perhaps the beginning and then, hours later, the very end. Someone else could have heard the end and then the beginning – or, the middle twice. It sounds like it could have been fun, and peaceful. Fun and peaceful unless, of course, you were the king – who would rule until his death in June 1727 – or the prince, who became king and elector at the age of 43.

King George II eventually lost popularity among the populace and became estranged from his own son. But, the conflict between the two Georges did not end with the elder’s death. The latter skipped his father’s funeral and hid his father’s will. Then, in 1749, he hired George Frideric Handel to compose “Music for the Royal Fireworks (HWV 351),” which was rehearsed in front of a paying audience on April 21, 1749 and performed in London’s Green Park (with fireworks) on April 27, 1749. It was a lavish and bombastic display – both musically and visually – meant to celebrate the end of the War of the Austrian Succession and the signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen) in 1748. People were severely injured and King George II’s father was long gone, but perhaps using the same composer made the younger feel like he had bested his father.

“We had a tough meeting yesterday. I reared up on my hind legs and told ’em where to get off and they got off. I have to make it perfectly plain to them at least once a day that so far as this President is concerned Santa Claus is dead and that my first interest is U.S.A….. Then I want peace – world peace and will do what can be done by us to get it. But certainly am not going to set up another [illegible] here in Europe, pay reparations, feed the world, and get nothing for it but a nose thumbing. They are beginning to wake to the fact that I mean business.”

– quoted from a letter to U. S. First Lady Bess Truman, dated “Berlin, July 20, 1945,” by U. S. President Harry S. Truman (as published in Dear Bess: The Letters from Harry to Bess Truman, 1910–1959, edited by Robert H. Ferrell)

The Potsdam Conference, held at Cecilienhof Palace in the then-Soviet occupied Potsdam, Germany, started on July 17, 1945. It was a meeting between “the Big Three” Allied leaders – United States President Harry S. Truman, United Kingdom Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Communist Party General Secretary Joseph Stalin – to decide what to do with Germany after the Nazis unconditional surrender on May 8, 1945. The meetings were also attended by UK Prime Minister Clement Attlee (who replaced PM Churchill after the first nine meetings) and foreign ministers and aides, including  Vyacheslav Molotov (for the Soviet Union), Anthony Eden and Ernest Bevin (who replaced Mr. Eden as Great Britain’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs), and James F. Byrnes (for the United States). While it was peace conference between allies and the leaders shared a love of music (over formal dinners), the meetings were not without tension and conflict.

An obvious point of tension and conflict came from the fact that the conference took place while World War II was still ongoing. Yes, Germany had surrendered, but Japan was still fighting. Some internal tension came from the fact that the conference involved several leaders new to their roles. Meetings were paused for a couple of days, because of British elections, and two key players were replaced. Additionally, Harry Truman had only been appointed as the U. S. president after the death of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on April 12, 1945. Then there was the fact that France was included in the agreements, but General Charles de Gaulle was not invited to the the Potsdam Conference and previous peace conferences conferences (because of friction with the United States).

The shifting of leadership – especially in the middle of the conference – and friction between leaders would have been challenging no matter what. However, additional tension came from the fact that the Allied leaders had different opinions about Joseph Stalin. Although, to be blunt, there was a consensus: most believed that General Secretary Stalin could not be trusted.

“I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of man. Harry [Hopkins] says he’s not and that he does not want anything but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world of democracy and peace.”

– President Franklin D. Roosevelt, speaking to American Ambassador to Moscow, William Bullitt, in 1941 (as quoted from the March 7, 1949 remarks of U. S. Representative Foster Furcolo, as printed in the United States of America Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 81st Congress, First Session, Appendix (January 3, 1949 – March 12, 1949)  

Prime Minister Churchill compared the Soviet leader to the devil. His predecessor, Prime Minister Attlee, had initially considered communism as a political possibility, but ultimately considered leaders like Joseph Stalin as a cautionary tale. Clement Attlee approached the Soviet leader in a manner similar to President Roosevelt – who thought that the Soviet leader would be honorable – and believed that treating the Soviets as anything other than allies would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. He eventually changed his tune and agreed with Ernest Bevin, who also joined the conference after the election results were announced. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Bevin was publicly anti-communism, but not overtly hostile towards the general secretary. Within five years, however, both British leaders were not only against communism, they were also anti-Soviet.

President Truman, by his own admission, was nervous about being new to his role and about coming to an agreement with the other leaders. He thought his predecessor’s assessment of Joseph Stalin was categorically wrong. However, during the conference he wrote a letter to First Lady Bess Truman stating that he perceived the Soviet leader as he straightforward. In an earlier letter, he also indicated that he had a secret bargaining chip: news of the successful detonation of the first atomic bomb (at White Sands Proving Ground on July 16, 1945). Unbeknownst to the president, two spies were in New Mexico and witness the detonation firsthand. The spies had informed the general secretary before he arrived at the conference – possibly, before the president received the information through official channels.

“We are going to do what we can to make Germany a decent nation, so that it may eventually work its way from the economic chaos it has brought upon itself back to into a place in the civilised world.”

– quoted from the August 1945 speech, regarding the Potsdam Conference, by President Harry S. Truman

By the conclusion of The Potsdam Conference, on August 2, 1945, the Allies announced their intention to demilitarization, denazification, democratization, decentralization, dismantling, and decartelization Germany. Their plans included the repealing Nazi laws, especially those that allowed discrimination on grounds of race, creed, and political opinion; the organization of new judicial and education systems; the reversal of annexations; the elimination of Nazi officials in government; and the “Orderly and humane” expulsion of (ethnic) German citizens in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary (but not Yugoslavia). The Allied leaders also made plans for the arrest and trials of Nazi war criminals and post-war reparations (most of which went to the Soviet Union). Additionally, they created a Council of Foreign Ministers – made up of officials from the United Kingdom, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, China, France and the United States – which would establish treaties with Germany allies like Italy and Bulgaria. Finally, the leaders at the Potsdam Conference divided Germany and Berlin into four occupied zones – a section controlled by each of “the Big Three” plus France. The division inevitably meant new (and different) standards of living and economic structures for those in the west versus those in the east.

The goals of the Potsdam Conference included eliminating the last vestiges of the Nazi party, establishing and ensuring peace, and figuring out a way for the whole world to heal after so much trauma and so much war. While it was successful on some levels, the decisions that were made during the conference also laid the foundation for more conflict and friction. In particular, the decision to divide Germany and the German economy resulted in ramifications that are still felt, even after the reunification of Germany (1989 – 1991). Also, the final declaration was that Japan surrender or suffer “prompt and utter destruction.” In the end, that declaration resulted in the United States dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima (8/6) and Nagasaki (8/9). But, in some ways, the end of the war was just the beginning of the process. In fact, looking back, it seems we are still working to fulfill the goals of the Potsdam Conference – still working to remember that the ultimate goal is peace.

“I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.

I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes.

The world is not static, and the status quo is not sacred. But we cannot allow changes in the status quo in violation of the Charter of the United Nations by such methods as coercion, or by such subterfuges as political infiltration. In helping free and independent nations to maintain their freedom, the United States will be giving effect to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

– quoted from the “Truman Doctrine” speech, as delivered to the joint session of the United States Congress by President Harry S. Truman (March 12, 1947)

There is no playlist for the Common Ground Meditation Center practices.

The playlist for previous years is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for “07172021 Water Music Peace”]

“The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died. We must keep that hope alive.

The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms.

If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world — and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation.”

– quoted from the “Truman Doctrine” speech, as delivered to the joint session of the United States Congress by President Harry S. Truman (March 12, 1947)

### PEACE In, PEACE Out ###