Pepys, peeps, and a peep [of Harmony] (the “missing” Sunday post that is also a “long lost” post w/an excerpt) February 23, 2025
Posted by ajoyfulpractice in "Impossible" People, Art, Books, Changing Perspectives, Healing Stories, Hope, Life, Music, One Hoop, Peace, Science, Suffering, Tragedy, Wisdom, Writing, Yoga.Tags: 988, Anne Frank, Arooj Aftab, Black History Month, Booker T. Washington, Carnival, George Frideric Handel, George Handel, Harmony, HBCUs, Henry B. Wheatley F.S.A., Lord Braybrooke’s, Mahā Kumbha Mēlā, Rev. Mynors Bright M.A., Samuel Pepys, Sir Isaac Newton, W. E. B. Du Bois, W. E. Burghardt Du Bois
add a comment
Many blessings to everyone, and especially those celebrating Carnival and Maha Kumbh Mela!
Peace, ease, and harmony throughout this “Season for Nonviolence” and all other seasons!!!
This is the “missing” post for Sunday, February 23, 2025 (and also 2022). You can request an audio recording of this practice or a previous practice via a comment below or (for a slightly faster reply) you can email 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.
“Dear Kitty,
It’s lovely weather outside and I’ve perked up since yesterday. Nearly every morning I go to the attic where Peter works to blow the stuffy air out of my lungs. From my favorite spot on the floor I look up at the blue sky and the bare chestnut tree, on whose branches little raindrops shine, appearing like silver, and at the seagulls and other birds as they glide on the wind.
He stood with his head against a thick beam, and I sat down. We breathed the fresh air, looked outside, and both felt that the spell should not be broken by words…. I looked out, of the open window too, over a large area of Amsterdam, over all the roofs and on to the horizon, which was such a pale blue that it was hard to see the dividing line. ‘As long as this exists,’ I thought, ‘and I may live to see it, this sunshine, the cloudless skies, while this lasts I cannot be unhappy.’”
— Anne Frank, written in her diary (“Kitty”) on Wednesday, February 23, 1944
Do you keep a diary, a journal, or maybe write “morning pages”? If so, you probably write about things that are very personal to you; things you believe no one would be interested in reading — and, in most cases, you probably write for your eyes only. However, as you chronicle your daily minutia, you probably also reference things that are happening in the world around you. Just like famous diarists (whose private musings have made it into the public), you probably include references and maybe even details about current events — and how you take care of yourself during challenging (and horrifically tragic) times. In other words, like Samuel Pepys and Anne Frank, you provide an eye witness account of things that will one day be studied.
Born in London, today (February 23rd) in 1638, Samuel Pepys was a Tory politician who had no maritime experience, but somehow rose to the rank of Chief Secretary to the Admiralty (under two different kings). While he played a role in the reformation of what is now the Royal Navy, he is primarily remembered as a writer — and specifically as a prolific diarists. From 1660 until 1669, he wrote detailed daily entries about everything from his marriage, what he ate for any given meal, and the painful urinary tract and (urinary) bladder stone issues1 (which he experienced from a very young age) to the “good honest and painfull [i.e. painstakingly written] sermon” he heard on Sunday, March 17, 1661, and every else going on in the world around him. In fact, his diary entries give modern readers first-hand, eyewitness accounts of the Stuart Restoration (in May 1660), the Great Plague of London (1665-1666), the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665-1667), and the Great Fire of London (in September 1666).
“17th (Lord’s day). At church in the morning, a stranger preached a good honest and painfull sermon. My wife and I dined upon a chine of beef at Sir W. Batten’s, so to church again. Then home, and put some papers in order. Then to supper at Sir W. Batten’s again, where my wife by chance fell down and hurt her knees exceedingly. So home and to bed.”
— quoted from a 1661 diary entry, as published in the “March 1660-1661” section of The Diary of Samuel Pepys M.A. F.R.S., Clerk of the Acts and Secretary to the Admiralty by Samuel Pepys
Transcribed from the Shorthand Manuscript in the Pepysian Library, Magdalene College Cambridge, by the Rev. Mynors Bright M.A., Late Fellow and President of the College (Unabridged), with Lord Braybrooke’s Notes / Edited with Additions by Henry B. Wheatley F.S.A.
Samuel Pepys wrote his diary entries in his own personal shorthand and also used a little code that mixed English profanities with French, Italian, and Spanish words. He often used the code when talking about illicit affairs — and interactions with women that are so clearly abusive that they can only be described as rape — and/or when he was describing his very frank opinions about people in power. There are, however, some indications that he wanted his diaries to be a historical record. For instance, he preserved them, catalogued them as part of his library, and even transcribed some pages (from his shorthand). In 1669, he stopped writing his daily dairy entries because he was losing his eyesight. He considered dictating his daily entries to a scribe — and did, in fact, briefly dictate some work-related journal entries in 1669–70 and 1683). However, he ultimately decided that he did not want to give up his privacy.
In 1665, Samuel Pepys was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society and was serving as the society’s president, in 1687, when Sir Isaac Newton published the first edition of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) in 1687. The treatise actually includes correspondence between the two men and a bit of a debate (about probability).
Just as the work of Samuel Pepys gives modern readers a glimpse of 17th century England, the work of W. E. B. Du Bois gives modern readers a glimpse of 19th and 20th century America.
“When the physical war ended, then the real practical problems presented themselves. How was slavery to be effectively abolished? And what was to be the status of the Negroes? What was the condition and power of the states which had rebelled? The legal solution of these questions was easy. The states that had attempted to rebel had failed. The must now resume their relations to the government. Slavery had been abolished as a war measure….
The difficulty with this legalistic formula was that it did not cling to facts. Slavery was not abolished even after the Thirteenth Amendment. There were four million freedmen and most of them on the same plantation, doing the same work they did before emancipation, except as their work had been interrupted and changed by the upheaval of war. Moreover, they were getting about the same wages and apparently were going to be subject to slave codes modified only in name. There were among them thousands of fugitives in the camps of the soldiers or on the streets of the cities, homeless, sick, and impoverished. They had been freed practically with no land nor money, and, save in exceptional cases, without legal status, and without protection.”
— quoted from Black Reconstruction in America (The Oxford W. E. B. Du Bois): An Essay Toward a History of the Part Which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860-1880 by W. E. B Du Bois
Born William Edward Burghardt Du Bois, in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, in 1868, Dr. Du Bois was an author, sociologist, socialist, historian, a Pan-Africanist civil rights activist, and one of the co-founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). He was the editor of The Crisis, the official magazine of the NAACP, from 1910 to 1933, and the author of a plethora of articles and speeches, over 24 books, and three autobiographies, including: “The Study of the Negro Problems” (1898), The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches (1903), John Brown (1909), The Gift of Black Folk: The Negroes in the Making of America (1924), Black Reconstruction in America (1935), What the Negro Has Done for the United States and Texas (1936), and I Take My Stand for Peace (1951).
While his paternal great-grandfather was ethnically French-American (from a Huguenot family) and his maternal great-great-grandfather had been enslaved, W. E. B. Du Bois’s father (Alfred Du Bois) was of mixed ethnicity and his mother (Mary Silvina Burghard Du Bois), who was also mixed heritage, was part of a small, free Black population of land owners. Dr. Du Bois, himself, grew up in a mostly European American town. After graduating with honors from an integrated school in his hometown, he earned a Bachelor’s of Art (BA) from Fisk University. He then had to start over from scratch and earn a second Bachelor’s (AB) in history, cum laude, from Harvard University — which, at the time, did not recognize credits and degrees from HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities). Finally, he earned a PhD in sociology from Harvard. Part of his graduate school studies included a fellowship from the John F. Slater Fund for the Education of Freedman, which enabled him to attend Friedrich Wilhelm University (in Berlin) and to travel throughout Europe. Just as his upbringing shaped his perspective, his travels and studies further informed the way he saw the world, his place in the world, and what he had to offer the world.
“The return from your work must be the satisfaction which that work brings you and the world’s need of that work. With this, life is heaven, or as near heaven as you can get. Without this — with work which you despise, which bores you, and which the world does not need — this life is hell.”
— quoted from the National Guardian article entitled “To an American born last Christmas Day” by W. E. B. Du Bois, published on March 10, 1958, under the header “Dr. DuBois at 90 Offers a Piece of Advice [to his newborn great-grandson]”
Of course, all throughout his school years — even when he was on scholarship and even when he was studying abroad, he had to work and rely on extra income (in the form of loans and gifts) from friends and family. After he graduated, he started teaching at Wilberforce University (in Ohio). He eventually conducted research at the University of Pennsylvania and then accepted a position to teach history and economics at Atlanta University (in Georgia). During his tenure at Atlanta University, he started presenting articles based on his University of Pennsylvania field work, in which he described “the submerged tenth” and, later, “the talented tenth”. These two terms and the people referenced by those terms became the foundation of a late 19th century debate that continues to this day.
The following excerpt is from a post about Social Economics:
Most people associate the two sides of the debate with W. E. B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington. Both were educated and both were leaders in the Black community. To a certain degree, they even had the ear of the establishment. However, they had very different ideas about the best way for formerly enslaved people and their descendants to actively participate in and benefit from the US economy.
In a nutshell, Mr. Washington advocated sticking to what people knew (from slavery) and becoming (scholastically) educated in agriculture, crafts, and other trades they had done during slavery. He also encouraged people to purchase property and to be patient when faced with discrimination (even if that discrimination hindered them in pursuing education and the opportunity to purchase property). On the flip side, Mr. Du Bois was considered a radical who believed in an “intellectual” education that would create what he called the “Talented Tenth” – the best and the brightest college educated individuals who could instigate activism in the streets as well as in the courts and in the boardrooms. As I said, this debate continues, in part because the stigma, racism, and prejudice associated with slavery still exists.
“Thus in the far-away Southern village that would lay waiting, half consciously, the coming of two young men, and dreamed in an inarticulate way of new things that would be done and new thoughts that all would think. And yet it was a singular that few thought of two Johns, — for the black folk thought of one John, and he was black; and the white folk though of another John, and he was white. And neither thought the other world’s thought, save with a vague unrest.”
— quoted from “XIII. Of the Coming of John” in The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches by W. E. Burghardt Du Bois
The thirteen essay in The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches, called “Of the Coming of John”, is a study of contrasts. It is an essay/story of two popular, beloved men from the same hometown in Georgia. In some ways, they grow up together — although, like W. E. B. Du Bois and his childhood friends, one is Black and one is white. The latter is also, notably, from a wealthy family with a lot of power in the small town. The two Johns leave home (separately), but their paths awkwardly overlap in New York City, just before they return home, and then tragically overlap when they are back in Georgia.
The awkward meeting in New York happens during a performance of Lohengrin — which provides an odd bit of twisted foreshadowing. However, during today’s practice, I imagined that the music was something by George Frideric Handel, who was born today in 1685 (according to the Julian calendar) in Halle, Duchy of Magdeburg, Brandenburg-Prussia (which is now Germany) and whose music was the backdrop for the drama of it’s own time.
“All this John did not see, for he sat in a half-maze minding the scene about him; the delicate beauty of the hall, the faint perfume, the moving myriad of men, the rich clothing and low hum of talking seemed all a part of a world so different from his, so strangely more beautiful than anything he had known, that he sat in dreamland, and started when, after a hush, rose high and clear the music of Lohengrin’s swan. The infinite beauty of the wail lingered and swept through every muscle of his frame, and put it all a-tune. He closed his eyes and grasped the elbows of the chair, touching unwittingly the lady’s arm. And the lady drew away. A deep longing swelled in all his heart to rise with that clear music out of the dirt and dust of that low life that held him prisoned and befouled. If he could only live up in the free air where birds sang and setting suns had no touch of blood! Who had called him to be the slave and butt of all? And if he had called, what right had he to call when a world like this lay open before men?
Then the movement changed, and fuller, mightier harmony swelled away. He looked thoughtfully across the hall, and wondered why the beautiful gray-haired woman looked so listless, and what the little man could be whispering about. He would not like to be listless and idle, he thought, for he felt with the music the movement of power within him. If he but had some master-work, some life-service, hard, — aye, bitter hard, but without the cringing and sickening servility, without the cruel hurt that hardened his heart and soul.”
— quoted from “XIII. Of the Coming of John” in The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches by W. E. Burghardt Du Bois
Sunday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for “022322 Pepys, peeps, and a peep”]
“The best remedy for those who are afraid, lonely, or unhappy is to go outside, somewhere where they can be quite alone with the heavens, nature, and God…. As long as [the simple beauty of Nature] exists, and it certainly always will, I know that then there will always be comfort for every sorrow, whatever the circumstances may be. And I firmly believe that nature brings solace in all troubles.”
— Anne Frank, written in her diary (“Kitty”) on Wednesday, February 23, 1944
If you are thinking about suicide, worried about a friend or loved one, or would like emotional support, you can dial 988 (in the US) or call 1-800-273-TALK (8255) for the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. You can also call this 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.
White Flag is a new app, which I have not yet researched, but which may be helpful if you need peer-to-peer (non-professional) support.
If you are a young person in crisis, feeling suicidal, or in need of a safe and judgement-free place to talk, you can also click here to contact the TrevorLifeline (which is staffed 24/7 with trained counselors).
12025 NOTE: During the practice, I said that I did not know/remember if Samuel Pepys had problems with his urinary bladder or his gall bladder, but that we would address both in the physical parts of the practice.
### “breathe / take a breath / saans lo” ~ Arooj Aftab ###
FTWMI: Water Music Peace July 17, 2024
Posted by ajoyfulpractice in Books, Confessions, Healing Stories, Life, Mantra, Music, One Hoop, Pain, Peace, Pema Chodron, Philosophy, Suffering, Tragedy, Wisdom, Yoga.Tags: Anthony Eden, Anthony Hicks, Ayurveda, Bess Truman, Charles de Gaulle, Clement Attlee, Elizabeth Gibson, Foster Furcolo, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, George Frideric Handel, Harry Hopkins, Harry S. Truman, James F. Byrnes, Joseph Stalin, King George I, King George II, nadis, Potsdam Conference, pranayama, Robert H. Ferrell, Stanley Sadie, Vyacheslav Molotov, Water Music, White Sands Proving Ground, William Bullitt, Winston Churchill, World War II
add a comment
Peace and blessings to everyone, and especially to those who are dealing with conflict.
FTWMI: The following was originally posted in 2023. Class details, one link, and some formatting have been revised or added.
“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 17th (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. 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 some modern composers doubt that George Handel composed all the music specifically for the concert on the Thames. However, 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 makes it sound like the dinner music was different 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 eventually became estranged from his own son (Frederick, Prince of Wales). 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. Unfortunately, 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 — who decided 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 a peace conference between allies (and while 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 (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 being 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 witnessed 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 end 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 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 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)
Please join me today (Wednesday, July 17th) at 4:30 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 below or (for a slightly faster reply) you can email myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.
Wednesday’s playlist 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)
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.
### PEACE In, PEACE Out ###
Water Music Peace (the “missing” Monday post that is also a “long lost” post) July 17, 2023
Posted by ajoyfulpractice in Books, Confessions, Healing Stories, Life, Mantra, Music, One Hoop, Pain, Peace, Pema Chodron, Philosophy, Suffering, Tragedy, Wisdom, Yoga.Tags: Anthony Eden, Anthony Hicks, Ayurveda, Bess Truman, Charles de Gaulle, Clement Attlee, Elizabeth Gibson, Foster Furcolo, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, George Frideric Handel, Harry Hopkins, Harry S. Truman, James F. Byrnes, Joseph Stalin, King George I, King George II, nadis, Potsdam Conference, pranayama, prānāyāma, Robert H. Ferrell, Stanley Sadie, Vyacheslav Molotov, Water Music, White Sands Proving Ground, William Bullitt, Winston Churchill, World War II
add a comment
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 17th (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 ###
Water Music Peace (mostly the music) July 17, 2022
Posted by ajoyfulpractice in Confessions, Music, Peace.Tags: George Frideric Handel, Harry S. Truman, Joseph Stalin, Potsdam Conference, Water Music, Winston Churchill
add a comment
“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
Please join me for a 65-minute virtual yoga practice on Zoom today (Sunday, July 17th) 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 below or (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.
Click here for the post related to this practice.
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.)
### 
###
Follow the Lodestar (mostly the music) July 17, 2021
Posted by ajoyfulpractice in Music, Yoga.Tags: David McCullough, Galileo Galilei, George Frideric Handel, Harry S. Truman, Joseph Stalin, Potsdam Conference, Water Music, Winston Churchill, Yoga Sutra 3.25, Yoga Sutra 3.26, Yoga Sutra 3.27, Yoga Sutra 3.28, Yoga Sutra 3.29
add a comment
“Boys [to the reporters], if you ever pray, pray for me now. I don’t know if you fellas ever had a load of hay fall on you, but when they told me what happened yesterday, I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me.”
– newly appointed-President Harry S. Truman, quoted from Truman by David McCullough
“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
Please join me for a 90-minute virtual yoga practice on Zoom today (Saturday, July 17th) at 12:00 PM. 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.
If you are using an Apple device/browser and the calendar is no longer loading, please email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com at least 20 minutes before the practice you would like to attend.
Saturday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify.
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 Joyful Practice 