Erika

I have 2 takeaways for this week’s lesson.

One is the point that satyagraha means “clinging to truth.” I did know this through previous studies, but it just made deeper sense this week. It was untrue that people of India were incapable of becoming independent. It was not true that African Americans were inferior to their white counterparts. Leaders of nonviolent movements awakened people to this “truth.” Their greatest weapon was that they had the truth on their side. In a modern context, it is not true that human beings are naturally violent or that war is necessary to maintain order. It is also not true that material possessions make us happy. While these misconceptions are seen as “reality” by the majority of the public today, some of us know that it is not the case. The role of nonviolent actions is to again open people’s eyes on this ultimate truth. This is also consistent with the point mentioned in “Hope or Terror,” that nonviolence must be used for a right cause in order to succeed.

Another takeaway for me was that, while truth will always prevail, in order for us to be successful as agents of nonviolence, we cannot just rely on that and relax. There are many “ingredients” we need to prepare to apply nonviolent force in a most effective manner. For a nonviolent movement to succeed, many factors come to play: timing, training, strategic thinking, number of people involved, etc. Just like any scientific experience, one must study these factors to channel the force. I used the tragedy of Tienanmen as an example in my assignment to illustrate this point.

Welcome Julie! Your work and experience sounds amazing. I am currently working in Central Uganda with a girls empowerment, community justice and development NGO. Would love to connect and hear more about your work! – Marissa

Assignment:
Choose one area of the “unreality” model to focus on (consumerism, war, crime, racism, poverty, globalism) at your local level (svadeshi). First, define and describe this problem and how it manifests in your community. Then, look to the model of the Real Wheel and describe possible solutions to this problem. For example, you look at the issue of crime (“unreality”) in your neighborhood. What are the predominant forms of crime that persist? How can nai talim (education) be used to resolve this issue? Finally, what can you do as an individual to contribute to the solution?

Nagler’s talk on Svadeshi touched upon many relevant points in my life currently, especially this concept of working on the issues within your home community, region, and country. As you may know, I am currently not doing this, as for the past year and a half, I have been in between working on the empowerment of interpersonal violence survivors in Boston and community and post-conflict development in Uganda. While I agree that making change within Uganda’s communities and issues is a very difficult one to do due to the inefficiencies caused by not understand the culture and peoples as well as one understand their native land. This is why I never choose to be in a position to be directly on the ground facilitating dialogues and programming, but rather choose to implement systems and manage Ugandan doing this work during my professional career in Uganda. I truly believe it is not my place to be in a Ugandan classroom teaching life skills and girls empowerment. I believe just as Gandhi developed personally and professionally while outside of his home, I am doing the same during my time researching, experiencing, and living outside of my comfort home zone. The things that I have experienced, learned, and developed during my time settling and working in a new environment are priceless and have unearthed skills and aspects of myself that probably never would have been uncovered in the safety net of Boston. However, at the end of the day, I know that I need to take the skills, knowledge, expertise, and experiences back to my home and work on the issues found within my community. I am not sure how this will look but I know that I want to continue addressing the issues of gendered violence, something I have been working on for the past 5 years in Boston. But thanks for this course, I want to find a way to teach and incorporate nonviolence into this work. Anyways, this is getting off subject, but I wanted to introduce the concept of localism regarding work before I answered the assignment since I will be looking at the issues in both of my homes, Boston and Gulu, Uganda.
In Boston, one of the most prevalent areas of “unreality” is consumerism. The problem is the notion that material goods provide status, worthiness, fulfillment, and happiness. This also manifests into anxiety, a constant state of want, and competition. Consumerism can be seen in different avenues starting from the subliminal messages that advertisements send consumers (buy this in order to be happy, popular, etc.) to the stress we as a society put on individuals to spend endless hours working a job they do not like merely for money to buy things that they really do not need. If we look at the model that Nagler was speaking to in his talk, my community spends a high percentage of their income of material goods that are not needed (i.e they fall outside of the three needs: clothing, shelter, and food- and also the material needed for work). Simplicity can be used to resolve this issue by changing the message that we are taught (that we need material goods in order to be liked, worthy, important). Changing this message will help us lead lives that are more true and simple since we strip away the superfluous materials that clutter our lives and souls. As an individual, we can curb our consumption to include items that are necessary and trivial to our lives and needs. Additionally, we can learn to let go of the attachment to our materials goods. At the end of the day, we need to understand that our materials are not ours and are part of God; by having a strong attachment to material goods, we create a state of perpetual anxiety about losing something that we think is critical to our life, but at the end of the day isn’t (this is if we are talking about things that fall outside of the three critical needs and our work needs). Ironically, the issue of poverty is prevalent in Gulu, not only due to the war that spanned over 23 years but because of immense corruption found nationwide. Poverty can be seen in the following examples: “family is unable to pursue rape charges because they are unable to afford a $10 rape kit test and hospital bill” “family of 4 are extremely malnourished, able to afford HIV medicine, because their income is at maximum $15 a month. Their one month old child dies from malnourishment and HIV.” These two examples have come from my community in the past month. However, I want to be very clear that the way we (westerns) view poverty in Africa is extremely mislead and hurtful. I have experienced one too many times a pity of foreigners for Ugandans that are living a life they are proud of but to the outsider, it looks “miserable” and they wonder how someone could ever be happy. Poverty and happiness are not mutually exclusive and in a way, I have seen and lived the principle of simplicity during my stay in Uganda and it is extremely liberating and meaningful. The principle of trusteeship can be applied to the economy in Uganda especially if the concept was applied to machines and other capital equipment that could be used for income generating activities.

I really liked the “Real Wheel” and the fact that instead of just saying what the issues are (Poverty, Globalism, Crime, etc…) it shows a solution to each of these areas. All the areas of the wheel are interrelated so it is tough to not feel some kind of draw to all the areas in some ways. The one I probably feel drawn towards the most though if I had to pick is war.

I believe that the only thing that will actually stop wars is for people to refuse to participate in them regardless of the consequences and suffering involved. The Shanti Sena model offers a different way that people affected by conflict and those who want to help prevent and stop it can use to deal with such situations. What I appreciated about the wheel is how connected everything is, so a move from consumerism to simplicity is something that benefits the other areas on the wheel. The wheel seems to be a pretty comprehensive approach and effective tool for an individual and society to counter the issues that they are facing. While their will always be conflict the way and means in which it will be resolved needs to be changed. I like that the wheel shows a practical and effective approach in the Shanti Sena program as a way to deal with conflict and an alternate approach to war.

This is very interesting, because I definitely thought of fair trade and food as options!

I was looking for an example and realized I did not have to look too far. I work for an organization called National Network for Oral Health Access. It is a membership organization of dental providers working in what we call the “safety-net systems.” Those providers work in underserved communities in the U.S., where people often lack health insurance and access to health care services. The organization was started as a peer support group of Dental Directors working in community health centers. I believe that the community health center movement is a constructive programme.

According to the National Association of Community Health Centers, this model of care was created in order to transform this country’s healthcare system:

America’s Health Centers owe their existence to a remarkable turn of events in U.S. history, and to a few determined community health and civil rights activists working in low-income communities during the 1960s. Millions of Americans, living in inner-city neighborhoods and rural areas throughout the country suffered from deep poverty and a desperate need for health care. Among those determined to seek change was H. Jack Geiger, then a young doctor and civil rights activist. Geiger had studied in South Africa and witnessed how a pioneering community health model had wrought astonishing improvements in public health. (http://www.nachc.com/press-kit.cfm)

I call it a constructive programme as the movement meets many of the criteria:

• Concrete – Though not perfect, it is a specific model of healthcare delivery that addresses shortcomings of the current system of care, which is reactive and emergency-based.
• Constructive – Again, it actually provides the care rather than merely criticizing the old system.
• Nonconfrontational – It is one of the federally funded programs that have strong bipartisan support because of its effectiveness.
• Participation – Anyone can seek care from community health centers (as long as there is availability!).
• Proactive – It provides a model of care that works, and proactively prevents diseases.
• Building the community – They are community-owned clinics, meaning that majority of the governing board has to be actual patients. The centers not only provide healthcare services but also employment opportunities to the community.

The movement addresses many aspects of the old story and promotes a new story:
• Community health centers provide care to patients regardless of their income or insurance status.
• Their care is based on the communities’ needs, and their goal is to improve the overall population’s health, not just the individual health.
• Their care is culturally sensitive, often employing people from the communities and translators/bilingual staff.
• They provide innovative care, where in many cases medical and dental providers communicate, because mouth is part of the boy.
• They focus on quality, not quantity of care.

How can this initiative benefit from the application of nonviolence? I think one current limitation of the health center movement is that it has placed itself as a “safety-net” system, meaning that it is a place the poor and underseved would fall on, because the mainstream system of care cannot catch them. As a result, it is not very well-known by the American public, and by those who know about it, it is often considered a care system for the poor.

On the contrary, it has the potential to transform the mainstream system. Access to quality health care should be a basic human right, no matter what your income status. Every person deserves an integrated system of care, where he or she is treated as a whole person, not a collection of different body parts. This country needs a more cost-effective system of care delivery.

Trying to establish something like the community health center model as a mainstream type of care will likely meet oppositions, especially from individuals and entities that are profiting from the current insurance-driven model. Opposition will also come from health care providers who like practicing in business-driven practice settings.

One of the real “enemies” I see is the way of thinking that healthcare is a money-making scheme. Application of nonviolence will be necessary in tackling the very issue.

There are couple of areas I feel are good places of focus for constructive programming. I do not think that our issues are necessarily the results of a few people in government making harmful choices occasionally but more the results of many of us, me included, making less than ideal choices daily and continually. Two areas that come to mind are shopping and eating.

As Gandhi, and experience, point out no evil system can exist without people’s cooperation. It is tough to illustrate much sympathy for the poor and help them when we rely on them for our products. Almost everywhere that we look, from our clothing to our furniture, we can see that they were produced overseas and most likely under harmful working conditions. The Walmarts and want-to-be Walmarts of the world cannot exist without our cooperation. Such companies are after profits, this is what motivates them, and they can only continue to make such profits if we continue to support their business practices. And this we do in droves. How hard it is to find a t-shirt or article of clothing produced in the United States or Fair Trade unless we are trying. Products made by cheap labor saturate the whole market. The only way our market can be saturated with such products in our economy is if we say this is ok and continually buy them. So instead of just fighting against trade agreements that ensure these conditions exists I think any organization that pushes people away from buying items obtained from the poor in bad working conditions is one that is constructive in that if enough people do it it will truly change our economy.

As a result I think organizations in my area such as Chicago Fair Trade, an organization that works to advance the fair trade movement in Chicago, is one that is constructive. Even shops that exist nationally such as Ten Thousand Villages can be constructive in a way by working to getting fair trade items more prevalent and trying to shift people away from shopping and participating in some of the more negative shopping situations out there. Also, I think another important avenue are websites like Etsy, which allow people to set up virtual shops for their homemade products. I think Etsy is a pretty important tool in shifting the way we do business. Being able to buy a product handmade from your neighbor as opposed to someone in a sweatshop is a considerable ability and I think if we move towards such purchasing it can truly revolutionize our economy.

However how we shop, I think while extremely important, I believe could also be complemented by what we contribute as well. This is where I am having issues. While I do think a move to shopping through Etsy and when buying internationally purchasing fair trade items can make a significant difference I think the other part of the equation is being able to produce something as well for the community. So, I think finding a way where one can contribute to the local economy, such as having some role in the making of a product, is something that can be important as well. I think Etsy and organizations such as Chicago Fair Trade, and Ten Thousand villages etc, if they incorporate a direct way in which an interested individual could become more directly involved in the making of goods as well, besides just supporting them financially, I think this combination of contributing through not only dollars but labor could be a tool for real changes.

The food system is another one that relies on the support of millions of people in this country to be what it is. I think it is lacking, to say it nicely, and changes among consumers and producers could help change the system. Our community, like many others, has a farmers market, which I think is a great opportunity for farmers and consumers to have an impact in shifting the food system of the community. I would consider this as constructive programming. Also, I personally think that any organization that promotes vegetarian eating is one that would also fall under constructive programming. I think it will be hard, if not impossible, to create a culture of non-violence in human relations while there is a culture of violence against the most defenseless creatures there are in this country. I think a change in the perception towards how we relate to food is essential in order to make lasting changes. I believe Gandhi once said that you could tell the greatness of a nation by how they treat their animals. If that is the case the United States has considerable work to do and this is an area that a shift in I believe would make a considerable societal change. In my neighborhood there is a vegetarian restaurant that opened recently. I did not find a vegetarian society that was dedicated only to work in my neighborhood, Oak Park, but I believe there were some in the general area that would include this area.

Two quotes that really stood out to me in the introduction by Eknath Easwarn were the following:
“When a person responds to the joys and sorrows of others as if they were his own, he has attained the highest state of spiritual union”
“He alone sees truly who sees the Lord the same in every creature, who sees the deathless in the heart of all that die. Seeing the same Lord everywhere, he does no harm to himself or others. Thus he attains the supreme goal.”

The last quote about seeing the Lord in every human being follows this concept of unity and oneness that is at the heart of nonviolence. It is when we recognize ourselves in the other that we do no harm. This follows a quote that I store in my document of quotations, as I truly believe that once we shake the shell of the persona that individuals, society, and violence create that we will see nuances and intricacies of individuals and the underlining unity of vulnerability, desire for companionship and community, and the vibrancy of the soul: “I think you could fall in love with anyone if you saw the parts of them that no one else gets to see. Like if you followed them around invisibly for a day and you saw them crying in their bed at night or singing to themselves as they make a sandwich or even just walking along the street and even if they were really weird and had no friends at school, I think after seeing them at their most vulnerable you wouldn’t be able to help falling in love with them.”
Also in the introduction Easwaran mentions the theory of dream sensations and state which was incredibly interesting for me. I have always had this question of “is this ‘real’ life? Or it just a perception that I am having?” This question of am I awake when I wake up arose from very strong spiritual/psychic experiences I have during sleep. I found that Easwaran’s comparison of dreaming and the physical body (i.e. nervous system) portraying all the “waking” state symptoms to be profound—“only when we wake up we can realize that our dream-sensations, though real to our nervous system, are a lower level or reality than the waking state.”
Additionally, I found a lot of the verbage of the introduction and the The Bhagavad Gita to parallel the Tao Te Ching. For example, 1 translated by Stephan Michael speaks of similar concepts and ideologies as chapter two. I highly recommend reading the Tao Te Ching to anyone who hasn’t read it, I prefer the Stephan Michael version.
1 Translated by Stephan Michael
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

The interconnectedness highlighted by Easwaran hypothetical story of Joe and Ralph is a concept that has completely changed the way I live my life. I am unsure how it got started in my head but a few years ago, I started seeing this invisible line between people, experiences, and events. I truly believe that everything happens for a reason and that even our perception or “Good and bad” also fails to even understand the principle of interconnectedness. Viewing things as a continuum of interconnectedness and interplay is quite a comforting perception to have, especially if it is followed by the unwavering truth of spiritual purpose.

I was reading an article this week how John Brennan, the head of the CIA, and President Obama plan their targeted kill list using St. Augustine’s just war theory to inspire and justify their actions. I mention this because this week noted that there are different ways to interpret the Bhagavad Gita, it could be seen as a physical battle or a spiritual battle. I have read the Gita often and have wondered if those who view it as a physical battle and interpret it as a justification in which one can kill in war view it in a comparable way towards how Christians may view their actions under just war theory. The results of such paradigms seem evident in the issues which arise.

Gandhi however had a different, more deep view of the Gita. The Gita to me puts out demands that would seem incompatible with violence if one would seriously attempt to apply its teachings, unless one has a particularly harsh way of dealing with their friends. For example such passages as

In Chapter 6 “They are equally disposed to family, enemies, and friends, to those who support them and those who are hostile, to the good and evil alike.”

In Chapter 12 ” who looks upon friend and foe with equal regard”

In Chapter 14 “Alike to friend and foe”

Gandhi can be said to embody these qualities and really became the Gita. Can you really embody the Gita by intentionally inflicting violence on your enemies? I don’t know but to me it seems that it would not be really compatible. If so, I am not sure I want to go to a dinner party with such people knowing that they treated friends and foe alike and would happily kill me if they felt it was justified for some reason.

The Gita’s teaching seems extremely compatible with non-violence and provides a roadmap on how an a aspirant can conquer and train himself in order to live high ideals. It is real easy to see why Gandhi was able to take it as a spiritual guide and live so non-violently. A primary theme of the Bhagavad Gita is the renunciation of the fruit of actions Reading the copy of the “Bhagavad Gita according to Gandhi” (which Professor Nagler wrote the forward to) he mentions that all actions of untruth or violence come from attachment to the desired ends. We can see such as in the kill list mentioned above. As a result the Gita’s emphasis on non-attachment to results is an extremely helpful tool to help one rise above untruth and violence.

I believe it was in one Sri Eknath Easwaran’s book that he mentioned that to see the Gospels lived one could look at the life of St. Francis while to see the Bhagavad Gita lived out one could look at the life of Gandhi. I would consider St. Francis a satyagrahi as well and seeing such examples of the non-violence that arose from these individuals living out these sacred texts helps illustrate they power of approaching such texts with the spirit of truth and non-violence that Gandhi approached the Gita in.