Last month Mallika Chopra, founder of intent.com, led a meditation in Union Square in San Francisco. Hundreds of people joined her for ten minutes of silent meditation in the square while many more joined from across the world in different places and time zones.
The public meditation took place on the same day as the San Francisco Pride Parade, which was also the day after the state of New York ruled in favor of gay marriage.
photo credit: h.koppdelaney
In each of these three courses — meditation, marching and policy – people created change with their actions and intentions. Those who came to meditate did not specifically come to support gay rights, but their peaceful presence most likely brought some sense of stable presence and unity to an issue that can often times be volatile and divisive.
And so I challenge all of you to take the time today — and for the rest of your days — to truly contemplate what your intent for the greater good is. And then see what you can do to help actualize this goal. It can be as small as starting a blog expressing your authentic voice, creating a meet-up group in your neighborhood or organizing a weekly group meditation among your family and friends.
Give other people a venue, a forum, a space — whether online or in the real world — to do good and spread peace. You just may be surprised by how many people show up, eager to join your cause. Your courage just may be what others need to actualize their own collective intent to bring more goodness in this world. –Mallika Chopra via Huffington Post
What is the value of a public demonstration of meditation, of so many people turning their senses inward in a place like Union Square?
Do we need to do it in such a blunt and outright way, or can our activism be just as powerful in more subtle ways?
Personally, I love the new meditating-in-public movement. Many possible benefits and I don't see any real negatives at the moment.
Do you think there is any danger in drawing a more external awareness to a practice that is dedicated to observing the inner life? Is that a necessary separation to make or are the the outer and internal lives inextricably bound?
'Activist' by definition implies 'Separatist' and nurtures segregation. The practice of Dhy?na is perverted when we seek a desired result. ? ??? ???
Do you think it's possible that activists are proponents of evolution rather than separation? I tend to believe that separation is an illusion we create in order to promote systems of hierarchy and oppression. Is it possible to act against something with the intention of evolving with and beyond it and without the intention of destroying it or throwing it all out?
Furthermore, what is the difference between passivity and practices such as Dhyana or Pratyahara? These are questions I am asking and would love your thoughts!
I am critical of the accepted understanding of pacifism and non-violence. Life is inherently violent, violence does not have to be a negative. Action does not have to imply a segregation and to deny violence and activism is to deny a reality we are faced with.
I don't think the texts we read should be taken as gospel. These texts were written long ago, and originally were not meant to be text but oral teachings/traditions.
I raised, killed and butchered a cow this spring. I have never felt so immersed in life and in my own sustenance. I believe we could find this same integration with life by taking direct action to regain our wisdom and power – activism and resistance. '
The needs of the body, mind and spirit should not be compartmentalized.
And I don't think that this change and evolution you mention will come out through public displays of meditation. I wouldn't consider that activism.
Andre, you are resonating on an idea that I have been contemplating for a long time. In fact, I am working on a piece presently that begins to ask these same questions. I hope you'll keep an eye out for it here on YM and leave your thoughts and comments. In the meantime, something I listened to recently has propelled me even deeper into the mystery of violence and pacifism. Here is a link to an interview I listened to recently that you might find interesting: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-26/eric…
I think of the Bodhisattva vow to live a life that is dedicated to ending suffering for all sentient beings. Based on the idea that everything is interconnected the vow calls directly for action that stems from compassion and wisdom. So perhaps there are different qualities or types of action – based on the underlying intention – that determine whether they lead to more separation – which I would also guess is the root of suffering.
David, your comment has me asking a lot of questions, especially on the point you make about there being different qualities and types of actions. For instance, I consider surrender to be one of the most powerful actions that we can perform, but it borders so closely on passivity that it is hard to navigate and define. And of course there are times when to surrender can mean annihilation instead of change or evolution.
Do you think that we as a culture tend to define action as synonymous with movement? In other words, if we aren't 'doing' something, we are not acting. If so, we lose the power of stillness as action and we become blind to the fact that our movement is more often distr(action) than true action.
Thanks for your thoughts.