An Attempt to Explain My Spiritual Practice

The following is a letter I wrote to Dave Belden about my spiritual practice.  It is probably the most articulate I have been on the subject yet, so I wanted to share it.


Dear Dave,
I have found it difficult to figure out a good approach to outlining my spiritual practice, because it feels like explaining my life.  I have an urge to tell stories about how I came upon my beliefs, but I think that would be alittle too long.  I have had to resist the urge to tell more of the history of my development.   To remain succinct, here is a simplified version of the principle behind my spiritual practice:

1. We all change over time.  We change in demeanor, behavior, passions, interests, and what communities we are a part of.  To be human is to be dynamic, thinking of ourselves or others as static limits our capacity and deprives us all of our humanity.
2. Willful action shapes how we change.   You can become the person you want to be through practice.
3. You have the power to decide how to act, behave and respond to any given situation.
4. Every moment is a chance to shape how we change and therefore who we are.
5. Living by broad, well-thought-out tenets facilitates positive personal change.
6. Learn from your mistakes.  Reflect on them at length, for days or months if necessary, to figure out what happened and how to change yourself to be more in line with who you want to be.
7. Reflect on your activities and behaviors and how they impact the world around you.  Try to change your behavior so it changes the people and communities how you want them to change.  
8. The whole world changes over time.  Our collective willful action shapes how it changes.  Even small scale actions change other people’s lives, and you can never know the full positive impact of a good deed.  Likewise, you can never know the full negative impact of a bad deed.

The practice of this principle is the difficult part.  I have used my conscience to good effect in this, when I have the impulse to do something, I will usually check it against my conscience and a myriad of tenets that I try to live by.  Then I act the way that seems to conform to those tenets, sometimes having to force myself to do it.  The most trying actions where I have to hunker down and really compel myself to do are often the most rewarding.  Self-control and a willingness to forgo other emotions and desires in favor of conforming to my practice has been essential in seeing my ability to shape myself become reality.  Likewise, awareness of what I am doing and keeping my practice always in the back of my mind is essential.

Perhaps my greatest experiment in my spiritual practice has been with the Golden Rule.  I started trying to live by the Golden Rule when I was 15.  And it, more than any other tenet, has pushed me to the limit of being the person I want to be.  It has forced me to do some difficult and crazy things.  When I say experiments, I indeed mean it that way.  Looking at the outcomes when I fail to follow the Golden Rule versus when I keep to it has given me the utmost faith it this tenet’s ability to positively shape myself and my world.  These experiments helped me be able to figure out the core tenet of my life and what I believe to be the answer to the eternal question “what is the meaning of life.”

    “People” are my purpose.  That one word encompasses a wide variety of issues, but in short, it means a devotion to other people, helping them, protecting them, and putting others before myself.  Here are the tenets I feel flow from this purpose:

1. Generosity is a tenet that has produced more happiness in my life than I can even conceive of.  I now even get great joy from the search for people to receive.  This includes being generous of myself and of my time, not just the property that happens to be in my possession.
2. Anti-materialism.  This helps alot with following generosity, but it basically means not being attached to possessions and being willing to part with them at any moment.  I have even started trying to re-interpret theft as surprise, unintentional giving to the thief.  Focusing on objects prevents us from seeing the humanity in each other.
3. Forgiveness of everything as soon as it happens.  This not only helps the other person heal but is of huge value in maintaining strong social bonds and one’s own positive outlook.  
4. Being stable.  I think this is the Buddhist part of my practice.  I try to remain calm and unmoved by events and maintain an emotional baseline of happiness.  I consciously let go of frustration and anger, which forgiveness is key in.  Being stable helps the people around me immensely, I have found.
5. Awareness of others and what is probably going on in their minds.  Trying to determine how they feel and what they think based on what I have observed.
6. Activism.  Personal interactions go a long way in changing the world, and bringing that to a larger arena as part of a group is very powerful.
7. Investing myself in the projects and activities I do and in the people around me.
8. Silence.  Being careful with words and listening to other people more than talking.  This shows to other people that you value what they think, as well as makes them value your words more.
9. Non-violence in word and thought as well as in physical presence.
10. Truth.  Not lying beyond white lies.  
11. Humanization.  When I think of other people, no matter who they are or what they have done, I try to humanize them in my mind, not letting myself write them off as bad people.  Seeing myself in other people is another way of saying this.
12. Faith that the universe is dominated by good, and reminding myself of this.
13. Reflecting on everything.  On my behavior, others behavior, consequences of any given action, tenets etc.  This includes the development of self-knowledge and an understanding of oneself.
14. Being non-judgmental.  Being judgmental gets in the way of seeing other people as full human beings, and it burdens you with unpleasant feelings and emotions.  Forgiveness helps alot with maintaining a non-judgmental outlook.  Besides, I feel like reality deals out harsh judgements and punishments to people as it is, I see no reason to add to that misery.

There are probably lots of other tenets, but those are most of the important ones that I could think of off the top of my head.  I would say as far as the practice goes, it is a continuous process.  I am always practicing, trying to make every action deliberate and in-line with who I want to be.  That is really all it boils down to... if you want to become someone else, practice being that person in your daily life and one day you will see yourself a changed person.  I am also always re-examining the principle and tenets behind my spiritual practice, looking for faults or situations that contradict it.   This has helped me maintain confidence in it and improving it when there is an issue.  

I hope that short summary was what you were looking for.
peace,
Will

Thoughts on Non-Violence

Social proof, that is what it all comes down to. Without a significant number of people believing something, it isn't going to happen. Non-violence needs more social proof to be seen as a mainstream solution. Luckily, even the under-developed ideas that currently constitute non-violent thought show how powerful it can be at creating social proof.

The best way to do this is to develop a body of knowledge on how non-violence works, as well as a group of people to go around and exercise these methods. It is only in acting on these ideas and principles in a very public way that we can prove their effectiveness. So, we need to both develop an institute to study the subject (already a few in existence!) and a systematic group to practice and refine methods. There are plenty of groups using non-violence out there, but they do not do it systematically and experimentally, nor do they take meticulous notes on it. Non-violent Peaceforce comes as close to this as I have seen. As much as I love them (they are friggin' amazing!) I wish they would put more effort into smaller scale trainings that would empower locals to fight their own battles as well as be part of the NP network. While I totally dig their interventions in the Phillipines and Sri Lanka, I think there is so much more potential than only in those two places. I want something with the capacity to train thousands in the U.S. every year.

I also think that NP focuses too much on peacekeeping as a third party activity. Part of what makes non-violence so powerful is employing it to fight a conflict, not just as a third party peacekeeper. I want to prove to the public that we can fight and win a war non-violently. And to do that, I think it will take thousands of people across the country using non-violent techniques against violent attackers and winning... and making the point that the only reason they won was because of the use of non-violence.

I will give some examples of what I have in mind... I want an organization that can train:
Unions to be more effective at their struggles.
Groups fighting for civil rights issues (racism, sexism, homophobia)
Poverty fighters
College activists
Copwatches - I want them to have the legal authority to intervene if a police officer is doing something illegal, and they will have to win that.
Environmental activists.
People to deal with day to day conflicts in their own lives...
The list could go on for awhile.

I want to help develop an alternative to the violent military and something that can win against the military-industrial complex. I want to disabuse the global public of its infatuation with and belief in violence. I want to give the movement a weapon more effective than violence so that we can transform this world.

Violence by the Oppressed

A typical pro-violence argument that I have heard is that some people are so oppressed that violence is their only option.  But the trend is that the size of the violent apparatus used in oppression is directly proportional to the degree of oppression.  So, for the most oppressed people, they would have the largest odds against their success in their violent struggle.  

I recently read Fredrick Douglass's autobiography (which is really amazing, btw).  And in it, he describes how at the age of 16 after a grueling 6 months under a devious, cold-hearted and brutal overseer he felt that his will was almost completely broken.  After one particularly bad beating, he fled 7 miles back to his master to ask for protection.  He received none.  On his way back to face his punishment for fleeing, he met up with another slave who gave him a root.  This root, the man said, would protect him from being beaten.  When Douglass returned he was confronted by the overseer, he decided that he was not going to be beaten again and fought back.  After what sounded like an epic 2 hour fight, the overseer finally gave up.  But the way he gave up was by saying something like "well, I didn't want to have to beat you so bad.  maybe next time you will think twice before disobeying me" and walked off.  He did not concede defeat, but he did not really win.  Douglass said the next 6 months were much less oppressive since he had won the respect of his overseer.  But, there were several other factors contributing to preventing Douglass simply being shot outright (something which he described happening to other people who resisted the way Douglass did).  The overseer had a reputation for breaking slaves, something he did not want to tarnish by either killing Douglass, or calling for help from other white people or the law.

Now, most would say that Douglass could have done nothing other than fight back violently. But in most cases when slaves did that were summarily killed, even according to Douglass who thought he was sure to die by fighting back.  Douglass recounts how in his child a man who simply refused to move was shot in the head.  Slaves who hit back were either instantly killed, or automatically shipped off and sold.  This does not seem to be an environment where violence is an effective strategy.  It is more likely to get one killed than anything else.  In fact, I would argue that Douglass's other activities were the most productive in fighting against slavery.

Douglass managed, in his childhood, to learn to read and write (mostly from white street urchins).  He started teaching this skill to his fellow slaves.  Lack of education was a key tool used to oppress slaves, so by spreading his knowledge he was directly undermining slavery.  He also spread his outlook and really had an immense impact on the lives of the slaves around him.  He planned escapes and finally succeeded.  After his escape, he wrote his book, which was widely read and has now achieved "classic" status.  His main contributions to ending slavery were not his violent altercations which could have easily ended with his death, but his spreading ideas and knowledge.  Changing people's minds is where the real power is.  If these minds had not been swayed, Britian and the rest of Europe would never have ended slavery.  And the civil war (one of the only instances where the end of slavery was accompanied by widespread violence) would never have happened.  The 13th amendment was passed because enough people thought slavery was evil.  A big part of that was because of publications such as the Liberator and Douglass's autobiography that exposed the fangs of the beast.  By making the violence of the system against unarmed people public knowledge, people's minds were changed.  No slave revolt could ever accomplish that.   

Democracy and Violence Part 2

Some more rambling thoughts on democracy and violence. WARNING, THIS POST CONTAINS RAMBLING, INTENSE BRAINSTORMING AND STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS WRITING.

I think I need to do a more in depth analysis of violence.
Let me start by explaining something about human cultures. We have commonly held beliefs about the way things are accomplished. A simple example of this is the way we make circular holes in things. We make circular motions, like a drill. Indeed, the drill motion has become so accepted as the way to make a small circular hole that we are prone to interpret holes in ancient artifacts as produced through a drilling motion. But they often weren't. It is easy enough to make a circular hole with other carving motions. When a culture vests a certain amount of belief and confidence in a means, then they start to believe that everyone does it that way and that other ways do not really work.
This is what has happened to our culture with violence. Violence is seen as THE method to force people to do things, to force their consent. So people on both sides of the conflict tend to obey this misconception... the forcer will believe the forcee will accept it, and the forcee believes that they have no choice. As a result, the belief is reinforced because everyone consents to go along with it. There is nothing inherent about violence that makes it have this power, it is a social construction and nothing more. It is one of many social constructions that need to be dissolved before democracy can be installed.

Having large numbers of people solving conflicts through violence (either personal or state violence), as happens now, will not work for a democracy. Using violence to solve a problem does not actually solve it. In fact, it complicates the matter. It denies the right of the victims of the violence to have their concerns addressed and it assumes that those imposing the violence have the right to value the issue of contention over the person. In a democracy, people are the most important thing, they should be prioritized over everything else.

Violence is done out of desperation. Resorting to this type of action assumes that the victim is unreasonable and will not be persuaded any other way. It shows how little control someone has over a situation if they resort to violence. This is the difficult position police are put into. They are invested with the responsibility of keeping the peace, and controlling a situation. When they lose control, they get desperate and they get violent.

Right now our society lacks the social institutions necessary to conflict resolve on the spot. The police are the only institution vested with immediate conflict resolution, and they tend to do it by arresting one party. If there was a common belief in a system that involved real, on the spot conflict resolution, then the police would not be forced to resort to physical force and violence.

The act of forcing someone in this way is anti-democratic. Democracy is about discussion, compromise, consensus and understanding. It is not a results-oriented method of governance, it is a people-oriented method. Violence places results over people.

So far, I have said:
1. Violence and democracy have different priorities
2. Violence and democracy have contradicting products
3. Violence does not produce circumstances conducive to democracy.
4. Violence is used (ineffectively) in the stead of democratic institutions of conflict resolution.
5. Violence is a social construction that is thought to be practical, but ends up not being in practice.
6. Violence undermines the democratic prerequisite that citizens need to be able to make decisions free of oppression
7. Violence as a means to force consent would be replaced with other institutions under a democracy

Things I wish to explore further: How violence effects the victim. The ends produced when one uses violent means. And the chaos factors in democracy and violence.

Democracy and Violence Part 1

Well, I am concretely defeating Bucky when it comes to keeping up with my blog. He can consider that a challenge to try and catch up.

So, this is my first stab at trying to articulate why violence is anti-democratic.
Democracy, by its very nature, is supposed to uplift and equalize, to empower and enhance communication. To facilitate understanding and to bring about consensus. Violence is the opposite of this. It is forced disempowerment, a diminishing and isolating means that tends to breed hatred and more violence. In fact, it often destroys power through death. It attempts to undermine the power of a nation not through turning that power to a different mindset, as with democracy, but through the physical act of destroying people and the inherent power they have. Indeed, it undermines power by both destroying it and by forcing consent through fear.

Violence, in our culture, is believed to be an effective way to force someone to do something. I interpret this as forced consent. The person believes they have no choice, even though they do. They can refuse to be coerced and allow themselves to be harmed... indeed, to force the attacker to use violence out of their own desperation to control other people.

So, violence is used in two ways to try to consolidate control: 1. destroy power through removing number of supporters. The worst examples of this are genocides. 2. Forced consent through the threat of violence; most notable emotions involved are fear, a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness.

Democracy can not be created through a process of destroying power and/or forcing the consent of others. The whole point of democracy is for everyone to be able to affect and/or make the decisions that impact their lives. A system such as that depends on people's trust of each other and willing consent to be a part of the system. You can't get people to participate, I mean REALLY participate in the way we want them to, by threatening them. Nor will killing them get them to participate... for obvious reasons.

Now, that that basic argument is kind of out there... many people will rebut with the argument: There are people out there who are oppressing others and exerting coercion and forced consent over them. How do we deal with them? Would it not be prudant to force these people to consent to stop oppressing? And sometimes people will even take it as far as "Isn't a violent revolution necessary to overthrow such an oppressive system as this, it is so violent that it will respond to nothing but violence."
My answer to this is: That is a false situation. When one group oppresses another, they are forcing the other group to consent. All the oppressed group need to do is stop consenting, and they will, with sacrifice (sacrifice that is required for any kind of fighting, whether it is violent of non-violent), be able to end the oppression. The power is truly in the hands of the oppressed, since they are always more numerous. They could (and have in many historical instances) easily and non-violently thrown off the shackles binding them. This is how you build a democratic society, you create democratic institutions in the effort to overthrow oppressors. Using democratic means will create a democratic system, while using violent means will create a violent system. But I digress... violence will only serve to undermine democracy, because it will make the group who were the oppressors not want to participate in a new government, which would probably not be democratic if it were built out of the flames of a violent revolution. So already there is a problem of a (probably) large minority of people who do not want to participate, and are willing to actively oppose whatever democratic institutions had come about. This creates a situation where the people trying to build a democracy start to believe they need to actively take control, or force consent to the democracy from the actively opposing minority. And that is just plain anti-democratic. We come back to the problem of the impossibility of building a participatory democracy by forcing people to agree to democracy. That is just not how democracy works.

So far in this brainstorming session, I have explored what the means of violence produces (i.e. destroying power, forced consent) and how these products are incompatible with the project of democracy. Violence, as a means, simply seems to be ineffective at producing democratic outcomes.

I want to explore this more, but it is late. So I will put off further discussion for another post. I still need to explore the impact of forced consent on people more, and the products that non-violent means produce. I should also explore the chaos factor from both violence and democracy.

In other news, I got my California License!