Similar Posts
A Guest at William Penn House
When I arrived at the William Penn House to teach yoga tonight, there were a couple of suitcases in the room. I asked one of the interns to help me move them. A guest came to help as one of the suitcases was his. I invited him to join us for yoga class. He expressed interest though declined this visit because he had a plane to catch. He stayed to chat while I was making the room ready.
The conversation started with snow and New York State and then Quaker peace activities–the latter hardly surprising for someone staying at William Penn House. The guest was older than me and had been an activist for a long time. I thought he would certainly know my Dad who has been doing peace-related volunteer work in New York for 50 years give or take a few. Yes, he knew my Dad and so I will send regards.
The guest said on parting that he thought all workshops for activists should start with some type of movement practice such as yoga. I agreed. Not only does it help bring the group together, but it invites all the participants to be stronger, healthier, and more flexible to better carry out their purpose.
My students began to arrive–the first, who came in the middle of the conversation, expressing the opinion that the guest would have been a great addition to the class. The guest went on his way, saying he would be thinking about yoga as he waited in the airport for his flight. And I brought the sense of deepened community and purpose from this chance encounter into my teaching.
Photo of marker outside the Friends Committee on National Legislation
Peace and light, E — Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.
Robber Barons v. Philanthropists (a memory triggered by reading the 1994 New Yorker article on SYDA Yoga)
When I was in eighth grade, my history teacher, Mr. B, assigned to the class engaging in a debate as to whether Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Mellon were philanthropists or robber barons. We were put in teams and told which side we had to argue. When we were given the assignment, I went to Mr. B privately and said it was not possible to argue one side or the other. These men were only able to be philanthropists at their level of giving because of the money they had made as robber barons. My teacher said that was an unacceptable position. I was to argue the position I was assigned, I was wrong that it was not an either or debate. I should understand that what was critical to this debate was which aspect was the elemental identifying characteristic.
Where I think was our real difference of opinion was that Mr. B thought that one could/should not recognize both enormous evil and enormous good in the same person. If one was evil, then the good was essentially irrelevant. If one had done tremendous good, then it should not matter if there was bad along the way. I tend to see the whole. I take the good where I find it (for example, I have found great truth and utility in the writings of Swamis Muktananda and Chidvilasananda although I would not recognize either as my “guru”), but do not expect the “bad” to be absent or non-coexistent with the “good” and tend to be outspoken in my recognition of both. I still sometimes get in trouble for this.
One Comment
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.






Hilarious!