To make available a lifestyle option of the forest renunciate-one that hasn’t emerged in our culture, yet-but includes living outside of the economic system. I, too, am doing a zine and came up with three points that are important to looking at the forest renunciate. One is that they live outside of the industrial physical creations of man. Two is they choose to live outside of the larger economic order. Third is that it is a priority that time is devoted to spiritual practice.

Can people replace what are currently economic functions with more spiritual practices?

Yes, the point is that spiritual and artistic purposes are prioritized and that philosophies are based on giving rather than acquiring.

That is what I am doing theoretically. Specifically, I am looking to establish communities where groups are practicing this way. My first plan is to be at a forest activist site and locate them there.

So, you are basically trying to bring together spiritual practice and forest activism?

I don’t see them as different things. To me they are inseparable. Gandhi wrote specifically that his activism was an expression of spirituality.

So, are you saying that forest activists are innately spiritual practitioners?

It depends on one’s intention. Forest activists aren’t always spiritual practitioners, because they may not bring a spiritual consciousness to what they do. They may be more naturally inclined to spirituality. Being a spiritual practitioner means that you are giving yourself and your actions over to greater power, whether you call it God or intuition. You are trusting in something greater for guidance rather than intellectual dogma.

Describe your personal history and how you got into forest activism and spirituality? Which came first?

Spirituality and activism emerged together with me, and they are both things that have always been a part of my personality. My spirituality is the hardest to say, it has been mysterious, but also very natural feeling. In 8^th grade I wrote a story, which, amazingly, got at the core of meditation practices and understanding that the minds conceptions can be limiting. The story was about an 8 year old boy, modeled after my cousin, who can’t speak. Actually, it is about the day that he starts to speak and it is ironic because everyone thought that it was great that he was finally able to speak. Later there was evidence that his consciousness was far more limited after he began speaking. I also remember reading a JD Salinger story called Teddy about a boy who was a reincarnated Yogi that I found really interesting.

My interest in forest activism is just an extension of an interest in nature. It was always a highlight for me, even living in the city [New York City] to go to the country or the woods. I remember really feeling a greater power there, which just highlighted my spirituality. It was a natural extension, then, that protecting the forest is protecting the opportunity for spirituality. I was a part of Redwood Summer, joined the Sierra Club (until I realized that was silly!). The first physical manifestation of my spirituality was my last year of college, when I began to sit.

Why do you find this project important?

There are dual reasons why it is a good idea. It clarifies the deepest levels of why we need to protect the forest. The spiritual inspiration isn’t dependent on campaigns. The real inspiration comes from deeper and greater spiritual connections with the forest.

Currently spiritual practitioners are limiting how deep they can go, they are closing themselves off. They need to ground themselves in compassion to see how their spirituality changes and grows. Otherwise it is in a vaccuum. The deeper purpose of sitting is lost unless its fruits are allowed to grow. Some people are naturally activists by how they are with people, and that is great. This is another way to bring that aspect out.

In our society, the spiritual practitioners and forest activists are two pretty separate camps of people. Alone they are not so strong. Being informed by each other would make each more powerful and a very strong coalition, as well.

Forest activists don’t always address the seed of what is destructive in our society, which is separating the self from the other. The root cause will endlessly corrupt itself because of greed. On the other hand if Buddhist practitioners do not apply their inspiration, it remains theoretical, and fake.

How do you rationalize bringing a foreign religious practice to a land that once had a native, local practice?

There are two kinds of spirituality. One is a located and one is a universal. The original spirituality is a located which is shamanism. While shamanism has similarities around the world, each particular region had it’s own expression that is culturally based. At a certain time, as indigenous cultures disappeared, universal religions rose up as a response. This form of religion dealt with the way the mind works.

As India developed, class stratification began and the systems stopped taking care of all people. In response to this, the original forest renunciates arose. A whole class of people rebelled against society and the suffering, alienation and competition that was a part of it. The cast of Brahmin’s were paid to hold the societies spiritual practice. People began to say no to that and went looking for their own alternatives.

Gary Snyder writes about the close correlation between the universal and shamanistic religions. This is controversial, but he compares meditation to the hunter waiting for a kill.

Buddhism moved through many different cultures from India, China, Korea and Japan and now the US. It is essentially dead in Japan, but has jumped over the Pacific. It is informed by shamanistic and native practices, it implies that we are educated about them. For most people, who are cut off of any origins of indigenous cultures, it is less realistic and productive to try to imitate these spiritual practices. It is unlikely that we will ever return to being hunters and gatherers. One aspect of Buddhism that has been important to maintaining it’s popularity is that it never contradicts science. Although it didn’t come from a Western Culture, I see it as being more applicable to our society today. Most monasteries maintain signs of located, or original practices.

What does it mean to you to be a monk?

A clarified direction of spiritual practice and to have a definition as a spiritual practitioner. Being a monk is superficial. It doesn’t make one more insightful, but it does give the practitioner space, rules and economic support. There is a social function, also. India saw a strong integration of monks in society. It is useful to people to see intention because people are inspired to see someone directing their life in a spiritual way. It is good just to see an example of people can live in a different way.

How do you see your practice leading to change?

It is viable that communities of people practicing in the forest are going to ultimately protect it. In Thailand the old tradition of small groups living in the forest died. Now there is no forest left, the trees essentially died with the practice.

I envision loose communities living in simple ways, through donation, accepting anyone. Historically, spiritual wanderers have been from upper classes. I hope that a vision like this could be appealing to alternative and mainstream culture. It could provide mainstream culture with inspiration, a way of integrating alternative culture into their life for a short time and may make them desire a longer term commitment.

I don’t believe in the dichotomy of traditional and radical. Over time, what conservative or radical is shifts. Now, appreciation of breath, appreciation of nature are two of the most radical concepts in our world. I would say that could be considered conservative. It is definitely conservationist.

How does this fit in with your concept of education?

The main problem to overcome is our fear-based culture. The homeless are seen as failures or as sufferers. People work desperately to hold onto their place in society. To break out of this is really to fall back on a natural belonging on a trust and a dependence on the warmth and compassion that people do have. In some cultures this is aspired to. It is inspirational to support a ritual begger.

Once people are able to live outside of consumerist lifestyles, it will shift important things in the power structure. There will be challenges to that kind of lifestyle, much like the homeless experience. Buddha experienced some of the same difficulties. It is problematic for the status quo that the homeless don’t make good consumers. Everyone has different roles or “kharmic constitutions” but if people are able to discover that their fear is groundless, then returning to a consumerist lifestyle may be based on more practical reasons or spiritual reasons, but they will have grown and they will relate to life more truthfully.

ShareThis

I sit in J-’s office while he printed up more of my zines. I am here knowing that we will soon be joining the most prestigious left-wing academic and US foreign policy expert for lunch. J- had talked with a professor in the history department regarding joining Noam and him for lunch. J- did this with the primary objective that the student, G-, who brought Noam to campus have some special contact with him during his very short visit to their school. After his participation in the Seattle WTO protests in 1999, G- spent 2 years corresponding with Noam in order to potentially alter his fellow students lives.

While I wait, I read J-’s dissertation and find similarities and differences between it and Gardens of Resistance. I understand our intentions to be very similar, to culminate our understandings of theory, namely critical theory, and how it relates to our practice�(praxis?). Also, we both recognize the unfortunate separation between the two and how that plays out in our respective circles. Although these intentions are shared and are recognizable, I think of the different audiences to which our writing caters. I think of the different languages that our writing uses. I do not have much time to consider other secondary questions.

As we descend the steep stairs from his office, I feel my stomach turn. Surprised, I realize that I feel a bit nervous. Difficulty sleeping, a bit of hunger, and my usual morning coffee is not helping. At 11:30, we go to the hall that Noam will be speaking in and reserve seats. Noam’s speech starts at 1:00 and people are already trickling in.

We are the first to arrive at the cafeteria of the group that we expect to meet for lunch. We go into the faculty lounge to find that it is empty and not yet open. I looked around the student cafeteria and start getting really hungry. Back outside J- begins conversing with another professor, S-, who will also be at lunch. Apparently, he is a leftist Middle East Policy Expert and is a colleague of Noam, yet he had not seen him in about 5 years. I am speaking to one of S-’s students when he warns J- that this lunch is intended for he and Noam to talk. I think that it may have surprised him that we were invited to the lunch and he wanted to prevent interruptions in conversation. Soon, G-, the student activist that had brought Noam to the school joins them and soon after that, I join them, as well. G- soon leaves to see if his family had arrived.

I had heard from one of S-’s students that we had something in common; we both live in co-housing. I start conversation with S- about this and soon find out that he is also a bicyclist. While the content of our discussion isn’t unusual, having a conversation with this man feels humorously difficult because he is so distracted and nervous. He is so nervous, in fact, that I become totally at ease, finding it very funny the way that he prepares to meet this “celebrity”. His behavior is so obvious and extreme that I was able to laugh at that same tendency to hero-worship in myself.

Finally, Noam arrives with another professor who apparently has conservative politics (he I found quite friendly and engaged). We went into the faculty lounge and after the really petty logistic of establishing which department would cover the $4.95 lunches, we get some food and are seated. Initially 5 of us are at the table and immediately, S- engages Noam in a nearly exclusive, very quiet, conversation that the rest of us strain to hear.

When G- returns, J- interrupts to introduce those of us haven’t yet met Noam. When Noam heard G-’s name and shook his hand, he lit up and smiled in a way that I didn�t expect from his quiet and thus far serious demeanor. It was the first bit of real “humanness” that I see. The only other time that I saw the same kind of engagement is when I later inquire about his son that lives near me. The rest of the lunch that we spend together is a somewhat mundane and disjointed discussion of recent gossip of the great powers of the US and S-’s theories about this.

Seeing that there was little room for a real connection with Noam or each other in this context. J-, G- and I leave at about 12:40 to return to the hall that Noam will speak.

The talk is good simply because Noam is a good speaker. He is mostly just funny and full of facts. I especially appreciate his (self-referential?) disdain of educated rationalizations that are keeping “the system” working. His topic is 9-11 and beyond and he logically breaks down the “War on Terrorism” as an obvious hoax.

He makes the lefty-pleasing argument that US terrorist actions (probably even “war-crimes”, he alludes) are allowed because US powers have protected themselves by applying a description of “counter-terrorist” to those actions. Many examples can be found in the Middle East and Central America where US actions were clearly NOT “counter” to any specific terrorist action or to any clear “terrorists”, but instead against already oppressed people on land that the US had some economic interest.

I found something missing very clearly in my lunch with him and also in his speech. What I found missing in the speech is the same thing that I can imagine feeling missing from a speech by Ralph Nader or a politician or another intellectual that is not anti-authoritarian. I felt left without a full critique. A discussion of international relations took place without any acknowledgment of how an international relation really relates to me beyond the fact that the puppeteers are still in power playing war games with individuals as their pawns. While Nader advocates consumer “watchdogs”, Chomsky advocates political “watchdogs”.

Because they are both figureheads for leftists, they are bound to their own schtick within the leftist “movement”, as well. The ramifications of this pheonomenon are complex, the most obvious is that a speech like this will only serve to reinforce its own importance. It also leads to a “movement” that doesn’t really move and a dependency on “authority” within the left. These factors and the simple limits of the content of the “movement” itself serve to legitimate and reinforce the larger system itself.

I have no logical disagreement of the content of the speech, but I left the speech (and lunch especially) feeling like Noam was made of a fabric more similar to the politicians than to myself. J- later describes what I was missing as a richer anti-authoritarianism in which one doesn’t turn into the “photo-negative” of that which one is criticizing. This clearly may be a trap of anyone that gains the kind of “authority” that he has, maybe of anyone working “in the system”.

I was saddened by Chomsky’s obvious disdain for the “powers that be” and his recipricol enslavement to them. He must go to many places and have needy academics try to impress him, get his feedback and keep the level of conversation confined to that very circle of oppressors that he criticizes. Chomsky, as an academic was reduced to existing as a walking dictionary. He became a processor through which S- was able to feed his new and especially relevant information.

I do not know if he wanted to talk to the other people that were at his table for lunch. His mannerisms told me that he did, indeed. His facial expressions said that he would rather engage as a human, as a potential friend, as someone that is dynamic rather than as an expert that could only serve to gather data and fit it to his “political watchdog” expertise. I wonder what was going through his mind. Had he committed to having a conversation with S- that he felt entitled to keep? Did he not feel like he had enough power to redirect the conversation to be all-inclusive? Did he not care?

I could have usurped the conversation, certainly J-, G- and I could have. Although I didn’t know about S-’s comment to J- that essentially asked us to stay out, I did not try very hard to change the situation, although I did not (could not?) want to be a part of the existing conversation. I felt subject to S- and Noam’s power as prestigious academics. I felt subject to J-’s relationships with his colleagues at the university.

I felt frustrated by Chomsky’s academic assumption of the primary importance of this watchdogging function and a seemingly traditional history lesson. At one point in our lunch, he sadly noted that college level students could not name 19^th century presidents. An understanding of the history of oppression, genocide and political economic development are useful and Noam has done so much for educating folks about this. But, I am glad that college students and others have better things to engage in than projects that might have anything to do with dead presidents.

Noam closes the question and answer period following his speech with a question that he distorted into “Do we have hope?” He claims that yes, there is hope. Why? Because things that JFK would have been able to get away with 50 years ago could not be gotten away with today. In other words, our watchdog efforts are so great today that we have hope.

I agree that knowing is better than not knowing and being able to see is better than not being able to see. What I am not convinced of is that the methods of subordination in the state are not clever enough to accommodate for this. I am not convinced that knowing and seeing gives enough people a power to have practice that doesn’t support the very things that they are seeing and knowing. I am not convinced that knowing and seeing are doing anything to change any course of events at present nor that they will in the future. Critiques like Chomsky’s are useful in deconstructing ideology and understanding our situations.

But, the knowledge is not the practice and the only practice that does not support the system of oppression is one of resistance. Therefore, it is not here where I see hope lying.

This “Watchdogging” is part of a spectacle that is only on some level supporting this same system of oppression. It is actually the spectacle once removed. It is not the media, but the academic media about the media. It is not the directly political actions or speeches, but a driver of the counter-politics and actions. This ends up being a rallying cry to sign a petition, to go on a march. While these actions may be forms of resistance; in our cultural context, they are complacent, progressive forms of resistance at best.

What is the possibility of this function in serving radical change? In the best case these functions may be an initial insight or opening that leads to a further and further questioning of the world and our relationships in it. In the worst, these functions serve to pacify leftists with the powerful and rightous feeling of a new understanding that is only applied to old models. I am reluctant to discount protest politics completely, but the limits are glaring and it is only until we move out of the realm of this spectacle that we can be fully engaged humans.

Unlike Noam, I only see hope bedded completely outside of the manufactured world that he criticizes. I have no previous generations of experience to compare it, as he compares the Kennedy era to our present day. But, I have my own experience, my own personal shifts in politics and I have reflections on my lunch with Noam that do a fine job of illustrating our different opinions on hope.

It is in the celebration of life and livelihood outside of this spectacle and the “powers that be” that I find hope. It is through the engagement of “politics” through relationships and daily life that are the foundation for self-control and collaboration where I see hope being actualized in autonomous zones of resistance. It is only here where we can truly use our imagination to freely participate in projects that give me hope for new forms of cultures, guilds, and “organizations” that are outside of the domination of the corrupt, which are necessarily outside of the domination of the state.

I don’t find hope in learning about or recreating the tools or experiences of the oppressor. I have little interest in using their tools against them. Instead, I have interest in the DIY creation of new tools and experiences with our neighbors and friends in the here and now. I have interest in creating local self-reliant networks that make the “powers that be” inept and the possibility of recreating the powers that be meaningless.

ShareThis

So, Bill and I wait to visit Betty Wilburn in the Federal Correctional Instution for Women in Dublin. Bill has visited her regularly for about a year to provide some occassional company to her. While she is in one of the “nicest” facilities that she could choose, it is just less than 5 years and 3,000 miles away from her dreams. Her mother and daughter are too far to visit often and she has been sent the the SHU in the past for communicating with her friends (since they were involved in her crime).

After a 20 minute wait, in which we were able to browse t-shirts, mugs hats and keychains bearing the prison’s logos, we are summoned to go through the metal detector. We follow a path bordering a perfectly groomed brilliant green lawn, which stands out starkly against the touseled dry straw of the goldenrod rolling hills on every side of us. About 100 feet away, there is another door, identicle to the one which we just passed through.

What we entered is the institutional equivalent of a McDonald’s. We could have been anywhere in the country in any kind of government or medical building. we were surrounded by vending machines of all kinds and window grating that attempted to be decorative. The stylish open beam industrial architechture was strikingly appropriate here.

We passed through and found Betty sitting in an enclosed patio, with many picnic tables and a play structure. Bill made eye contact with Betty and she stood to greet us with a sweet hug.

I sat opposite her and learned about her family in Philadelphia and her history there. She discussed her drug related crimes for which she was incarcerated 18 years ago with much repentence. She talked about how bad she was and how she had earned this prison sentence. I wanted to tell her no, that her crimes were victimless and that nobody deserved to be held like this. I wanted her to know that I believed her to be no more dangerous to society or herself than my own grandmother. I couldn’t bring myself to say anything like that. She just had to be heard, that was all that I should offer.

While Bill was talking about his upcoming trip, I let my eyes wander. I was so surprised by how normal all of the women looked. Many were white and over 40 years old. There were several young and middle aged latina women. About 6 had children or grandchildren there. They all looked very tired.

Then we talked about what her life was like right then. What she had done the week before and events that she was getting ready for. This is what struck me the most of all. Betty’s life is a lot like a mainstream American’s.

While I am aware of prison labor, something shifted in my understanding when I met a prison laborer. Betty works a 40-hour per week job! At the time I was, also and the more that she talked the more similarities that I felt in our lives. Two evenings a week, she goes to computer class so that she may move into different work. She also participates in a crafts circle and sees current movies. I really understood the production-function of prison for the first time. Betty has been mainstreamed under the supervision of the prison system.

I left with a slight headache and naseau. It is the same feeling that I get when I spend too much time in a library or shopping mall. I enjoyed meeting Betty, but was left with a lot of confusion and sadness.

Which was more stunning? Was it really her life that surprised me or was it the reflections that her experiences put on my own and on the lives of those outside of prison? Unfortunately, I think the answer is both…

ShareThis