Skip to content


Be The Change

bethechange Book review: Be The Change — How Meditation Can Transform You and the World, by Ed and Deb Shapiro

I tend to see the “Self-Help” and “New Age” sections of the book store to be redundant. Both appear to proffer a variety of methods by which readers may allegedly improve their lives, and the methodology is based either on mysticism or disguised pragmatism.

‘Be The Change’ is a book that I could see being found in either section, but something that seems to set it apart from most of its neighbors is that instead of focusing entirely on helping the reader, it has as a goal to improve the world in general. The premise is that meditation can change you and the world.

But what is meditation? Surprisingly, this book on meditation doesn’t come right out and tell the reader. This fact had two effects upon me. First was frustration. Why am I reading a book about meditation that doesn’t start off by telling me exactly what the authors think meditation is? Second was enlightenment. The authors are indirectly telling me that it’s not quite that easy to define meditation — the anecdotes told by the myriad contributors go a long way to show that although meditation is somewhat tangible as a concept, it’s still very subjective and personal. I wasn’t getting an easy answer, but instead of throwing the book down in frustration, I tried to analyze the collected thoughts of the authors and contributors.

Be The Change was written by Ed and Deb Shapiro, who, according to their website, have authored sixteen books on personal development, meditation and social action, and who have led meditation retreats and personal development programs worldwide for over 25 years.1 The book’s personal foreword was written by HH The Dalai Lama, and enhanced greatly by contributions from dozens of famous and influential people who have all had a variety of experiences with meditation. Although the book’s format is quite unlike reading an instruction manual, the personal contributions are interesting and thoughtful — the book could nearly rest on the contributions alone and still be a worthy read (note that there are certainly samples of religious contributors, but plenty of non-religious, spiritual, and overall peace-loving contributors to add balance).

The skeptic in me suggested that something so subjective and undefined as meditation couldn’t be as influential as advertised. The standard fare for self-help and new age seems to involve one of two fundamental components — magic or pragmatism. Authors often twist these into shapes that appear novel and exciting for readers who are on the lookout for the next great thing to help them along some personal path. But when those how-to books are examined, and the facade stripped away, all that’s left is either a skeletal message of “just do what makes sense and you’ll be fine,” or “this is about as reliable as coin-flipping, but at least you got to light some candles and chant some freaky words, right?”

With that as a basis for comparison, why should I think that meditation is any different than what boils down to mere “resting for recovery of the mind and body, a logical and pragmatic thing we all do in sleep anyway”? The book seems to challenge that notion, suggesting that meditation is not just a basic function hyped up for eager audiences, but, instead, it’s a source for clarity and personal insight that can have a positive effect on the world around us. One of contributor Ed Begley, Jr.’s comments expands on that notion:

Although we are not going to solve all the problems by just sitting on the side of a hill or by spinning a prayer wheel, we also have to be still and centered so we can act with clarity. In other words, in order to do this work, we need to have an inner resource we can always come back to. If we do not have quiet time, we will get too burnt out to be able to clean up the rivers or save the whales. We have to sit still and recharge. We have to be in the moment as it is happening, and we cannot do that if we do not have meditation as a resource.2

When my skepticism kicks in with a response like, “Well, that can’t possibly apply to everyone who is doing good in the world, for many of them get along just fine without meditation,” my guess is that meditation “apologists” would respond, “We’re not talking about meditation necessarily in the form of sitting down, cross-legged, humming or chanting for hours on end; meditation can take many forms, and fundamentally it’s about self-reflection, clarification, and contemplation.”

I, in turn, wonder whether, then, if meditation isn’t just another fundamental form of pragmatism, but one that transcends aspects of life so much that just about anything can be referred to as meditation. For example, a dancer who gets into a “zone” while dancing may not personally believe he or she is “meditating,” but ‘Be The Change’ suggests3 that dancing can be meditative.

The Shapiros nearly answer my question in their second chapter, So What Is Meditation?

Meditation has been associated with everything from affirming ourselves as thin/rich/in love to visualizing ourselves bathed in white light to sitting cross-legged with closed eyes and doing nothing but contemplating our own navel. Yet meditation is none of these. Rather, it covers a vast arena of experiences and activities, including opening our heart to all beings, realize the truth and becoming free, counting our breaths, gazing at the flame of a candle, intoning different sounds, or moving rhythmically…. In other words, it is both an experience and a practice — an experience of oneness, of being with who we really are, as well as the practice that enables us to be in this state.4

That statement is both revealing and misleading. I don’t think the authors are trying to say that sitting cross-legged while thinking self-affirming thoughts is “absolutely not meditation,” but instead that doing so doesn’t cover the gambit of meditation — it’s not the embodiment of meditation, since meditation includes so many different things, fundamentally being some sort of mental connective experience combined with whatever physical method is necessary to achieve that state.

Although I don’t agree with a number of the contributor quotes, there are so many different points of view that I found it to be more like reading different perspectives about life, so that even though I might not be able to perceive it in the same way, I can respect the thoughts of those who are experiencing it right along side me.

This isn’t really a comprehensive meditation ‘how to’ book. It provides a few basic techniques, plus insight into areas that I had not previously considered as fitting for “meditation,” such as while running, dancing, and writing. Despite the fact that by doing so, the book implies that meditation is anything and everything as long as you can pin the “meditation” label upon it, the concept of searching for a meditative state in an activity that is not stereotypically meditative is unique (for me) and has offered me something to try on my own.

So, can meditation change me and the world? Absolutely. If through meditation I am more clear, less distracted, focused, and can achieve some sort of greater connection to my inner self (where I believe most people have a common set of higher moral principles), then I, as a member of the world, have improved it, have changed it. If others do the same, we collectively improve and change it. Is ‘Be The Change’ the key component in accomplishing such a feat? No, but it’s certainly an interesting book that may help to guide those who know nothing about meditation or who are curious and want to learn more. Just be sure to approach the book with the knowledge that it is primarily anecdotal, with clarifying insights by two longtime practitioners, and not everything in it should be taken as objective fact. (For example, the book is full of statements like, “Meditation accomplishes X,” where a more factual and unbiased approach would be, “Meditation can accomplish X.”)

In any event, I think meditation is certainly worth a shot, and I plan to try some different methods and try to visualize meditation with different points of view based on my reading of the book. It’s already gotten me thinking about things I’d like to try, and considering my general skepticism, I think that says something about the quality of the book and the revelations of the authors and contributors.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Fark
  • Twitter
  1. http://www.edanddebshapiro.com/about-us/ [<]
  2. p.197 [<]
  3. pp.321-323 [<]
  4. pp. 15-16 [<]

Posted in Review.


Through the Lens of Righteousness [StOP Comic 20]

Also see What is Terrorism? by Mojoey

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Fark
  • Twitter

Posted in Comic.

Tagged with , , , , , , , .


Worried About Virginia

If you thought my satire about a Virginia referendum to reject suffrage was too hyperbolic, check out what Rachel Maddow has to say about Virginia’s newly elected governor and attorney general:1

Excerpts: (starting at about 1:00)

Virginia… elected an attorney general named Ken Cuccinelli, who has called being gay “intrinsically wrong,” and has said that it does not comport with natural law….2

…Virginia’s new governor-elect Bob McDonnell just a few years ago said that certain homosexual conduct could and should disqualify a person from being a judge because of violating Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature law.3

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Fark
  • Twitter
  1. To clarify: I’m not calling what Maddow said as hyperbolic. I’m saying that my satire might not be as “out there” as it might seem at first glance, as there’s plenty of evidence that McDonnell and Cuccinelli are both noted regressionists. [<]
  2. See Shannon questions Cuccinelli’s stance on gay employees, Richmond Times Dispatch [<]
  3. See Sex Law Is No Judging Criteria, Daily Press [<]

Posted in Government, Law, Religion, Sexuality.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , .


Virginia Referendum to Reject Suffrage

Bob_McDonnellVirginia Governor elect Bob McDonnell issued a statement today that once in office he would pursue a referendum in Virginia to reject the constitutional amendment that lets women vote.1

McDonnell was attacked for his 1989 thesis for Regent University, in which he described working women and feminists as ‘detrimental’ to the family. Despite his campaign promise that his views have matured, McDonnell is apparently using the gubernatorial platform and the trend of states passing similar initiatives regarding civil rights to manifest his idealism in a state that has a long history of conservatism.

When asked about the implications of the Tenth Amendment, McDonnell’s spokesperson indicated that “the Constitution as ratified explicitly excluded women,2 and even if state sovereignty in this matter does not trump federal law, it is firmly established that the federal government cannot force participation in the administration of any of its programs.3 In addition, the federal government is prohibited from trying to prevent the Commonwealth’s free exercise of religion, which is a substantive part of the referendum — to affirm religious freedom.”4

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Fark
  • Twitter
  1. No, he didn’t. But it certainly looks like he could. How can we stand by idly while we let the masses vote on whether minorities can exercise equal civil rights? It’s quite likely that for years after Brown v. Board (and maybe even up through today), if we had put integration up to a popular vote, we’d still be segregated. Look at our rich history of civil rights, and you can easily see how we require iconic heroes to make headway, not majorities. How does it feel to see the finish line of equality and intellectual honesty and then suddenly and relentlessly be pulled backwards, back toward the dark ages full of human inequality and cruelty? Feels like shit. [<]
  2. See NOW [<]
  3. See Printz v United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) [<]
  4. See First Amendment [<]

Posted in Activism, Government, Religion, Satire.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , .


Spag that bitch

Recently, at St. Matthews Epsicopal Church in Charleston, West Virginia, Bishop Klusmeyer and Father Thomas held the annual pet blessing, which, ahem, begs the question, Do all dogs go to heaven?

According to the article, ”Klusmeyer and Thomas said the day’s events reminded parishioners about reaching out to the smallest and the poorest of the poor, and also the gentleness and simplicity of all of God’s creatures …

“For example, Thomas, known as Father Bill, might say this prayer: ‘Almighty God, Creator of all things, and giver of all life, let your blessing be upon Molly and grant that Molly may serve you to your glory and the welfare of your people, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.’”

At ClarifyingChristianity.com, the writer seems to think it is possible for pets to go to heaven, but that it is just as unlikely that pets will go to heaven since so few humans will gain entrance. It is an odd defeatist mentality for a Christian. The writer offers no ways to measure how god will decide if a pet can gain entrance to heaven. Over at Pet-Loss.net, the writer states that animals don’t need to be “saved” because they have not “fallen”. Then why would pets need to be blessed if they are already and always will be within the good graces of god? Because of this default position, the writer is not offering us any help with our basic question. Finally, at Answers2Prayer.org, the writer states that animals do not have immortal souls, so no redemption is required because there is nothing to redeem. It seems that animals will occupy some kind of Spielberg-esque animal-like semi-intelligent life form that can be turned on or off on a whim — though heaven is supposed to be whim-free (sigh).

The article in the Gazette fails to mention how Molly (a pet) might serve the glory of the Christian god. Is Molly required to go to church every Sunday in observation of Jesus Christ? Minimally, Molly will need to adhere to the Ten Commandments (whichever ten you choose, makes no difference to me). Since Molly cannot speak a language discernable to humans, I think Molly is safe with the universal first commandment which prohibits any other gods. If she had any other gods, we would never know it. We’re not even sure if she has Jesus in her heart much less Lucifer in her mind, but she wags her tail when her owner returns home and she barks for treats, so Molly gets a bye on this one.

What about taking the lord’s name in vain? Again, since Molly cannot engage in conversation with humans, she gets a bye on this commandment. What about the prohibition on images? I am not aware of dogs possessing cameras, nor am I aware of their understanding of how cameras work. Additionally, I am not aware of dogs that sketch, paint, sculpt or make mounds of dirt for any other purpose than digging for prey. So, we have yet another commandment for which Molly earns a bye. What about bearing false witness? Another bye – can’t converse, can’t violate. Even if she saw and heard evil, she certainly can’t speak of it. By default, she cannot bear false witness.

How about keeping the sabbath holy? I don’t think Molly works on the sabbath, but I am not sure because I don’t know if she has chores. If she does have chores, her human owner would also be in violation of the commandment. So, maybe we can just call this one a default failure since her owner is likely to cause Molly to engage in activities that result in the sabbath not being quite as holy as intended.

Does Molly honor her mother and father? I am not sure, mostly because I am not sure what honoring your father or mother means. Is it asking for permission? Sending a birthday card? Addressing the parents with common titles of respect: ”Mother” and “Father”? Molly cannot ask for permission, at least not verbally. Except as a default circumstance of the next commandment, we simply can never know if Molly ever violates this commandment. Do not murder … well, I am sure that Molly wishes to eat and has murdered something in some way. If it is in reference to not murdering those of her own kind, I shall have to assume that she hasn’t violated this commandment because she is not a feral street dog. However, since some commercially manufactured dog food contains horse meat, and since horses are pets that are also likely to be blessed, it is my opinion that Molly has repeatedly sinned. This commandment may make the violator a victim of circumstance rather than willful action. If cows and pigs can also be pets that are blessed, then Molly is a big loser on this point.

Do not steal … another dilemma. If Molly snatches away a toy or bone from another dog, or if she absconds with her owner’s shoes for her own chewing pleasure, is that stealing? What if the item is later returned? It should at least qualify as adulteration of a material possession, although that is not a violation of a commandment. This one is a toss-up. Molly gets a default bye.

Next, we have coveting thy neighbor’s wife and adultery. No reason to handle these issues separately, for in doggie-land, they are one in the same. Now, for Molly, being female, coveting her neighbor’s wife presents additional moral dilemmas, but I will leave aside thoughts of a homosexual pet for this exercise. This is where Molly really has a doggie dilemma. Molly is a bitch. Unless her human owner is extremely protective of her, the owner is going to breed the bitch (either intentionally or by lack of action). The bitch enters heat. The bitch is going to be in deep trouble. I doubt Molly has engaged in any marital rituals with her companion dogs, so I am sure that Molly, as a representative example of all bitches, has repeatedly violated this commandment. Molly is, sadly, indiscriminate in her behaviors. She has sinned. If Molly’s owner has neutered her, then there are a host of other religious morals to review. Molly can’t get a bye on this – she can’t even win. Molly loses this one by default. So does her owner, by the way, but for a cornucopia of other reasons.

So, as Molly arrives at the pearly gates, it becomes crunch time for the Christian god. Has Molly sufficiently served the lord? Does she get to enter heaven? I think the answer from nearly all corners of pet-owner-land is a resounding YES!

Of course, we have a rather nuanced problem here. I think Molly’s owner, as a representative of all pet owners, is spagging her. So is Father Bill. In fact, everyone is spagging Molly. She is a bitch, after all. She’s accustomed to frequent spagging. Just look at how she is treated: free home, free toys, free food, free maid service, and a wet massage nearly every week. Hell, she even gets a free education, psych therapy and her own stays in a pet hotel. Jesus! All Molly has to do is rollover and allow herself to be spagged. Repeatedly.

So, if an easy bitch can get into heaven, what are you worried about?

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Fark
  • Twitter

Posted in Atheism, Morality, Religion.

Tagged with , , , .




Copyright 2009, State of Protest - You may not reprint content from this site without express permission.