I HAVE A DREAM, FIFTY YEARS LATER

1.

Fifty years ago, one of the greatest Americans gave one of the greatest American speeches ever, on the mall in Washington, D.C.  Dr. Martin Luther King's I Have A Dream speech is a truly remarkable combination of righteous moral fervor and rhetorical skill.  Decent people everywhere are inspired to make his speech of historical interest only, that is, by making his dream the present reality.  This, as we all unfortunately know, despite remarkable racial progress, remains a dream.

One of the striking aspects of King's speech is its moral fervor.  He was black and felt first-hand the gratuitous indignities inflicted on his people by the rampant racism of his time; combating racism was obviously close to his heart.  In his speech, however, it clearly comes across that he was interested in justice with a capital J. His thirst for divine justice would not be quenched by any draft of mere self-interest.  Dr. King was motivated by "truth force," an English translation of the Gandhian satyagraha.  The soul of truth force has no color.  It is a tribute to Dr. King's universalism that one can easily imagine this soul force giving the same speech, word for word,  translated into words from the light within us all.  One can give no greater compliment than that.

Racism was--and is--horrible; he needed to address and help remedy this great evil, and his great speech was a giant step in that direction.  I have the distinct impression, however, that if full racial equality was effected by divine fiat in 1963, Dr. King would have been overjoyed for a while but not ultimately satisfied.  Unjust wars, unjust wages and the great injustices of unemployment and the lack of universal health care would have driven him to work harder than ever to combat great lies, the opposite of truth force.  I heard a commentator reply, when asked why Dr. King opposed the Vietnam War, that it  was because many blacks were dying in combat.  I cannot believe that this is the whole truth!  He opposed the war because he passionately believed that it was causing unnecessary deaths of people of all races.

At the end of his life he was preparing a march on Chicago to demand that America's downtrodden poor be treated more fairly.  I remember thinking at the time that segregation was such a moral outrage that decent people could no longer look the other way.  We were ready for some change.  But hordes of poor people demanding justice--it was quite possible that Dr. King could have accomplished this--America wasn't for that then, and is perhaps even less so now.  Rich folks, they're going to kill him, I remember thinking.  I'm not saying that's what happened, but that's what I thought; in any case, I do not doubt that some breathed a sigh of relief when the great man was silenced.

Yes, you can kill an avatar of soul force; no, you can never kill soul force itself.  The light inside us still has the dream that it will not be a pale light forever but will one day shine on who we are and all we do.

Rest in peace, Dr. King, we miss you.

2.

Criticizing a small section of the speech makes me feel a little like a little doggie following the Kenilworth Knights, the drum and bugle band that led the march on Washington. but I think the point to be made is important.  It is in no way meant to diminish the great man's legacy; I am quite sure that he, once he heard my argument, would agree.  The distinction I make runs so contrary to popular thinking, that it is quite understandable that Dr. King didn't consider it.  His theme, after all, was racial justice, not an important aspect of wisdom that would strike most of his listeners as counter-intuitive. 

Sometimes I no longer feel like that little doggie, but like the drum major who led the procession.  For my criticism is based on the teachings of a man much greater than the great Dr. King, namely Jesus of Nazareth.  Here is the sentence of the speech I believe contains a moral error:

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

One of my favorite sayings of Jesus is "Judge not less ye be judged."  We are of course not only permitted to judge a person's behavior, but morality, primarily for the protection of others, demands that we do so.  Jesus certainly judged the behavior of some of his contemporaries!  Judging a person, however, is always morally wrong.  If someone behaves badly, the proper response is always, "There but for the grace of God go I."

We can prove this by a thought experiment.  Dr. King grew to be a moral leader of immense stature. But what if he never had experienced love from his mother and from other family members?  What if he had never been mentored by teachers who took interest in him?  What if he never had been nurtured by the church, etc.  What if he had been severely neglected and abused?  What if he had been locked in the cellar by an insane parent for years?  Dr. King would most likely have turned out to be what person-judgers would consider to be an abject failure.  Would this be his fault?  Are we to judge him because of wounds inflicted on him by others?

Consciousness, motivation, free will, character and mood--the roots of these are so mysterious that we are not even able to judge ourselves, much less to judge others.  Nature's mysterious manipulations and the varieties of environment can turn one identical twin to a life of crime while his identical twin turns toward a life full of love and compassion.

This is not a minor point.  I've heard TV commentators fume about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the nineteen year old who committed a terrible crime with his brother in Boston.  He is a monster, they shouted, and never should be thought of as a human being.  I am fully convinced, however, that with the right environment of love and support he would have most likely turned out to be a model citizen.

No, this is not a minor point, for if we stop judging others, the humiliation and anger that arise from our judgments would cease, preventing a lot of bad behavior.  I am convinced that self-hate is at the root of most of the hatred of others.  And the result of this hatred/self-hatred is often evil deeds.

Christians are taught to see Christ in everybody, no exceptions.  Zen teaches that there is a pearl of complete enlightenment shining in us all.  It is very true that many betray the Christ within and bury the pearl of perfection in the mud of greed, hate and delusion.  However, if we believe that what Christians call Christ is in all us; if we believe with the Quakers that the light shines in everybody; if we believe with the Zen Buddhists that the pearl inside cannot be sullied--and I admit to being convinced of all these things--each must respond when asked to reject a person who has committed bad deeds, with the words recently used by the current pope, "Who am I to judge?"

Even Kings nod.  Nobody's perfect.  More than just about all of us, however, Dr. King spent his waking hours morally fit and extraordinarily alert.

I repeat: Rest in Peace, Dr. King, we miss you.

OBAMACARE OR SWITZERLAND ON THE POTOMAC

As I am writing this, Senator Ted Cruz is threatening to organize the defunding of America's new system of universal health care, even if it means shutting down the entire government--an extremely drastic step.  It must be done now before "Americans become addicted to the sugar of subsidies."  The cost of the new system will be extremely prohibitive, he tells us, necessitating the loss of many jobs and reducing many full-time positions to part-time work.  His father, Rafael Cruz,  insists that it will send the elderly to the poorhouse!  Ted Cruz's view might be extreme--and it is--but it is a fact that just about every Republican opposes the new health care law.  Oh, and you know the adage that the devil can prove anything with statistics.  (I remember a table the Bush administration created at the time of his massive tax cuts:  the table showed that, in a few years,  hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created each month because of the tax cuts.  Well, we all know how that turned out.)

We are paying these guys to keep us informed!  I would like to hear a sensible conservative and a sensible liberal view on every issue, not just the crazy conservative and sane liberal views we're getting now.  The Republicans in Congress are getting a fat salary and perks and perks and perks--did we really hire them to vote down Obamacare forty times, when they know that each time their legislation had no chance of passing?  It would be better if they concentrated even on dinky legislation, such as, say, requiring that seed in bird feeders meet Burpee standards--at least in this way some old birds will be preventing some young birds from getting sick.

Americans are woefully ignorant about health care; if they had more knowledge that would be laughing out loud every time Cruz opens his mouth.  (I'm a doctor and I'm glad the public is better informed about health habits .  If a so-called expert on TV informed them of the dangers of vegetables and the benefits of consuming at least a pound of butter a day, they would, thank goodness, change the channel!)  The public is so misguided and ignorant--For instance, 62% of the population of Louisiana --a poor state which would benefit greatly from the new legislation, since there are many Louisianians without health care--opposes Obamacare.

Those who  are ignorant and believe in witches will demand that witch hunters receive massive Congressional support..(Even less so than Christine O'Donnell, President Obama is not a witch.)

I am not a health care policy analyst, and do not intend to confuse both you and myself with self-serving statistics.  I want to make just four points.  If you oppose universal health care, or are unsure about it, I ask you to ignore Fox News for a while and consider these facts.

1. THE UNITED STATES IS THE ONLY DEVELOPED COUNTRY IN THE WORD THAT LACKS UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

In  every country that can afford it, universal health care coverage is viewed as a right.  Like the right to private property.  Like the right to vote.  Like the right to elect blithering idiots to Congress.  That the richest country in the world has 40,000,000 people that lack health insurance is absolutely shocking to citizens of other countries. Poorer countries, like India and China, are doing their best to provide universal coverage, but can't afford it at present.  Some poorer countries--Barzil, Chile, Argentina--provide it now.. Sure we could be right and the rest of the world could be wrong, but this is highly unlikely.  If this were true, one would expect that one or two countries would try to opt out.  Not a peep from any of them!  The relatively poor health outcomes in the United States is a good indication that health care for all is, well, a healthy thing.
Our opposition to Obamacare is a little like saying "Child Labor, si!" while the rest of the world says "Child Labor, no!" Conservatives and liberals everywhere--except in the United States--agree that universal coverage is a must in all countries that can afford it--and we certainly can afford it.


2. UNIVERSAL COVERAGE HAS TO BE CHEAPER THAN WHAT WE'RE PAYING NOW

First point: Every advanced country has a system that provides universal health care coverage.  Second point: Every one of them is significantly cheaper than the present American system.  The United States spends approximately $8,000 per individual per year on health care expenses, by far the most costly system in the world.  (And, as pointed out already, the health outcomes are, on the average, worse.) Other industrialized countries are paying about half that, $4,000 per individual.  Remember, in the insurance-driven system we have now, health insurers are more interested in the price of their stock, more beholden to their stockholders than they are to the insured.  Many insurance companies went as far as to  hire staff to find ways to disenroll people once their sickness threatened profits; the companies would often refuse to pay for necessary treatment.  Until the Affordable Care Act abolished this practice, insurers could refuse to insure those with "previous medical conditions."  For instance, if you were known to have diabetes, an insurer would cover you--except for expenses related to diabetes!  The insurance companies prospered, but not  many who were sick.  No, you can't have a decent health care system the based on profit! Blood is not Coca Cola!
Premiums have already come down in states that have introduced health care exchanges--that is, competition. Competition is a good thing, no? Why then are the Republicans--the representatives of competitive industry--so upset?  After all, insurers will gain about 40 million new customers, which should offset the cost of having to insure those with preexisting conditions?  That brings us to Point 3.

3. SWITZERLAND ON THE POTOMAC

Switzerland is the most consumer-driven health care model of all industrial nations.  It is also the most expensive, although cheaper than the present U.S. system.  Everyone must be covered; the Swiss are free to choose their own insurance.  The poor receive subsidies to cover the premiums.  This has been the model for Obamacare.  But there is a crucial difference: the Swiss health care industry is highly regulated.  For instance, if one company is not paying out enough for services, it is suspected that it is because their members are healthier.   If this is indeed the case, they are required to transfer some of their profits to insurers who are covering more sick people.  None of the clever tricks of the U.S. system,  such as one that permits HMOs to enroll healthier seniors and get even more reimbursement from the government, is allowed.  Since Obamacare basically follows the Swiss model without a lot of the Swiss regulation, it might be more expensive than need be at first--though probably not as expensive as our system is now.  It will therefore need to be reformed, which means regulation cutting into the health industry's profits.  They will always be very profitable, but will not be able to make the killing--pun intended--that they do now.  I think that's the source of the Republican opposition.  After all, the idea for Obamacare came from a Republican think tank, the Heritage Foundation--yes, including the part requiring an individual mandate.  It is not the present form of the Affordable Care Act that they're worried about, it is the fear of future--necessary--regulation.

4. WHAT IF IT IS EXPENSIVE AT FIRST?

Let me give an analogy.  Slavery was a moral evil; we all agree on that.  But the South defended slavery--why?  Follow the money!  They were economically invested in that evil system.  Landowners were not about to give up free labor, on which their profits depended, without a fight--and that fight is now known as the Civil War.  No one today would argue for the reintroduction of slavery as a way to boost profits, no matter how poor the economy is.  Although having 40,000,000 people without health insurance is not as evil as enslaving and demeaning an entire race, it is certainly an evil.  So how can we talk about expense when the alternative is morally offensive?  Therefore, the scare tactic that would have us believe that universal health care is too expensive is not only false--see Point 3: in the long run it has to be cheaper--it is also wrong, since such coverage is a moral necessity.

The Affordable Care Act is not ideal, but it is a great improvement over the current system, and, being anything but a government takeover of the health care industry, was probably the best deal our President could have obtained.  It will be improved with time, along with our health.  In a few years, we will take it for granted and consider the old days without universal health care comparable to the days when there was no electricity, running water, Google, or smart phones.  In the meantime, I hope the four points of this essay will help guide you past the Scylla of Ted Cruzes and the Charybdis of Paul Ryans--beyond them the sailing might not always be smooth, but with a sensible captain and a healthier crew, we will move on.  

Those Flapping Flags

RAMANA MAHARSHI, CARTIER-BRESSON AND RAMANATOM

This article relates my brief correspondence with the photojournalist, Henri Cartier-Bresson, (1908-2004), and contains the images of three original photos which he sent to me.  (My name is Thomas Dorsett, Ramana/om is a pseudonym of mine, coined in honor of the great Indian sage, Ramana Maharshi, 1879-1950. The pseudonym is actually a three-way pun:  Ramana/tom, Ram an atom, and Raman at OM.)

PRELUDE

I consider myself to be a religious person; I am, however, unaffiliated with any religion, even unaffiliated with the term, "God."  Two interconnected aspects of life seem to me to be of the utmost importance, namely love and wisdom.   I believe that the paths of love are very well delineated in the Western religions, while the path of wisdom is best demonstrated by the East.  Ramana Mararshi was perhaps the greatest sage of the twentieth century, a representative of the ancient Hindu school of wisdom called advaita, non-duality. The teachings of this school contain perhaps the greatest insights into wisdom that has ever been attained.   Everything is connected; find the source of the ego and you will discover the peace which is at the root of your nature. This teaching has had a profound effect on me over the past half century.

Since I don't attend synagogue or church, I felt I needed some ritual, beyond daily meditation.  I decided to ritually commemorate Ramana Maharshi's samadhi, that is, his death, which occurred on April 14, 1950. It has been pointed out that Maharshi was a Christ-like figure who was born (December 29) shortly after Christmas and who died shortly after Easter. As an ardent lover of music, I decided to listen to a very profound piece of Easter music, Bach's St. John Passion, during a long meditation every year on what I call Ramana Samadhi, April 14th.   (I do not allow myself to listen to this music at any other time during the year.) During the approximately two-hour duration of this sublime music, I sit in meditation gazing at a little platform that contains a picture of the sage, some flowers and a stick of incense.

In preparation for my yearly meditation, I read a little booklet, The Last Days and Maha-Nirvana of Bhagavan Sri Ramana, which I obtained during a visit to Ramanashramam, Maharshi's ashram at the foot of the sacred hill of Tiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu, India.  (Literature by and about Mararshi can now be obtained online at the following link: sriramanamaharshi.org.)  The pamphlet contains two very moving accounts of the sage's death from a painful cancer.  (When Maharshi was asked whether he felt pain, he replied that there was pain, but no suffering, since he had completely transcended ego and its resultant bodily attachments.)  The devotees were overcome with grief at Maharshi's impending death; the sage felt compassion for them but never any trace of sorrow for himself.  Since he completely identified with the Self, he consoled them by saying he would always be with them, and thus, he in the deepest reality was not going anywhere.  Some of this is hard for us Westerners to accept, but we must be impressed by the fact that he never doubted or wavered at all since his conversion during a near-death experience at age 13. (See my article by googling "Ramana Maharshi's Near-Death Experiences" by Thomas Dorsett.)

One of the accounts contained this passage about the moment of the sage's death, which intrigued me:

...There was no struggle or spasm, no other sign of death; only that the next breath did not come.  For a few moments, people stood bewildered.  The singing continued. A french press photographer who had been pacing the road outside came quickly into the throng and asked a devotee at what precise moment it had happened.  The devotee, taking it to be journalistic callousness, answered brusquely that he did not know, and then, recalling Bhagavan's unfailing courtesy, gave as precise an answer as he could; and the photographer had thereupon declared that at that very moment an enormous star had passed slowly across the sky.  Many had seen it; even as far away as Madras. Many who were not present felt what it portended.

At a visit to an exhibition of the works of Cartier-Bresson at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, I was very moved by three photos.  One was the famous photo of Maharshi with a picture of Gandhi on the ashram wall, taken shortly before the former's death.  The other two were a photograph of Ramana Maharshi's funeral and a photo of the Dalai Lama.  Cartier-Bresson greatly admired Maharshi, and was visiting the ashram at the time of the sage's death.  The passage in the little book obviously referred to the great French photographer.

THE CORRESPONDENCE

During the 1990s, I was an active reader of and contributor to the British periodical, Self-Enquiry, which contained articles about Maharshi and his and other wisdom teachings.  I am a poet and wrote a poem commemorating the sage's death, and decided to include it in an article about Maharshi's samadhi. I also decided to write to Cartier-Bresson.  I asked him if he was the one referred to in the little book, and whether he really saw a comet slowly move across the sky at the moment of the sage's death.  I also rather sheepishly requested that if he would send me a copy of the funeral photo for the article I was writing, I would be delighted.  I doubted that the greatest photographer of the twentieth century would reply to an exceedingly obscure poet, but I was wrong.  I wrote to him in French; what follows is his reply:

(Note: I am unable as yet to put in the accents.)

Henri CARTIER-BRESSON
198, rue de Rivoli
75001 Paris                                                   Paris, le 10 Fevrier, 1998

                                                                      Monsieur Thomas DORSETT
                                                                      P.O. Box 1
                                                                      Perry Hall
                                                                      Maryland 21128-0001

Cher Monsieur Thomas Dorsett                                                                                                  

Je suis tres emu par votre lettre et le superbe poeme au sujet de la mort de Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, poeme qui me rappelle le boule de feu qui traversa longuement le ciel en silence au moment de sa mort.

Ci-joints les tirages qui vous interessent ainsi qu'un petit texte que j'ai ecrit sur le bohddhisme.

                                                   Tres cordialement,

                                                    Henri Cartier-Bresson

The letter was typed except for the Tres cordialement and the signature, which he wrote  in a large and beautiful hand.

My translation of the letter:

Dear Thomas Dorsett,

I was very much moved by your letter and the superb poem about the death of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, a poem which reminds me of the ball of fire which crossed the sky in silence at the moment of his death.

Enclosed are the prints you are interested in; also included is a little text which I wrote about Buddhism.

Very cordially,

Henri Cartier-Bresson.

This is the text about Buddhism:

L'anarchie est une ethique.

Le Bouddhisme n'est ni une religion ni une philosphie, mais un moyen qui consiste a maitriser son espirit afin d'acceder a l'harmonie et, par la compassion, l'offrir aux autres.

My Translation:

Anarchy is Ethics

Buddhism is neither a religion nor a philosophy, but is a means which consists of controlling one's mind in order to accede to harmony, and, by means of compassion, to offer that harmony to others.

A very beautiful approach to Buddhism!  I have framed this text, which along with the framed letter, has remained on my mantle piece ever since. The framed prints, however, I keep hidden away.

Also included in the letter were three original prints--that is, prints the photographer made himself, each with a handwritten number and the artist's name, proving that they were produced at Cartier-Bresson's studio.

Here are images of these masterful photographs:

What a kind, generous, wise man Cartier-Bresson was!

When I went to the printer to put the photo I wanted in the article I had written, he at first refused, since the photos were originals and could not to be duplicated.  After much pleading--Cartier-Bresson had sent them to me for use in an article, after all-- the printer finally consented.  The  article finally appeared in the magazine, Self Enquiry, Winter, 1998.

I am convinced that these three photos were the photographer's favorites among all those he took of Ramana Mahrshi and of the Dalai Lama. I thus have no doubt that the artist had indeed been "very much moved" by my letter. For this and other reasons, the correspondence from Cartier-Bresson and the prints are among my most precious possessions.  I have no idea what they're worth--maybe a little, maybe a lot--but their monetary value really doesn't matter; I will never give them up.