Support
Ask your question
Search
Visual Collection
Popular Questions
- Is organized religion the root of all ... latest post by Subzero | 200 responses
- Why don't schools teach us to form our... latest post by rwt | 20 responses
- When will someone ask STUDENTS what th... latest post by rwt | 10 responses
- Who Protects Us From Them? latest post by Subzero | 5 responses
- Will human beings really ever understa... latest post by Subzero | 47 responses
Popular Topics
Most active users
- Thai sean 1272 posts | member since Nov 11, 2007
- treeless 17 posts | member since Dec 9, 2011
- cyberworldukltd 16 posts | member since Feb 7, 2012
- thedoc 1381 posts | member since Sep 10, 2006
- GDiFonzo 10 posts | member since Nov 9, 2011
Profile of Audrey Kitagawa
It is the responsibility of each and every [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to counteract violence, anger, and hatred by developing our spiritual discipline and to be able to tap into our inner forces of love and to be able to share that love, express that love, to be that love itself. It also calls upon us to develop our values, our spiritual principles and practices in daily life that we may ultimately live life with loving kindness, compassion, understanding. And this is something that we all must do for violence, hatred, and anger begins within the individual and is made manifest and projected outward. So how a society behaves is ultimately represented by the collective consciousness of the individuals within it. So each person has responsibility to be able to counteract violence, anger, and hatred with love. Love is ultimately what makes life meaningful and makes life worth living.
I don't think it's a matter of right to [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I don't think it's a matter of right to consider human beings as more valuable than other life-forms. I think human beings often presume that human life is more valuable than other life-forms possibly because we relate to life-forms with which we can communicate with to have more significance in our ability to relate to them. Like for example, human beings relating to each other may have more significance than our being able -- our inability to talk to trees or rocks for example. But I don't believe that these other life-forms are less valuable. I think it is well recognized that every creature in creation has its role to play and has importance in any ecosystem in which it exists. So while we may consider insects to be pests to us, they play a very important role in being able to help the whole ecological life-form sustain itself as well as to continue to maintain itself. So in all aspects, life, whether in human form or non-human form, whether in a plant or animal or other kingdoms, would be considered to be very valuable. I think this whole aspect of man having been given dominion over the earth may create this presumption of our greater value or superiority in a way, but I think that that would be an incorrect presumption for us to have. Is it our right to be able to claim greater value over others, other life-forms? No. We don't have that right.
What we really need to look at is the free [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: What we really need to look at is the free market itself and see how we can really bring in the whole aspect of ethics and principles that will ultimately seek to regulate and bring about more social justice, economic justice, to the people around the world. So we really need to talk about economic systems that are ethically based, that will address issues of human rights, human justice, and to recognize the rights of people to be able to have access to food, to water, to shelter and not live in abject poverty while a few people live in extreme wealth. So what we really ultimately talking about is a way of moderating our behavior in the market, in the way we live our daily lives, so that we can have a world where this economic disparity is not so huge and where everyone can live life with dignity.
Economic globalization as it has unfolded in [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Economic globalization as it has unfolded in recent history is really addressing the aspect of market fundamentalism as we have witnessed the increasing deregulation of global markets. The effect has been not the consolidation necessarily of dictatorships but rather the consolidation of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people while the majority of the people are not beneficiaries of this market fundamentalism. So I would say what we are witnessing is not so much the consolidation of dictatorships as a consolidation of wealth into few powerful hands, and we have not yet described these few powerful people who are very, extremely wealthy as dictators yet. So in any event, within our common understanding of what dictatorship is, I would say that we need to really understand market fundamentalism as promoting a disparity in the economic and wealth balance in the world.
We have to understand the dynamics of gang [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: We have to understand the dynamics of gang violence. What is it that motivates people to belong to gangs? What role and function are gangs providing and fulfilling that our educational institutions, our cultural and societal institutions are not? And to the extent that gangs provide a sense of self-esteem, a sense of identity, a sense of belonging but in ways that are potentially damaging and violent and not productive, then we really need to see that that is not -- those, the gangs are not promoting the kinds of values that we want our children to have and yet what is picking up the vacuum in our children's lives that would promote their belonging to gangs in the first place? So this is really a societal condition, a social ill that needs to be studied and remedied and see how we can as a community provide our children with ways of enhancing their self-esteem, of empowering them in productive ways that value their lives, that enhance their lives, that gives them a sense of identity that's positive and that will ultimately nurture not only themselves but their families, communities, and the bigger global family. -- This also is not taken within the context of a void, because we also have to look at the entire economic, political, and societal structures that create these disparities of wealth and poverty, that don't allow for parents and families to be on board for their children because they have to, mothers and fathers have to work. Or to not even live with their children, to find jobs in other countries. So this is not something that takes place in isolation but is connected to a bigger picture.
Well, I think that as a black American, if [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Well, I think that as a black American, if you're a black American framing this question, I think you can answer it better for yourself as to why you would love and defend a country that you in turn may feel treats you like an unwanted child. But this whole aspect of loving and defending your country really is a matter of national identity and the ways in which we give our lives identification that in ways that are important to us, so love for country and being an American citizen may be more important than being identified as a black American or an Asian-American or being identified according to your race. And to the extent that it gives you a sense of pride to be able to love your country and to have identification with your country and to be able to value loyalty to your country, then those are values that you embrace, and to the extent that it also helps you to love your country and defend your country, then you would feel that this identification of yourself as an American in the totality of things becomes more important than being able to see how your country treats you as a black American.
There's a lot of ways that we can positively [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: There's a lot of ways that we can positively spend this money. We have critical issues that need to be addressed, that are in great need of funding. For example, the environmental crisis that we are in. We need to commit dollars to see how we can preserve and protect our environment. To develop alternate ways of using fuel so that we don't degrade our environment, that we don't exacerbate global warming. There is a worldwide epidemic of AIDS and other diseases that require the commitment of our dollars to study ways in which we can prevent these diseases from spreading. To develop appropriate drugs to be able to help, and medicines, to be able to help people who have these diseases. To develop infrastructures to deal with the consequences of these diseases that would befall millions on a massive scale. We also need to see how we can improve the human development and the human condition to address issues of abject poverty, to help promote the rights and the development of women, to be able to see how we can feed hungry children all over the world who die unnecessarily from malnutrition, from lack of access to clean water, to medicines that could easily prevent deaths. We also need to commit our dollars to education. So there are a multitude of critical issues that are facing us right now that need to have our funds be channeled in addressing these issues rather than towards the mechanisms and machineries of war that seek the annihilation, the destruction, the injury and annihilation of our species and our environment. And this is use of our dollars in ignorant ways, which we should give up and use our dollars in enlightened ways.
This is a very complex question, and it is [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: This is a very complex question, and it is grounded in a very, very long and complex history, but it has a lot to do with the political will of not only the countries that comprise the Middle East but the other countries that are not in the Middle East but have interests in the balance of power in the Middle East. It also speaks to the political will of the leadership of these countries in the Middle East as well as not located in the Middle East. It really speaks to the potential of a shift of power if these countries were to be divested of their respective positions. -- We do need to address the issues of justice, human dignity, and what is actually going on on the ground with the people actually live in the Middle East. Political will does not always translate to human justice, human dignity. And therein lies a significant problem.
As responsible global citizens, we really [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: As responsible global citizens, we really have to understand the commitment of our governments to war. For example, how is your government committing your tax dollars, to the mechanisms and machineries of war or to education, to public health? And, for example, in the United States, we have a disproportionate amount of our tax dollars going into our defense budget, and for 2007, we have allocated approximately $260 billion for our defense budget. And it comprises over 50 percent of our entire budget, whereas the funds that we have committed for education and for public health issues are substantially less, so it gives our government the huge capability to be able to go to war, fund war, and promote war. So we really need to look at the commitment of the government and the responsibility of the citizens to really understand how government is functioning and whether or not we are supporting the political leaders that promote war. And it also is incumbent upon the citizens to utilize the power of their vote and to be educated voters as to who they are putting into office and really study the platforms of the leaders that we put into office, and to see what their commitments are -- to peace or to war. And to see where their values lie as to how they would commit our tax dollars, where they would commit our tax dollars. So we have to be responsible to stop war at its very inception, and not promote the [audio ends].
Basic dignities that each human being [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Basic dignities that each human being deserves, be -- to have proper food, shelter, clothing as well as to be respected as an individual, as a human being, to be afforded certain freedoms, freedoms of expression, freedom of speech, to have certain rights accorded to them, the right to education, and there's a whole plethora of ways that we can say this dignifies the human being. Why do we have so many people go without them? This is a very complex reason why people are divested of their freedoms. It depends on the political situation of the country. Many of the disparities that are created by our current economic systems as well as our political systems and institutions that we must all be inspired to be able to see where these indignities may occur, because we basically want to be able to live life as just people that recognize and wish to honor and dignify the lives of not only human beings but of all living beings. And so to that extent we have much work to do to live life in a way that will help our brothers and sisters to be able to have these basic dignities, these basic rights, and also to be able to understand that our ability to do this helps to make us better human beings, to develop the compassionate heart, the loving heart for each other that will weep to see when indignities occur in our brothers and sisters around the world.
Lack of food, lack of access to resources [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Lack of food, lack of access to resources really, ultimately, are, is a political issue, a political question. We do have sufficient capability and capacity to feed everyone in the world. But it's really the politics of the country as well as the market that dictates ultimately food distribution and the processes of that distribution. So we have to look at ultimately the entire geopolitical as well as economic structure that we currently exist under in the world to see how we can have disproportionate populations that on the one hand spend billions of dollars trying to lose weight, reduce obesity, while on the other hand, you have greater numbers of people who are starving, who are malnourished, and children who are dying from lack of proper nutrition. So it's not a matter of capacity to feed everyone. We have that capacity. It's a matter of politics, and it's a matter of the current economic structure under which we live.
Well, I think that we'll always have to have [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Well, I think that we'll always have to have local governments who are closer to the people be able to create laws to legislate the problems that local governments and peoples face together. There are global challenges that we have faced that caused the creation of the League of Nations and now the United Nations. The question becomes has a governmental, a worldwide governmental organization been effective in being able to address these global challenges and issues. We've had 60 years of the United Nations to be able to work through these global issues and the question becomes has it been effective? It's very difficult to have an international organization alone that is not fully supported, that is not properly funded be effective. So we need to look at that as well. We also have the creation of regional organizations like the African Union, and we also have the European Union, so these are regional organizations that seek to address issues within their regions but also have a view towards their role on the international stage. So I think there is a concurrence of action as well as views, the local, the regional, as well as the international, that all act together. But I think there is an understanding that no one international organization can handle all of the global issues and that regional as well as local governments are also important to all work together to be able to address these issues that are local, national, and international.
The current economic system favors the [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: The current economic system favors the consolidation of wealth into the hands of a few, and therefore you're going to have some wealthy people who are also very powerful people. To the extent that our economic system allows this disparity of wealth and distribution of wealth and resources into fewer and fewer hands, then we can say that the current economic system favors the wealthy and favors the sustenance and maintenance of their positions of domination, control, and wealth. And that these wealthy people would not be supportive of dismantling the system that allowed them to achieve that state. So we really need to look at the reformation of our market fundamentalism that has really deregulated the free market and see how we can reform as well the financial institutions that also support the distribution of wealth into the consolidation of fewer and fewer hands at the expense of the many. So we need to look at reform so that the distribution of the world's resources and the wealth that is generated from it become more balanced.
This is only the use of language and so we [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: This is only the use of language and so we have to study how not only we use language, but governments use language, institutions use language to help to shape consciousness in ways that will create either the feeling of loyalty or the feeling of aggression towards the other. Language is very powerful in that it actually creates the other in our minds and it begins the process by which we ultimately dehumanize the other and can do horrible things to the other because we have stripped them of their human face and qualities. So we have to see how the creation of this language as a tool of propaganda is very important so that we can guard against these emotionally explosive languaging that helps us to demonize the other. So it's just a matter of languaging that we use to justify our behaviors on whichever side of the fence we may be on. But regardless of the language that may be utilize, each person has responsibility to ask him- or herself is this appropriate, is this proper, is this right, what is happening here, of which the use of language is manifesting a form of dehumanization for which we must guard against. When I was traveling through the marketplaces of Thailand, I saw banners that said Bush the Great Satan. The president of Iran has indicated the U.S. is a great Satan. The U.S., on the other hand, has characterized three countries as comprising the axis of evil, and so we have to see how language is used to create the other.
It is sad to say that civilians have now [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: It is sad to say that civilians have now become the commodities of war and there is a trend in warfare towards the intentional targeting of civilians. It is the fastest way to create fear in the hearts and in the minds of the populace. And it becomes a very powerful tool, fear becomes a powerful tool, in the hands of those who are perpetuating this violence, this death to control the populace. So it is, it can oftentimes be a matter of political expediency, the achievement of ideological ends, but it should never be tolerated, the death of innocent people and in situations of war the most vulnerable segments of the society, the women and children, offer [speaker here misspoke "offer" for "often"] suffer disproportionately from the effects of war. If we are to call ourselves civilized people, we have to see how ultimately we treat the most vulnerable segments of our population. And to the extent that we intentionally target the least vulnerable of us, we can never call ourselves civilized people. So we need to really see how we are behaving and what we are promoting, what we are tolerating, and to see the trends that we are moving towards in the rise of militarism and the rise of terrorism, all based on the creation of fear. And playing upon the fears of innocent people as a methodology of domination and control.
I don't believe that we've offered our [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I don't believe that we've offered our liberty for our security. I think our liberties have been taken away from us under the guise of security, under the rationale of security. But there is a danger of the loss of personal liberty under the guise of security that we must be on guard of. And we must understand that it becomes very dangerous when we create reasons for taking away personal freedoms and security. So for example, during World War II when the Japanese in the United States were interned in camps, and they didn't offer their liberty, their personal freedom for the security of the country. These were executive orders that were entered to move this class of people from Japanese ancestry into relocation camps as they were called. So the people who have been imprisoned, whether in secret prisons that President Bush has admitted to within the last few days or whether in Guantanamo Bay or -- and have not been charged, I don't think that they offered their liberty for security. Their rights have been violated, have not been honored, have not been respected. So this is a danger that we have to be aware of, the taking away of personal freedoms and liberty under the guise of security interests and concerns. We must be able to utilize and uphold the rule of law, especially at times when we are faced with grave challenges as a testament to our commitment to uphold the rule of law.
I think there is a bit of naiveté in this [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I think there is a bit of naiveté in this question. Because there's a value judgment being placed that the Western form of democracy really is, should be accepted with open arms by other people in the world. And while we may feel they're oppressed, perhaps it's not the case that the people in these other countries feel oppressed. It may be the case that they do not want to have our way of life become their way of life. The Western world, especially in the United States, has a very young history. These other countries have very long histories comparatively. In Iraq for example, you have the Euphrates and Tigris rivers which are mentioned in the Old Testament of the Bible. And it's a very ancient culture and civilization. The U. S. has been in existence, excluding the history of the indigenous people, which should not be excluded, but just utilizing the so-called birth of the United States within the last 200-plus years, it's a very young world. So we have much to learn about other cultures and other peoples, but it is really the imposition of our values, our perspectives, our culture, our way of life on others that may be more objectionable than if the understanding of each other's cultures and way of life were able to be understood in a way that is not imposed upon these other peoples, other worlds. So any imposition would not be welcome.
The whole notion of rights really addresses [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: The whole notion of rights really addresses the issue of what is ethical, what is moral, and therefore when we frame this question with respect to an economic system that is not in conflict with human and animal rights, we're really trying to address economic systems that really are well grounded in a moral, ethical foundation. The economic systems that we currently have, at least as we have witnessed within the last 50 years, has been what I would consider to be market fundamentalism, where there has been a deregulation of markets and allowing basically profit motives to really determine our behavior and our ability to have unlimited capacity to be consuming and to be acquiring wealth in ways that will not ultimately serve the common good, and therefore what we really should have is economic system that is well grounded within an ethical foundation that looks to supporting the common good not only of people but of animals as well as our environment. And so we would really need to reorient our whole thinking and our whole perspective as to how we can continue to live in the world together in a harmonious way not only with each other as human beings, but with our environment and with all forms of life, whether plant or animal.
Definitely corporate social responsibility [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Definitely corporate social responsibility is possible, but more than possible it is increasingly becoming a necessity as people are becoming more socially conscious and socially minded. They want to be able to have corporations exercise social responsibility as well. And will ultimately support those corporations and the products that they consume and buy, or not, depending upon whether or not the corporation ultimately will be able to present a positive image, be able to promote the common good of people around the world. So I think that corporations are recognizing this need to behave in socially responsible ways and to let the consumer know that they also have an aspect of the corporate funds which are used to promote poverty alleviation, promote education, promote activities that benefit youth, a variety of ways that corporations are increasingly demonstrating their connectivity to the communities in which their businesses are located and that they cannot divest themselves of having a responsibility to their communities and to their consumers to behave in ethical, responsible ways. Are there corporations who do not yet understand or embrace corporate responsibility? Yes. But I do believe that more and more corporations are beginning to see that the image that they create in the world has a lot to do with how they're able to demonstrate to the public their ability to be able to serve the needs of the members of the community as well.
Human society cannot be in balance and [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Human society cannot be in balance and harmony when there are so few women in positions of power and feminine values are so minimized in all areas. So it is not possible to have balance and harmony under these circumstances. It is very important therefore that for harmony and balance to exist that women must be given an equal place with men, because from the spiritual perspective, everything on the energetic plane must be in balance. The male and female, the positive, the negative, because our universal laws are based on harmony and balance, so whenever you have an imbalance of the male and female energies, especially the oppression of women, you're going to see the manifestation of this imbalance being made manifest on the feminine principle in creation, which is Mother Earth. And I believe that there is a connection between all of the problems that we are seeing being made manifest on earth with this imbalance of the male and female energies, and therefore if we are to experience harmony and balance in the earth realm, within our lives, within our planet, then we must be able to equalize the male and female energies. -- This means that we must increasingly give women the opportunity as well as women themselves taking the opportunity to step into the shoes and up to the plate of leadership roles in all segments of society, political, economic, governmental, and be able to accept their role of equal empowerment.
I think we really need to look at this [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I think we really need to look at this fundamental question of who purports to own the earth. And when we understand objectively that Africa is one of the world's wealthiest continents, it has everything that man desires, it's wealthy in gold, platinum, diamonds, oil, timber, then how is it that the world's wealthiest continent should also have the world's poorest people as well as most of the conflicts that are going on in the world today? In sub-Sahara Africa, over 100 million Africans face conflicts every day. So when we understand that there are huge interests in the world that compete for these natural resources for which Africa has been abundantly blessed, there is a connection that we have to make as to the poverty of the people, the wealth of the land, and be observant as to where this wealth is going. And since it's not going into the hands of the people in Africa, not the people in the villages, not the people in urban areas, who don't have sufficient shelter, clothing, or food, we have to ask where is the wealth of Africa going to. So we have to be able to see the connections of what is going on today in the world that has really oppressed the people of Africa, put them in position of extreme conflict, loss of lives because of conflict, and also ask the question why is it that the wealth of Africa is not going into the hands of the African people themselves.
People need to connect with each other and [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: People need to connect with each other and there is the advent of modern technology, like for example the Internet and the telephones that help us to stay connected in ways that are unprecedented and therefore allows the mobilization of the ordinary citizen, banding together to create tremendous power among the people that actually speak to the awakening of the global sleeping giant which is civil society itself, to be able to help each other to become informed, to understand action plans that they can undertake, that can help to promote their mutual well-being through actions of cooperation, and there is this ability now to link with people from all over the world that we did not have the capacity to be able to do before. But we are increasingly having the capacity to do and therefore people who are well intentioned, well meaning, who see the way that the world can be made a better place must take it upon themselves to connect with each other and to create those action plans and initiatives that going to help the human family, regardless of how the leadership of any given country may behave. And so to that extent we can actually drop our loyalty and commitment to national identities where there is a recognition that leadership in any given country may not be leading with wisdom or justice or an ethical base. And the people themselves who have increasing power to be able to have their voices heard through their positive actions.
It would be lovely to be able to live [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: It would be lovely to be able to live wherever you would wish to live, but people often face the constraints of many factors in their lives that do not allow them to live where they may wish. So it depends on each individual. Some people may want to live in a foreign country but may have family obligations and duties or may wish to live at home and their job requirements do not allow them to live at home. So this being a, a world where we are, we don't get everything we want, the ability to live where we want must take into consideration all the factors that one goes through in analyzing where it is best for one to live in any given circumstance in life. Many people from developing worlds would like to live in the developed world, but they have many difficulties. Some governments will not allow them the papers, the necessary documentation to be able to meet the requirements of the laws of the country to which they wish to move. So there are many factors that impede one's ability to be able to live where one may wish. But as a matter of opportunity, it would be lovely if we were all able to move about and go where we would want to. Is it possible? No, not in every situation, not in every circumstance. Is it appropriate? It depends from individual to individual. With respect to the laws and regulations of the laws of a country, they vary and are diverse, and laws are implemented and created by countries for a variety of reasons. So this actually is a very complex question even though it is posed in a very simple way.
I wouldn't say it's so much socially [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I wouldn't say it's so much socially acceptable, it certainly is not morally acceptable, but to the extent that people value their identity with things that are externally based, with possessions and expensive possessions, and we strive to have that be the definition of living well, then it becomes a prize, an asset, a goal that people strive towards so that their idea of success in life is wrapped around the trappings of wealth. To that extent, if everyone strives towards wealth as the ideal and the defining way in which you qualify as having a successful life, then we -- and we do so blindly without thinking about how our brothers and sisters are affected by that drive, the accomplishment of that goal -- then we have to be willing to say that this way of living, this goal in life must be modified. So it is a moral -- becomes a moral imperative that we change the materialistic paradigm as being the paradigm of life and what it means to be successful in that life. On some level, we do understand that it is not morally acceptable to have an overabundance of material things that are really luxury items when so many of the world's people go without the basic necessities like [audio ends].
The Africans who came over to the Americas [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: The Africans who came over to the Americas were very instrumental in helping to build the Americas. And it is the contribution of their labor that actually helped to move the country and develop the country in ways that would not otherwise have been possible. So the growth, the development, that we have seen, in the Americas would certainly have been slow but for the tremendous contribution of the African people. The Americas would also have been deprived of the rich cultural, spiritual heritage that the Africans brought with them and have been an enduring testament to the power of the African people to preserve their culture in many environments, even though they were taken out of Africa under the most degrading, heinous conditions. So we have much to be grateful to the African people for, for the, their tremendous contributions from which we've all benefited.
When laws themselves are unjust and laws [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: When laws themselves are unjust and laws themselves inherently violate morality, then you have to take a stand and be able to say that this law is unjust, this law is immoral, this law cannot be abided by. In those circumstances, we must fall upon our moral conscience to be able to guide us and to see how laws that are unjust and immoral compel us to stand up against its enforcement.
Aspect of universal human rights implies [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Aspect of universal human rights implies that it is supreme to values that may be particularized, whether in a religious organization or within the codification of any government or country that ultimately may be violative of those rights. And so therefore when we recognize that these human rights are fundamental, then we have to apply them regardless of whether these rights may be in conflict with certain religious values or traditional values. So we, if we recognize that you have a right to freedom, then whatever the laws of any, for example, the laws of any country may be that will ultimately infringe upon those rights, then we must recognize that the universal right to freedom is a higher right than the codification of any country's law that will seek to infringe upon that freedom. And the same would be true if there is a religious tradition that seeks to infringe upon that freedom. Then we would say the person's universal right to freedom is greater than the organized religion's ability to be able to divest that individual or the group of people of their freedoms.
Democracy as a political process is very [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Democracy as a political process is very important because it theoretically gives people their voice to be able to participate openly through a transparent process that is supposed to empower them. But the political process will only be as good as the people's responsibility to actually utilize it and to be engaged in it. So we have democratic governments where people are allowed to cast their votes, to have their opinions and their choices made known but often do not exercise their right to vote. So there has been growing apathy among the people to be able to exercise their political voice and their political participation as citizens. So we must know that any political process is only going to be good as the people who are engaged in it and with it and see it as their responsibility to be able to support it in ways that will continuously allow the constituents to be engaged and heard and to never divest themselves of their responsibility or abdicate their responsibility to be active participants. So the, what is ultimately democratic processes, political processes, must speak to the empowerment of the people and their continuous ability to never give up and to see that their opportunities are inherently created by themselves.
I think the more fundamental question that [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I think the more fundamental question that we need to look at is should there be even a difference between a holy war and just war that we should be concerned about as opposed to war itself. And the more basic question of is war ever just, is war ever holy and to see how our commitment to war, the necessity of war which is based in a consciousness of fear helps us again to language and use language in ways that justify our behaviors as correct and proper as -- and behaviors of others as incorrect and improper. But the more fundamental thing that we need to look at is whether or not war itself is ever a just, proper way to resolve differences. And to work through challenges and disagreements that we may have. And I think we need to make more of a commitment to understand and see the ways that we can work together cooperatively, join hands, and to divest ourselves of our investment in the machineries and mechanisms of war and put our energies behind learning, studying, and utilizing the ways of peace.
Oftentimes major transitions come with huge [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Oftentimes major transitions come with huge disruptions, and it is a huge challenge to be able to know how to move through these great disruptions. But it doesn't mean that these disruptions have to have anyone fall victim to it. Every transition, every challenge is an opportunity to tap into ourselves to become better people, more aware people, stronger people. So it doesn't have to victimize anyone. It does mean that we all have to take personal responsibility to keep ourselves empowered to be able to face transition, to tap into our creative resources, to be able to rise above any challenge. But does power ever relinquish power? No. People can relinquish power, but people who are in powerful positions may be very loath to give up their positions of power. They will seek to maintain and perpetuate their power, but there is always the capacity for transformation that takes place, not only within the hearts and minds of people in power, but within the hearts and minds of those people who are round people in power. So transformations that occur are meant to occur, but they need not occur in ways that are violent. They can occur in ways that are positive.
Certainly the people that are equipping [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Certainly the people that are equipping terrorists with bombs, with munitions, with small arms, with missiles. So who is profiting? You have to understand that war and the different forms that war takes, whether through the state, whether through non-state actors, that war is big business. But it is the kind of business which only a few profit hugely from but causes the untold suffering of millions of people. So profit in terms of the term of terrorism, in terms of war, is very, is an appropriate word, because someone definitely is profiting from the machineries and weaponry of war and we need to ask who, who is profiting and take it to the purveyors of the machineries and mechanisms of war. Do the terrorists themselves help to promote their cause by creating such high profiles when ultimately they are engaged in political processes to -- that are called peace processes. Then we see that the fundamental question must be asked is it appropriate to create legitimacy for criminal behavior, and should we give groups the signal that violence is a way through which they can gain legitimacy and to become empowered as, in, as part of legitimate political systems and organizations?
If by this question you mean corporations [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: If by this question you mean corporations that create the brands, I would say that we have to look at the interlocking connection between corporate interests and governments. The distinction between the two increasingly is becoming less and less ascertainable as the interests converge with each other. So ultimately the concern becomes will the corporate interests ultimately dominate and control governments? Historically, governments have been the arena within which morality, justice, ethics have been regulating, regulating body, and corporations have as their interest profit. So therefore we have to see the connection between these two interests, and are corporations ultimately more powerful than governments? I feel that there is an increasing incursion of corporate interests that have a controlling interest in government and that is what we need to be careful about. If by this question you mean brand names, the power of corporations to use public relations firms to mobilize the public sector, I would say that their ability to express themselves in ways that can mobilize people oftentimes seems to be more effective than government's ability.
Courage today is courage of yesterday. It [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Courage today is courage of yesterday. It is really a state of [inaudible], a state of -- internally as well as externally, it is the ability to keep getting up every day, facing the challenges in your life, facing challenges that are posed to our human family, facing challenges that are on the global arena and not giving up. It means that each day we must find our inspiration within ourselves, within the lives of others, to see the beauty, to live life with gratitude and to know that we have the capacity to lead a meaningful, fulfilled and fulfilling lives. If we would look for that which is positive, look for our purpose and meaning in life and to know that life itself has value and that we have to honor it, we have to respect it and to recognize that life in all forms is sacred. Living life with courage is having guts.
An Iranian nuclear bomb is not more [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: An Iranian nuclear bomb is not more dangerous than an American, Israeli, or French bomb. All nuclear bombs are dangerous. And they pose an inherent threat to all forms of life on this planet. The way that we frame the other to create the face of the other is really a propaganda tool to make it seem as if nuclear bomb in the hands of the other is inherently more dangerous than our having nuclear bombs. So it is really the way that we fashion the thinking of our own citizens to demonize governments and citizens of other countries that have access to potential of creating nuclear bombs that creates that consciousness of fear to make it seem as if it's all right for us to have nuclear bombs and for others not to. But the more fundamental question is, should we have nuclear bombs at all? And the rational answer is that no one, no country, should have nuclear bombs. The danger here is that nuclear weaponry used to be a weapon to create a check and balance, but that is not true anymore. So our ability to have nuclear weapons as a weapon of last resort are now seeing policies changing to creating ways of incorporating them as core to our [audio ends].
The implementation and enforcement of [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: The implementation and enforcement of international laws pose a different issue than the actual creation and existence of the international law itself. The creation of the law is there to address, insure, and protect the rights of the underprivileged or what is individual or organizations or institutions or governments to be able to say that these rights are important, these rights need to be protected, these people need to have their rights be, be afforded rights and privileges. But the question of whether or not they are enforced and implemented is another question. So it is the case that we have many international laws that are not enforced, that are not implemented. To that extent, it can add to discouragement, but that does not mean that the laws themselves are not important or that the laws themselves should not be there. Today we have the International Criminal Court, it is seen as a hopeful sign towards the implementation as well as enforcement of international laws that deals with issues of human rights and human rights violators. So that is an important public international institution. We also have the World Court that addresses the issues confronting governments and making, making decisions regarding the rights of governments and on the international stage. So we do have enforcement institutions, institutions that seek to implement these laws. So, but that doesn't mean that we can't try to do better, that we should not also exercise more of our political will to ensure the implementation and enforcement of international laws. But we certainly do have a whole panoply of international law.
To the extent that the state or any [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: To the extent that the state or any embodiment of groups that are part of political processes are committed to the paradigm of dominance, power, and control can be the perpetrators of violence, whether it's through the declaration of war or through perpetuating or perpetrating acts of terror as a way to become engaged in the political process. There is a nexus between using violence as a way to ultimately wield power. And to the extent that we in peace processes engage perpetrators of violence and legitimize criminal acts, we can see how we really have to look more deeply at the commitments that we have to what I would say now is the old paradigm of domination and control and the need for us to move into the new paradigm of wisdom and knowledge. Yet we should not tolerate the use of violence as a way to continue to promote and adhere to paradigms of control and domination. And increasingly our higher consciousness must call all of us to reflect more deeply how we must all engage in the shift of our consciousness towards the [audio ends].
I don't know that people are criticizing [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I don't know that people are criticizing China for its rapid industrialization as perhaps envying China for its economic progress, which has been substantial and has the potential of creating a huge superpower that will ultimately shift the whole geopolitical structure of the world. And so China as an economic giant certainly poses a threat to countries that currently may be enjoying powerful positions in the world. That certainly will change with the rise of China. So we can see where some of the so-called criticism of China may be coming from insofar as its economic status as a economic superpower poses a threat to the current countries that may hold that position at this time, but may not be holding that position in the very near future. This is a very complex question insofar as we have to look at the trade issues and how countries like, for example, China actually help to keep other so-called powerful countries afloat. So when we look, for example, at the United States, we see that to be -- Japanese and the Chinese actually are helping to keep that, the economy of the U.S. alive through the infusion of the spare cash in the purchasing of the T-bills, U.S. T-bills. So it also goes to the issue of trade and the tremendous [audio ends].
Well, as it turns out, economic [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Well, as it turns out, economic globalization, market fundamentalism is like a form of colonialism. In that it has created conditions that allow powerful countries to go into less powerful countries but have vital resources to extract their resources and really relegate the people who actually sit on the resources to positions of slavery and forced labor. The utilization of them as cheap labor for the extraction of these resources that ultimately do not benefit them but continue to relegate them in an impoverished state and enriches the few very elite and powerful who benefit from the labor of people in these less powerful but resource-rich countries. So the market fundamentalism that we see going on in the world today has really turned into a modern form of colonialism. Also we have to see the vast military powers that are able to impose their policies on other countries as a form of imperialism and that ultimately can relegate the other countries and the people of other countries where their power is exerted, ultimately translates into a kind of colonialism because of the huge economic ramifications that these policies have. Policies of domination and control. And [audio ends].
Freedom is a state of mind as well as a [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Freedom is a state of mind as well as a state of being. We have seen the lives of inspired people who have been jailed in prison, who have had their actual physical being limited, their ability to move about, their ability to earn a living, many forms of degradation and imprisonment. And yet within their minds they have found ways to live inspired lives in the face of great oppression. And in that regard, have proven themselves to be freer than many people who have no limitations on their physical being and yet are in prison within their minds, debilitated within their minds. So freedom is a state of mind, as well as a state of being. So it's not a matter so much of relative to where you are in the world as to where you are within yourself first and foremost. And how you're able to meet life's challenges no matter how oppressive the external environment is. If you understand that your state of mind is as important as your state of being. So the sense of freedom is relative to not only where you are in physical sense, but where you are in a consciousness sense. Where you are in a state of mind.
First and foremost, your conscience should [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: First and foremost, your conscience should decide because you will always know whether how you're behaving is appropriate under the circumstances or not. And one's own sense of "freedom" to be able to do as you see fit does not mean that you have the right to infringe on someone else's responsibility or take away some else's freedoms, the freedom to life itself. So to the extent that your behavior may harm another, hurt another, infringe upon the right of the other, you have to not allow your own personal freedom to cause harm to someone else or to cause harm to society in general. A mature, a spiritually mature person is able to look beyond their own self-interest towards the interest of the society as a whole, towards the empowerment, the benefit of someone else. So you develop in ways that help you to grow in the growth of your compassionate heart, your loving heart, your understanding heart. So you understand that your role in life is not only, is not to live it as a self-centered, self-interested human being, but to live life as a fully developed spiritual being that is loving, is kind, is interested in the welfare and the benefit of others. So it is ultimately a life lived selflessly rather than selfishly, a life that is interested in the enhancement of the lives of others and not just the enhancement at your own life at the expense of others.
Education in and of itself is very valuable, [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Education in and of itself is very valuable, which is why we feel that it is a fundamental right for every child to be educated, because education not only gives you the basics of learning how to read, to write, understand math and sciences, but it also opens up our minds and our perspectives and helps us to be able to become and prepare ourselves to really become global citizens in our ability to have understanding of different people, different cultures. So education is a very valuable thing to have, and to the extent that you have a child that can, that is already creative, that can enhance the child's creativity, and to the extent that you have a child who is not as creative, then you at least are equipping that child with basic skills. So in any event, I see that education is an important thing to have in life, but with respect to educational systems, you have educational systems that are run well, you have educational systems that are run poorly. But whether the educational system is run poorly or run well, I think it does not take away from the value of education itself as a way of being able to help people to grow and expand and to enhance whatever gifts and talents and abilities that they inherently have.
Our wealth ultimately creates a disparity. [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Our wealth ultimately creates a disparity. When the, when we understand, for example, that wealthy developed countries utilize the majority of the world's resources to support their lifestyle, someone has to pay the price for that wealthy lifestyle. Ultimately, if we were all to maintain, for example, the American dream, the question becomes is it possible for everyone in the world to live according to that standard of life. And it is -- the earth cannot sustain that standard. So the question becomes how do we equalize the resources of the world so that we can fairly share in what is there as well as have the mindfulness of how the resources are being utilized, because the resources of the world are not continuously renewable. And therefore we have to be willing to change our way of thinking, our way of living, so that we can create an equality, a balance in how people live their lives, and again it goes back to the way globalization and market fundamentalism has unfolded within the last few years in a way that creates this disparity, huge disparity, in the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many.
I don't believe that some lives are worth [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I don't believe that some lives are worth more than others. I believe that all lives are worthwhile, that all of life is sacred, and therefore we must honor and respect each life and all life forms as sacred. So there is no life form that is greater than or worth more than any other, and this is part of the sacred turn in life to be able to understand that from the spiritual perspective there is no high nor low in spirit and that life itself is sacred, is valuable, and ought to be honored and respected. So I don't believe that there are lives that are considered worth more than others. All of life is worthwhile, valuable, and sacred.
I think [next two words unclear] with [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I think [next two words unclear] with respect to this question, we really have to see what is going on with respect to that particular country. I personally favor having the local economies prosper and supporting local economies so that you have communities that are self-sustain, that address the needs of the people, bring in the voice of the people, bring in the contributions of the people, and see how these local communities can be self-sustain. So to the extent that you have micro-finance projects that can assist the local people in that regard, I think that that is a very positive way to go. Understand, though, that micro-finance as well as macro-finance both have experienced problems. With respect to macro- finance, I think for the development of the country as a whole, we need to look at the institutions that actually do these financing projects because the financial institutions that have created this whole aspect of financing with huge debt loads that ultimately saddle the country in a way that does not allow the country to get out of debt and actually relegates the countries into positions where they're not able to get ahead needs to be examined very carefully and reformed as well.
When we understand that women represent 50 [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: When we understand that women represent 50 percent of the world's population, there is no rational reason why women should be so disadvantaged, and we really need to transform that disadvantage because you cannot oppress, suppress, repress 50 percent of the world's population and expect that we are to progress positively as a human family. The current power structures do not support the advancement of women, but increasingly women themselves must step into the shoes of their own empowerment. And the rise of the women's movement has certainly helped women to advance, but we also need to have men open, hold open the doors for women to walk through. We definitely need to have reformation of people's thinking and perspectives, but governments that do not sign treaties that seek to eliminate discrimination against women ought to be held accountable for their failure to do so, and organizations, whether they're in the form of religious organizations or other political, societal, economic institutions that do not treat women equally, also need to be reformed. It is a mind-set that locks women into certain behaviors, that some would say are determined by biology alone, that ultimately seeks to regulate the role of women, but we -- our role goes well beyond that of just bearing children.
What we need is a commitment to the ways of [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: What we need is a commitment to the ways of peace, a commitment to find peace within ourselves, to be living in peace as a society, as a human family. Nonviolence must be a value that we embrace as a way of living together because our world is full of challenges. The challenges grow greater by the day. So we must be able to develop ways as a conscious, evolving, dynamic species to find the ways that we can live together cooperatively in harmony and to make a commitment to peace and the ways of peace whether it's through dialogue, whether it's through community building, whether it's through creating positive partnerships to address these global challenges. So we mustn't create the face of the enemy, the face of the other as a way of thinking that we can resolve differences through armed conflict. So it is a transformation of consciousness that we need within our hearts, our minds, and ourselves as well as a transformation of consciousness within whole communities, societies, countries, and globally, that we must understand that our technologies have brought us to the state where we can potentially annihilate all forms of life on this planet. And therefore the level of aggression that we can put ourselves into that would create the annihilation of every living thing on this planet makes our commitment to peace all the more important. So we must move out of the consciousness of fear to the consciousness of peace as a commitment that we each must make individually and collectively as a way for our survival, a way that we can flourish and grow as a human family.
I don't think that we can say that if there [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I don't think that we can say that if there are no longer drugs in the world there wouldn't be any more suffering, because drugs per se are not the cause of our suffering. Also perhaps this question goes to and needs to distinguish between drugs that are beneficial and are prescribed and legal as opposed to drugs which are illegal and to which addictions may be incurred. But, so we need to distinguish illicit drugs from drugs that really have beneficial effects. And usage. With respect to whether or not addiction is not really about drugs, but is really about relationships that human beings form with one another, addiction is really about the relationship a person has with him- or herself and the ways in which a person understands himself and matures within himself, is able to cope with the challenges of life without abdicating responsibility and running into crutches, whether it's alcohol abuse or substance abuse of any kind, whether it's creating addictions of gambling, so all of these manifestations of addictive behavior really speaks to an impairment of the relationship of the self to the self. And so the individual really needs to come to better comprehension and understanding of him- or herself. So this would be true whether or not drugs are there, illicit or otherwise, and it is part of the sacred journey to know yourself.
Our responsibility with respect to this AIDS [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Our responsibility with respect to this AIDS issue is huge because AIDS is not only Africa, AIDS is everywhere. And the consequence of this epidemic is going to be huge because it's going to have many implications with respect to the many orphan children, with respect to the death of people who hold positions as teachers, as parents, as police officers, in every sector of employment, and these people are also our brothers, our sisters, our mothers, our fathers, our children, our relatives, so they're all part of the human family that is suffering from a disease that is going to have far-reaching consequences for all of us. So it is a huge responsibility that governments as well as everyone on earth has to start seriously looking at and start taking responsibility for and planning for, and we mustn't be taken by surprise since we've known that this disease, and the consequences of this disease, for many years now, but we also have to mobilize the political will to be able to implement those systems and structures and institutions that would help us to be able to deal with the consequences of this disease.
The heroes in my life have been those who [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: The heroes in my life have been those who not only shaped my life but who also helped to elevate my own life by helping me to understand my purpose in life. And my greatest hero is my spiritual mother, my spiritual guru, who passed away in 1992, who by all appearances seemed to be a very ordinary human being, but gave the most powerful spontaneous expositions on the divine that one could ever have the privilege to hear. It was like drinking the sweet nectar of life, and at every expression, every word that came from her mouth, every transmission that came forth from her was something so profoundly sacred and to be able to understand that the power of this person transmitting, giving, showing in daily life how love in action can move people's lives, transform people's lives, framed everything for me with spiritual eyes and helped me to appreciate the great spiritual masters and the ordinary people who are able to demonstrate by the actions of loving kindness in daily life that these are extraordinary people clothed in the ordinariness of everyday life who are heroic by how they live. And every action is love in action. And people who are able to live their lives like that are my heroes. There are of course great humanitarians, people who have shown us how we can live life with great [audio ends].
This depends on which side of the fence [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: This depends on which side of the fence you're on, because some people may argue that these patent laws are designed to help promote creativity and innovation, because if you have spent years trying to develop your invention, that you would want to be able to have some reward for the creativity that you have provided in your invention and in your innovation that ultimately will benefit many people. So laws are designed to help promote creativity and innovation, and the people who have designed these inventions, and so if you are in the shoes of the inventor, of the creator of your invention, then the question becomes would you want to have, avail yourself of those laws and regulations that would protect your proprietary interest in your invention. On the other hand, you are addressing this question as a way of seeing it as restraining creativity and innovation. So I think you have to be able to step into the shoes of the inventor and the creator of the innovation and to see how you feel with having laws in place to protect your invention, and then see how this question would sound as you're standing in those shoes. And I think it's important to be able to step into the shoes of the other, in the formulation of not only this but other questions as well. So we can see how our questions are framed with a particular bias or interest.
There's an ecological limit to economic [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: There's an ecological limit to economic growth, as we currently are experiencing. However, there are alternative ways that we can continue to grow economically that need not be ecologically damaging, and they need not deplete our resources, our natural resources. We can, for example, see how we can more and more utilize solar energy, alternative forms of energy. This'll require us to give up our mind-set to be committed to fossil fuels. So there is a plethora of ways that we can begin to investigate, begin to create technologies for -- in fact, technologies currently exist that would help us to continue to grow economically but not in ways that are ecologically damaging. And I think there is a growing awareness of the necessity to be able to do this. So I'm inspired by the incredible genius that exists in the world that's really taking a serious look at how we can create change in ways that will ultimately promote new economic growth but in an ecologically sustainable way.
For every beneficial use of technology, [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: For every beneficial use of technology, including the Internet, there is also the possibility of misuse and abuse. I think that to the extent that your use of the computer actually keeps a record of what Web sites you have looked into, what your areas of interest are, that there are cookies that can be put on your machine, and the advent of this electronic age actually does keep track of our interests more and more. I think one of the disturbing things that we have seen about the Internet is its use to exactly create a form of vigilantism that is being seen in communities that wield, can wield power through the Internet to force people to behave in ways that conform to the societal norms of the community in which they live. To punish people, to marginalize people with whom they do not agree in terms of their behavior, and so there is tremendous misuse that can take place. The Internet can also, and modern technologies can also be very invasive in the private lives of people. So we have to be aware that for every positive invention that is created, there is also the dark side of that invention that the mind people can create these ways of misuse that ultimately may need to be regulated. So that people are not able to misuse it in ways that are very detrimental to the rights of our privacy.
I don't think this is an appropriate analogy [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I don't think this is an appropriate analogy since technology is not in relationship to us in a way that humans are in relationship to their pets, one of nurturing and caring and taking care of them. I think technology is still very impersonal and the -- we are not being cared for and nurtured and fed and cuddled and taken care of by robots, for example. So we -- this would not put us in the same position as household pets. On the other hand, technology has really become a source of creativity, that it has opened up possibilities that were not imaginable within a few years ago, and yet now can provide a lot of excitement and a lot of imagination as to the growing possibilities to utilize technologies to open up the field of human experiences as well as understanding of how laws, natural laws, work and how we, through our deeper understanding of natural laws, can increasingly improve technology, create new technologies too that will really help us to expand and to grow and to test the limits of our imagination and creativity. So I don't think that we're in danger of becoming lazy and less curious, but in fact the opposite may be proving true, that our curiosity has been actually piqued and is increasing because of the potential for possibilities that exist within an infinite field of possibilities that we are [audio not available] to grasp more and more.
This question assumes that the people within [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: This question assumes that the people within the communities are willing to exercise restraint and not practice unbridled consumption and consumerism of material goods and resources in a way that is wasteful, in a way that is not necessary, and that we are willing to give up as a goal to strive towards to have unbridled access and use of our natural resources and of materials. So the individuals within these communities must be willing to change their way of thinking to embrace different values, values that will not speak about the goal of life being to acquire more and more things, but rather to be able to understand that our resources are here for everyone, and that we must exercise personal discipline so that we don't consume more than we need and be willing to share what we have with each other and to create those social and political policies that will help to make our communities and our world a more just and sustainable place to live.
[beginning portion of audio not [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: [beginning portion of audio not available]You have stays clean. We have to become more mindful not to pollute our water, to be able to regulate industries that pollute water and waterways with chemicals. So we have to be stricter about not only creating laws but enforcing laws that will ensure that this valuable resource is kept clean. Conflict, whether it's about water or any other natural resource, has to be examined in light of whose interests are being served by creating conflict over resources. Conflict is not necessary, nor should we anticipate it as an inevitable consequence in being able to share, distribute, and allocate natural resources. The concern that I have with this question is the underlying presupposition or almost an acceptance that conflict becomes part and parcel of the distribution of resources. And while that certainly has been historically -- especially within our recent history -- borne out, I think we need to have an increasing commitment to not accept that as an inevitability and to find ways that we can understand how to share natural resources in a way that will celebrate our ability to cooperate with each other in sharing the necessities of keeping our life-forms alive.
I think it would depend on what that new [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I think it would depend on what that new technology is. Because we have, for example, new technologies that we never had before, technologies of bioengineering, technologies of food engineering, nuclear energy. So we can say that for example that nuclear energy is an approved way to have more energy distributed and accessible to millions of people, but we have not yet understood how to properly deal with the waste from nuclear power plants, that may have tremendous negative implications and consequences for people who may be subject to nuclear waste dumping or to have nuclear energy sources go into meltdown like in Chernobyl, and we also have to understand how food engineering may be taking us to realms that we have not fully understood even though it may potentially feed millions of people whether or not the quality of the food really is life- enhancing, life-sustaining, or may be incompatible with our biological needs and may actually damage our bodies, and whether or not the different ways of bioengineering can actually enhance our lives or if there are side effects or consequences that were never contemplated or unintended that come about. So I think we have to understand more what this new technology is and the potential of it and the implications of it before we can talk about whether or not there is value.
First and foremost, I think we need to [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: First and foremost, I think we need to educate every citizen about taking responsibility to join hands with others within their communities and across the world. To see how we as private citizens can prepare ourselves for this eventuality. I think what crises like Hurricane Katrina has shown is that we must not fall into the complacency of thinking that governments will have all the answers. And that more and more as we face the potential of failed states or states' inability to be able to meet the challenges that are on the horizon, whether it's through natural disasters or other crises, that the ordinary citizen will be called upon to step into the shoes that may have once been filled by governments. And therefore, it is incumbent upon us to educate ourselves and each other as to what we can do to be able to meet these challenges and learn how to overcome them and find creative ways to deal with them. We also need to do a lot of planning now because many of these challenges we know are there and we mustn't be in denial about our capacity to be able to face them, deal with them, and to know that they are upon us. But I also feel that the creative, creativity of the human will, the human heart, the human mind to be able to understand this and to find ways to deal with it will also rise to meet these challenges.
Unfortunately, television has become a, more [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Unfortunately, television has become a, more and more a powerful tool for entertainment. And so it has not been utilized in a way that enhances critical thinking among people, but has in fact been accused of dumbing down people because it finds its value in entertainment. So we are losing our ability to see television as a way to invoke critical thinking and analysis, as a way to probe into and inquire into deeper issues, to be able to foster creativity in how to view and think about alternatives in global crises that we face, and has become more and more sensationalize, and also speaks to the alienation, profound alienation, that we find among people with all of these so-called reality TV shows that have become very invasive into the lives of people, become more and more willing to have this invasion take place as a, really a manifestation of alienated people's need to feel a connection to others in this very distorted way. So the more we entertain ourselves by sitting in front of the TV, it also allows us to cut communication and interaction with live people in our lives, and to that extent, we find a, an incredible misuse of television.
I think we have to understand more fully who [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I think we have to understand more fully who is profiting from this kind of engineering, and why it -- is it that this whole industry really is without regulation, and why is it that these crops that are planted in the open air, once released cannot be controlled and are not controlled and have the potential of cross fertilization and really polluting these original crops in a way that can be harmful to us. So the fact that there is no regulation or even where they may have been regulation prohibiting the import of genetically modified foods now giving way in the regulations, like for example in Europe and -- that one time prohibited the entry of the genetically modified foods but are now allowing it into their countries. We have to understand the economic, political interplay between these very powerful companies not control seeds, control the genetic engineering of food crops and see how they're intertwined and really come to a better understanding of who is being served and who is profiting by the inability to actually establish regulations and controls over genetically engineered food crops.
Science is about that body of knowledge that [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Science is about that body of knowledge that seeks to understand the natural laws which govern our lives, which govern the natural order of the universe, of the planets. And so as we understand natural laws and began to understand more and more how natural laws function, then until such -- we, is -- really speaks to our evolving understanding, that we are not in a state of fully comprehending natural laws and how they work. But it is an open field of discovery. And so long as our full comprehension is not there, there's a subjective element involved in interpretation. And in our understandings and different understandings that we may have at different points in time, at the different points of comprehension of natural laws. And so although the science is supposed to be objective insofar as relating what the facts of the natural laws are, our comprehension is evolving, is developing, is growing, and to the extent that we have not fully understood these natural laws, the subjective element of interpretation of them continues to exist.
You can become an advocate as well as an [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: You can become an advocate as well as an activist to raise awareness among your friends, within your community, about this issue of global warming. You can yourself become involved in actively pursuing those projects and those campaigns that seek to stop global warming. You can encourage everyone to see Al Gore's movie, " An Inconvenient Truth," and to sign up for those initiatives that are listed at the end of his movie. You can mobilize political campaigns to engage with leaders in a way that clearly tells them, tells them that we no longer want to adhere to policies that accelerate global warming and exacerbate this problem. That we have to question why our leaders did not adhere to the Kyoto Protocol and why we do not promote policies and programs that actually look to alternative ways of energy consumption, usage, that will ultimately stop global warming that would be ecologically friendly, ecologically sustainable. We also have to look at why we are not willing to get off of fossil fuels. So we have lots of homework to do and, but there's a lot of action that we can undertake. We don't have to feel helpless and victimized by the situation. It is our opportunity to hear the voice that calls us to action, and it is within our powers to be able to rise to the challenge and to see how we can mobilize our communities, ourselves, our political leaders in ways that will create a different trajectory that our society, our world, is moving towards. And it need not be a trajectory of disaster for the world and for ourselves.
It is true that the 300, approximately 300 [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: It is true that the 300, approximately 300 million people in the United States constitute the world's minority and yet utilizes over 30 percent of the world's natural resources. This kind of consumption is not sustainable if we were to apply that to the population bases that exist in China and India. So if China and India were to consume resources in proportion to their population base in the same way that the Americans are consuming natural resources, we would all be in big trouble, because there is no way that the world can compensate for this huge resource consumption. It is incumbent therefore on these countries as well as the citizens of the countries to adopt alternative technologies that would not deplete our resources, to start thinking collectively about how we can change our mind-sets and our values so that it would become a value to preserve our resources and to see how we can use alternative forms of renewable energy to meet our needs. But what we must not do is to hurtle blindly on a path of unbridled consumption without regard to the impact that we are having on the depletion of our resources and relegate our future populations to a state of destroying their ability to continue to survive because all of our resources would have been depleted and destroyed. So this is a critical moment in time where we really have to reshape our values, our goals, and our thinking.
Architecture actually is an exciting field [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Architecture actually is an exciting field because it has to not only understand the present needs of the people and people's relationship to the environment but also anticipate the future, the future needs of people in relationship to the environment. And architecture has a very important role to play in being able to address the needs and concerns of people in any given point in time. So before we had a greater awareness about the needs of physically challenged people, buildings were not built in a manner that was friendly to their use of public spaces. But increasingly, we have laws that compel buildings to be built to be user-friendly for people who are physically challenged. Also, we have architects who understand that we are in an environmental crisis, and so really seriously consider how we can make buildings and living structures ecologically friendly with solar paneling for example. So I believe that architecture and architects, who are highly evolved in terms of their ability to understand the needs of people and the need of people to be copacetic with their environment in a way that's ecologically sustainable, actually have a very important role to play in our present as well as our future.
The future is one that is filled with peace, [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: The future is one that is filled with peace, with harmony, with people living together in cooperation with each other, honoring and affirming the dignity of each person, recognizing the sacredness of life and treating all life as sacred. It is a future filled with beauty because it is unmarked by the ugliness of war, and it is a future where everyone has stepped into the fullness of their own potential and their own beauty, to know what it is to be fully human and to understand their connection to the divine and to know the purpose of why they have come to take on human life and to understand that we are all perfect children of God, immortal, eternal, and already in God's light. And with that enlightenment would understand that we cannot but live life any other way but in ways that are in alignment with the universal laws of love, peace, harmony, and joy. And that is the future that I would like to see. And it is a future that I firmly believe is in existence as the definite possibility.
The ubiquitousness of mass media is both an [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: The ubiquitousness of mass media is both an opportunity [audio not available] well as a problem. I think more and more mass media has to move in a direction that will look to creating a code of ethics that will help provide guidelines, that will not allow them to create distortions of what is being reported and to understand the importance of reporting things in a manner that is accurate and that is truthful. The mass media helps us to, on the other hand, take us out of isolation, to keep us informed about what is going on with peoples in different parts of the world or within our own community, so it provides an opportunity for us to learn more about our world, about each other. But when we have mass media that is distorting, that is grounded in this aspect of sensationalism for profit motive and to increase sales, then it becomes problematic. When we make the high circulation, the high viewership the price of truthful, honest reporting, then it becomes an invasion in a way that we should not welcome. So mass medium can be an opportunity for connection, growth, and expansion of our own worlds into the bigger world, and it can also become problematic if it is not utilized in ethical, principled ways.
Well, actually, the human brain has actually [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Well, actually, the human brain has actually been hooked up to machines and computers as a way of mapping how brains work. So we have brain scanners, we have different technologies already that hook the human brain up. But I think this question really is trying to articulate what is the ramification of being able to have the human brain be in a methodology of being replicated and interpreted in its subjective as well as objective functions that may have implications for our lives. So is the possibility directly there? Yes. And I think the deeper question is what's the ramifications of having technology be able to interpret and replicate the function of the human brain in a way that may actually divest ourselves of our humanness and our ability to -- as well as have the privacy of our brain function.
First of all, I think we need to make [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: First of all, I think we need to make education a priority and to ensure that we commit our funds towards education and to be able to understand that education is a way for children to be able to grow beyond their own worlds, to embrace other worlds, to develop those skills that will help them to be able to move in the world in ways that their lives can be enhanced with better information, better knowledge, to understand math, science, reading, and to be able to utilize modern technologies. These are all opportunities that children must be provided so that they would be able to also understand what it means to have the value of information and education. It is really an avenue for children to be able to grow. And I remember when I went to college, my mother said to me that education is the one thing that no one can ever take away from you, so having received an education is yours, but education is not something that ever stops. We learn and grow every day that we live, but there is a level at which we ought to [audio ends].
One's sense of loneliness and isolation [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: One's sense of loneliness and isolation really comes from the intimacy and connectivity that you feel to others. So that if you don't feel intimacy with the people you are with, you would feel alone even though you're surrounded by many. There are people who grow up in large families and feel very alone because they don't feel the heart-to-heart connection, the intimacy, with the people that surround them. So they feel very alienated. Intimacy requires some heart-to-heart connection, the sharing of yourself with another, and the sharing of the other with you in ways that are authentic, in ways that are honest , in ways that reinforce trust, that allows you to open up with each other. So it is this kind of intimate connection that takes us out of our feelings of isolation and loneliness and helps us to feel this profound connection, meaningful connection, valuable connection that ultimately comes from hearts that are able to love each other, nurture each other, to pay attention to each other, to listen to each other, and to be present for each other. Not just to be there, as for example, responsible parents who in fulfilling their responsibility work hard but are absent from the lives of children and will be able to put food and clothing, which are essential in meeting the child's needs, but also must not neglect the needs of the child to be heard, to feel loved, to feel paid attention to. So these are other qualities that make life and living very important.
First of all, I would say that we are in the [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: First of all, I would say that we are in the information age as opposed to the knowledge age. And to the extent that we are able to increase access to technology, not only via the Internet and the computer by, but also the telephone and cell phones among low-income communities, we can help to put them on par with the developing world, the developed world, and give them some way to be able to compete in the world and not keep them in isolation. These technologies actually help them to understand the developed world and the ways that the developed world stays in touch with each other, uses technology to improve access to information, make decisions, learn about new technologies, learn about market economies, learn about the different Wall Streets, the Nikkei, the different commodities, and how they're traded, so it gives tremendous information to the developing world as well as learning about the, the cultures, about the lives of other people in other parts of the world, so it literally takes them out of isolation and brings them into the wider human community. I think that is very important because that fact alone expands consciousness and awareness into other realms and gives them different perspectives and also equips them with a way to be able to negotiate in the world as citizens who are able to utilize the advantages of technology to come into the bigger world.
Returning back to my spiritual guru who I [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Returning back to my spiritual guru who I called Divine Mother. In 1992 before she passed away, she asked me to carry Sri Ramakrishna's light to the world for her, and this was a call to have me live life bigger than what I had thought was possible. To live life in a way that was very different than what I was living at the time as a practicing attorney. And by her call for me to do this, to go out into the world for her, carrying spiritual messages to people, became my tree, became the call to live life in a way that was far bigger than I had imagined possible. So in the greatest moments of silence and quietude that I am able to experience is a very deep and profound gratefulness that I feel towards her for honoring me with this task that compelled me to move in ways that stretched me and helped me to grow. And may we all be blessed to have such people in our lives that call us to become greater.
Because I believe that public relations [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Because I believe that public relations firms have firmly understood the susceptibility of people to be influence and persuaded by how they fashion products to become appealing, to become desirable, to become the basis of positive self-esteem, but it is very much wrapped in a whole culture and mind-set of materiality as a way of moving through the world powerfully, moving through the world as a person of worth, that worth being defined by the expensive clothes you wear, the expensive car you drive, the expensive lifestyle that you have, the expensive vacations that you take, and so to the extent that this constant infusion says this is a value, this defines your worth as a human being, so the more you can acquire these things, the more valuable you are, the more your life is worth, reduces it to a material level. And so we constantly strive to be able to acquire these things and think that this is where our happiness lies, this is where our sense of importance lies, and that is a tremendous distortion that is being created, that ultimately leaves us in a greater state of isolation, loneliness, and a loss of values that will ultimately enhance our lives, that be well grounded in our sense of spirituality as opposed to materiality, and this is where the shift needs to take place. But it is also incumbent upon each and every one of us to take responsibility to see how we need to find our own values within ourselves, that we're not going to be impressed upon us from the outside by public relations firms that try to demonstrate the value of our lives to be within the material realm and framework.
I don't believe that people perceive [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I don't believe that people perceive themselves as separate from nature, but that they inherently understand that they are part of nature. The human body lives in nature and is subject to the laws of nature. The body is subject to birth, to death, to decay, and so we understand that the cycle of life is inherently within the cycle of nature. So I do believe that we understand that all of life collectively is part of nature, is within nature, is nature itself.
I don't know that it is easier to get a cold [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I don't know that it is easier to get a cold can of Coca-Cola than it is to get a fresh glass of water, because I think this question addresses a certain affordability. If a person who can afford a cold can of Coca-Cola is, that is able to afford this Coca-Cola would also be able to easily afford a fresh glass of water. Where you have people who cannot afford to have a cold can of Coca-Cola, it may very well be the case that these people will also not be able to have a fresh glass of water. That they probably would be living in areas where the water is polluted, where access to water may be very difficult to get. So to the extent it is easy to get Coca Cola, it will also be easy to get fresh water. But again when we think about the aspect of water, we have to see the problem of the increasing privatization of water, which is really a public resource coming into private ownership and having to pay for water. So it becomes a way of life where actually only the well-to-do people who can afford to buy clean water, bottled water, will be able to drink this clean water, and the people who will not be able to afford bottled water or clean water will have to drink the chemicalized, polluted water.
There are many things that we can learn from [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: There are many things that we can learn from Africa. We can learn about the issues of governance. We can learn about the exploitation of peoples, we can learn about the exploitation of their resources, we can learn about the causes of conflict, and we can learn how wealthy, countries that are wealthy in natural resources may not be, have wealthy people. And it is not a disparate, delinked relationship. But as I had shared earlier in a previous question, it is not a coincidence that Africa has the world's most conflicts, that 100 million Africans face conflict every day of the their lives, and that Africa is also the world's wealthiest continent, has some of the world's wealthiest leaders, as well as the world's poorest people. We must not see these as disparate facts, but see the connections that extreme wealth and poverty creates, and to inquire deeply as to why this result has occurred. When we know that Africa has every resource that we have put a high value on, whether it's oil, diamonds, coal can, timber. Then we have to say, yes, what are the lessons that we must learn from Africa? And if Africans now have all this wealth and yet are so dispossessed of the benefits of that wealth, what leverage will they have when all of their resources no longer exist, if today, with all of those resources, they have no leverage at all?
I think as globalization has occurred and we [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I think as globalization has occurred and we see a lot of the sameness going around the world, it also, as a natural response to that sameness that is occurring, that communities, local communities are also strengthening and seeing the need to preserve and enhance the, their unique culture, their unique history. So I think it is a natural unfolding, balancing, and rebalancing that is continuously taking place. And I think that those who are civically minded, who understand the importance of retaining the uniqueness of culture really make it a point to engage in political and social levels to ensure the preservation of their own culture. And I see this happening more and more, a celebration of the uniqueness of culture and the preservation of it even while there is sameness concurrently going on within the same communities and cities.
That's already happening right now. There [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: That's already happening right now. There is a simultaneous webcast that's going on, that allows people to click into all the answers that have been given today. So modern technology allows us to be able to have a widespread dissemination of these answers in ways that are unprecedented, and therefore we should continue to disseminate answers and to mobilize communities to listen to these answers so that we can understand the different perspectives of people that can add to the richness of our lives. And this of course implies that we have a willingness to listen and it is one of the important principles in life that we must practice, the willingness to be able to hear the voice of the other.
The most important unreported story is a [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: The most important unreported story is a story of the human heart. The human heart to love, to have hope, to give inspiration, and to share love. There is no question that we are inundated daily by stories of crisis, disaster, and what we could say generally a lot of disturbing bad news. And I think we need to hear more stories of how people find their will and their courage to overcome the challenges in ways that can help our brothers and sisters to live inspired lives. Inspired lives that ultimately find their wellspring in a power higher and greater than ourselves and to know that this power is always there. It is a power that nurtures us, guides us, and surrounds us in this infinite sea of love. And it is our connection to this higher power that has the quality of pure unconditional love that in turn fills our hearts with love, that we in turn share with others. This is the unreported story of love in action in our daily lives that truly gives meaning and value to life itself.
It is not necessarily a contradiction but [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: It is not necessarily a contradiction but more of a perspective, and the relationship of the perspective of the perceiver to the object. So for example, if you are the child of a woman, then you would say that she is my mother. But if you are the husband of the woman, you would say she is my wife. We are talking about the same person, but the others that are in relationship to this person is different. So the perspective of the child to the mother, and the perspective of the husband to the wife, even though we are talking about the same person, carries with it a different perspective, and therefore the child would say this is my mother, the husband would say this is my wife. These are not contradictory answers, but rather they're talking about their different relationship and perspective in relationship to this person. And so therefore while answers may seem contradictory, we're not really talking about contradictions but really about differing perspectives and different relationships in relationship to the subject matter.
To be a sincere seeker after God, to know [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: To be a sincere seeker after God, to know your true purpose in life. For finding that path, that spiritual path, will ultimately help you to live life as a better person, a more loving person, a more compassionate person, and you would thereby not only add value and meaning to your own life but to add value and meaning to the lives of others by helping them to understand the meaningfulness that life has in all of its sacred aspects. And always it is a call to elevate ourselves, to live life with loving kindness, compassion, understanding, and selflessness in all that we do, in all of our relationships. And to leave this world a better place than how we found it.
A lot of these inventions that you say are [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: A lot of these inventions that you say are invented to save time are really designed to help us to become more efficient. So as we become more efficient, it is supposed to help us to become more productive in terms of the outputs and outcomes that we try to create by the end of the day. As a consequence, it's also raising this bar of productivity, and as we become more productive, we increasingly try to find ways that we can become even more productive, so our sense of time begins to slip away with, from us as we begin to fill the new time that we have, or the acquired time that we have with even more activity or ways that will increase our productivity. So it's a never-ending battle to be able to become more and more productive, more and more efficient. So there is a busyness there, in our preoccupation to increase productivity that gives us a sense that we are actually not saving time, we are increasing efficiency and productivity, but we are losing time because we are becoming increasingly busy in trying to find more and more ways to become more productive, and it actually increases our activity level. So in order to help us to deal with stress, we have to ultimately come back to ourselves and to be able to find those ways where we can stop the busyness and all of the activity, to learn how to be quiet and to live in the silence, with ourselves, within ourselves, and be able to carve out those moments where we can fully appreciate what it is to live life with an understanding that in inaction is action that ultimately leads to our highest productivity. And that is our self-reflective qualities to be able to turn that searchlight inward, to really see how we are living our lives.
When we think about the tremendous amount of [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: When we think about the tremendous amount of monies that we have spent on the weapons and machineries of war, we can see how it is very important that we reshape our consciousness, reshape our ethics, reshape our commitments to how we are utilizing our funds so that all of the monies that we actually have used to not only develop the mechanisms and machineries of war, but actually have brought them into creation could have been utilized in helping us to create alternative forms of energy, and when we consider that the position of the United States in not wanting to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was because it was going to be too expensive of a tab to pick up at $350 billion over a period of 10 years, and we realize that we have committed $460 billion in one fiscal year for our defense budget, then we can really see how funds can really be misutilized and allocated in ways that do not promote the common good of the citizens, do not promote the common good of the human family. So we have to really understand how we are committing our funds, to what kinds of technologies, and certainly we could have been far, far ahead in developing those technologies that could have spoken to environmental sustainability and to improving the conditions of the human family in very positive ways instead of ways that would ultimately speak to the destruction and the degradation of human life.
It is all of our responsibility to manage [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: It is all of our responsibility to manage the world's resources. This really helps us to get to a more fundamental question of who purports to own the world's resources, and there is a danger when public resources become privatized and go into private hands. And these private hands begin to manage, control, and distribute these public resources. So we have to have awareness as citizens to be able to understand that the public resources should stay public and that we all have the responsibility to see to its management, its care, and its fair distribution among all people.
I believe that indigenous peoples are [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I believe that indigenous peoples are recognized and more and more are recognizing the value of their history and taking pride in their history. And we are beginning to tell stories truthfully about what has happened to the indigenous peoples, and therefore, yes, the identification of the indigenous peoples actually does continue within the 21st century, and I think it is very important that we be able to reinforce this into the 21st century and throughout the whole future of human history. But we do need to begin to tell the stories of truth about what has happened to the indigenous people. So that we can assist in the preservation of indigenous peoples and their ways of life, to honor it, to respect it, and to really dignify it, and I am encouraged by the fact that we are also having a renaissance, a recognition of the importance of the rites of passage, the rituals, and the sacred rituals that indigenous peoples have had that have given them a connection to nature, to earth in ways that modern man may have lost touch with. But the indigenous peoples have become very important in helping us to reconnect with, so the fact that they are able to preserve their history and their sacred rites and rituals actually have become very important to us now in being able to help us to heal.
Before that question can be answered, I [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Before that question can be answered, I think we have to understand what is the capability of genetic engineering to correct defects and imperfections. I don't think that we are at the state where all kinds of defects and imperfections can be created [speaker probably meant "corrected"]. So until there are technologies that address the kinds of defects and imperfections that can be corrected and we have fully come to understand what the implications of those corrections can hold for the human family, this is a very difficult question to answer at this point in time. I think that we have very much taken an interest in seeing how imperfections of the body can be corrected and in particular with the rise of plastic surgery to see how we can correct facial flaws or defects. And some plastic surgeries have a very beneficial effect, for example in children who are born with cleft palates. So, but then you have people who often, may often become obsessed with imperfections that they perceive within themselves that are actually distorted and really need to be addressed more in the realm of the --by the psychiatrist than by the plastic surgeon. So we really need to look deeper into this whole question of [audio ends]
Well, if truth and fact are manufactured, [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Well, if truth and fact are manufactured, then it is not truthful or factual. The problem is that truth is and facts are, and they are not subject to being manufactured, but it is in the process of being manufactured that distortions occur. And ultimately the march of time and the need for people to actually be able to ascertain truth will help to uncover what truth is and what facts are. So facts really speak to objectified evidence, and truth speaks to a moral quality of honesty, credibility, and both ultimately, I believe, will be uncovered over time. Because people ultimately embrace truth. They embrace honesty. And they seek to dispel any manufacturing of lies. So I think the human spirit ultimately will prevail and true stories ultimately will be told.
I'd say that there is a premium value that a [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I'd say that there is a premium value that a child should be taught and having been taught that, all other values would fall into place. And that is to be a sincere seeker after the divine. For when we seek out the divine, we come into an understanding that we must live our lives in ways that are in alignment with the divine powers. And this requires us to value honesty, value courage, value personal responsibility, and all the other values that we want our children to have in order to live life as people with integrity and credibility, to be kind, to be loving, and this comes, I firmly believe, in having a child be well grounded in a spiritual life.
I don't -- for me, I don't think there is [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I don't -- for me, I don't think there is any most important subject in the arts that need to be talked about. I think the uniqueness of art is the expression itself of the art form, whether it's through painting, whether it's through sculpture, whether it's through dance, whether it's through music, that speaks and addresses all of the important aspects of the human condition, whether in ways that interpret it, in ways of celebration and joy or sorrow, in storytelling, in literature. All of these are art forms that are in and of itself, that do not need to have, be talked about, but are actually lived before us, unfolding as living forms before our very eyes, and this I believe is the importance of art itself. Its unique capacity to be able to do that so that you're immediately taken into the experience of the art form itself. It is uniquely experiential and not a cerebral, detached experience or exercise, but a direct experience with profound impact upon the perceiver of the art unfolding before their very eyes.
Love moves me. And the acts of kindness of [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Love moves me. And the acts of kindness of other people, the courage that exists within the hearts of people to be able to face and rise above their personal challenges as well as global challenges. And to see the generosity of people. When I travel to countries where people live in abject poverty, where water is a scarce resource, and to be a guest in their humble homes, to be offered a glass of water knowing how precious water is and to see their generosity in offering what is so scarce and precious to them in that glass of water, that gives me inspiration and that moves me to tears. To see how humbled I am by the greatness of the human spirit that is alive and well in others.
First of all, we need to give up the myths [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: First of all, we need to give up the myths that we currently have that ultimately do not serve people, and I'm thinking in particular of women, who have been given all of those fairy tales about the loss of goddesses, of their power to gods. The myths and fairy tales that have said that you, if you are beautiful and you're a woman, you are a victim, that a rich and handsome prince will come and rescue you from your state and that it will take a man to be able to do this for you, and that you will always be a victim and you need to be rescued from your state of victimhood by a man who is rich, who is of status. And I think that this has disempowered women, especially female children into thinking that this is what should happen in order for them to lead happy, fulfilled lives, that they will have to live all their lives waiting for their Prince Charming to come. So first of all, we must have a deconstruction of these myths and fairy tales, and we must create the stories of empowerment to know that women don't have to rely on others for their happiness, for their empowerment, but rather that empowerment is within themselves and happiness is within themselves and that they must never see themselves as victims, but rather as empowered individuals who can lead happy lives because they will tap into their own inner resources and find their way in life to create their own stories, stories of courage, stories of overcoming, stories of a sacred journey that speaks to the value of their lives and their ability to be able to live those lives with courage, with strength, with dignity.
I think we need to give these alternative [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I think we need to give these alternative forms of energy some leeway to develop and see how they are working out. Some of these ideas and innovations are new, and we should not stifle the creativity to try to make this a better world. There are some energy sources, however, that can be utilized that, for example, solar energy, that we don't have to be concerned about whether or not their production actually utilizes more energy. So the solar energy is a currently existing renewable resource that we need to look at more seriously. So it would depend on the kind of renewable energies that we are talking about that are hopefully increasingly coming into being and actually studying to see whether or not they are in fact more efficient than what we currently have, that we are utilizing.
I don't know that we believe more in [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I don't know that we believe more in nationality than in humanity. I think we believe in the importance of humanity and we have a commitment to see that the human family is able to continue to live and prosper in ways that speak to being together more cooperatively, more lovingly, and nationality really speaks to our sense of particularized identity with a country. But I don't think we ever forget the fact that we belong to the human family while we may concurrently be citizens of any given country. I think when the human family and life itself on this planet is threatened that we come together in ways that ultimately transcend our nationalities and our citizenship and move into embracing ourselves as one human family. So I don't believe that we have a greater commitment to the idea of nationality more than our human family.
I think there has been a move towards [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I think there has been a move towards processed foods, commercialized foods, getting foods out in a mass way using additives and preservatives to prolong the shelf life of food, so all of these chemicals, preservatives, and additives, the whole process, processing of foods, have really defeated the taste of foods as well as the vitality of the foods, and the energy of foods. So in the long run, it makes the food taste not alive, and there is, however, a growing market for organic food, food that's not grown with chemicals and inundated with fertilizers. So I think that bringing the organic market also helps us to become more ecologically minded and also helps us to see how we can better protect and promote our health, because the food in and of itself is a very vital medicine that we ingest every day. So our, the food that we ingest should be of high quality, should not be processed. And we would be able to tell more and more by the quality of foods that we are ingesting, by the state of our health. So the whole addition of these oils, chemicals, hydrogenated oils, chemicals, additives, and preservatives as well as genetically modified foods have really helped to give the foods we eat a very poor quality.
God does not have a religion, and yet God is [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: God does not have a religion, and yet God is the wellspring from which all religions arise. Religions are created by man, who have been touched by inspired masters, great masters who have had a divine connection and a divine understanding. And the devotees that surround the masters, the inspired teachers, want to be able to create texts and creeds and dogmas that will concretize their understanding of what the inspired masters have said. But these masters have never come to create religions, but religions follow and are created from these inspired masters. But God is in a transcendent state, is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, and therefore the limited human mind can never fully comprehend what is inherently infinite. The infinite is in a state of transcendence that can never be particularized. And therefore religion does not exist for God, although God is the source from which all religions are created.
I think there has been an increase in [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: I think there has been an increase in ordinances that speak to preserving historic buildings, historic sites as a way of preserving the unique identities of cities and to, and this actually creates a way of preventing the incursion of sameness. But as I had previously indicated, these are concurrent things, sameness, that we find all over the world. Being able to buy the same product, the same foods from the same food chains from one city to the next. At the same time, having these laws that are being implemented that seek to preserve historic sites, communities with civically minded people that understand the importance of preserving their culture, the uniqueness of their buildings, more and more becoming advocates and activists for preserving the uniqueness of history and culture coming to the forefront as well. So I think this is already being done. That doesn't mean that more cannot be done, but it is, also speaks to the political will of the leaders that understand the importance of creating the space for people to be able to celebrate and honor their culture, their -- and their history.
This question implies the classification of [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: This question implies the classification of race as a, an identity that is steeped in a history that created the classification as a way of class structure and distinction amongst peoples. There is a way that we can embrace race not as a classification, a hierarchical classification of superiority, inferiority, or marginalization, but rather as a way of celebrating a peoples and their culture, their sense of history and community. So when we say aren't African-Americans just Americans? Yes. Now we move into the aspect of identification through citizenship. So all these are ways of trying to create identity. We have to understand whether some of these identities have been created historically in ways that were dehumanizing or ways that were uplifting. So ultimately it is, this question is very much tied in to the previous question about our belonging to a even wider family, the family of man, the family of humanity. So we have to see how our consciousness has been shaped and fashioned historically through these different particularized identities, whether it be through race, whether it be through citizenship, and the implications of that, not only upon the individual but upon whole classes of people as well as whole classes of people within countries. Ultimately, aren't we not just Americans, but aren't we all just people? And that I believe is the deeper question.
Young adults should avail themselves of [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: Young adults should avail themselves of opportunities if they have them to travel and to see how other people live, to see how people really suffer and live lives of abject poverty and suffering so their hearts can be moved with compassion and be motivated with the desire to uplift their fellow man, to make life better for others, to understand that we have to become better human beings in our capacity to serve others, to become selfless human beings. And so this is true education in the sense that the development of the human heart to have an understanding of the lives of other people and how we can work together to help each other becomes very important as well as a value of principled living. So young adults should actually be able to experience how other people in other parts of the world live. And they should also immerse themselves in texts and books that talk about the sacred journey of life and read about the inspired lives of others, the great humanitarians, Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Thomas Dewey, who have all lived lives that have been in service to their fellow man. I think this very important for young adults to be able to see how we can help each other live life [audio ends].
One of the greatest ways that this global [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: One of the greatest ways that this global informational tool has benefited the human family is by opening the door to information sharing by taking people, whole peoples, out of isolation in their communities to the bigger world, and this information sharing, in all sectors of life, whether it's cultural life, social life, political life, has been a great boon to the understanding of the lives of other people and the political processes and social and cultural institutions of other people. So it has been a great enhancement to be able to have this information sharing, to see how what may be appropriate information can be utilized to the benefit of any given community.
The city will become a huge repository of [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: The city will become a huge repository of mass migrations of people coming in from the rural areas to be able to find work. As such, to the extent that the municipalities are not able to accommodate the increasing influx of people into the cities, you will find areas of growing slums and problems that that may bring, including homelessness, people living on the streets, children living on the streets, and to the extent that municipalities do not have the finances to be able to keep their cities in good condition, you will see decaying cities. But I think that the mass migrations that we have seen taking place to cities also gives these governments and municipalities notice that they should be planning now to be able to understand how they will be able to accommodate the growing influx of people. All of these global challenges will take planning, organization, and a great deal of responsibility to be able to sit down now and not defer or delay the planning that must be undertaken to the future that is already upon us.
It may be the case already that all Chinese [...]
Audrey Kitagawa: It may be the case already that all Chinese people want a car. The question is what would happen if every Chinese person actually owns a car, drives a car? Then it's going to add to the huge emission problems that we have, to the environmental pollution, to the greater consumption of fossil fuel. However, I think this is going to compel the Chinese people as well as people all over the world to be able to look at alternative forms of transportation, whether it be mass transit, whether it be use of the bicycles, which the Chinese originally had as their form of transportation, bicycles, which they're giving up, but I also see other countries becoming more and more willing to use the bicycle as a way of transportation. So we really need to see how we all have to become more creative in seeing alternative ways that we can use transportation other than, as a car, and there really is no reason why each person in the family ought to have a car. So we have a family of four in the U.S., and you have four cars. A car for each member of the family, and in some families each member owns more than a car, one car. So it's really the excess use of transportation that we are concerned about.
